The Armed Forces is an agent of security, not experimentation.
The Armed is a conservative institution for a reason. The armed forces has been instituted to conserve our liberties, to conserve our borders, to conserve our way of life.
In no way should it have been the political battleground for debating equal rights, or extending civil rights.
Yet this argument mires under a faulty premise: homosexuality is not a civil right, not an innate characteristic, nor should it be accorded special treatment.
Besides, the armed forces does not accommodate every type of person for every situation, anyway. Handicapped individuals, for example, simply would not be fit combatants in the line of duty. Individuals suffering from cerebral palsy or autism should not possess a firearm or walk into the line of fire, where they would inevitably put themselves and their comrades at arms in harm's way.
Forcing open armed forces recruitment centers to individuals who openly practice homosexual conduct undermines morale, creates tension which has not place in the military, and distracts the focus of the armed forces from its true calling: Protecting this nation.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Cut the Crap: Cut, Cap, and Balance
The Republicans in the House of Representatives are stepping out.
They have provided solutions to the ongoing budgetary problems which have for too long plagued this nation.
We need to cut spending, cap available funds to a percentage of GDP, and introduce means for balancing the budget for every fiscal year.
The Republicans have made a move. We have yet to the Democrats propose something meaningful.
A carte blanche raise in the debt ceiling is not acceptable, Mr. President. Congress will not tolerate it. The American people will not accept it.
You were elected to lead. You are expected to provide something concrete for this country to work with. Enough blaming. Enough with the empty rhetoric about everyone "acting like adults." You need to act like a leader, get everyone on both sides into the room and come up with a plan that will cut spending, cap outgoing revenues which do not even exist, and balance the budget over the long-haul, long after you and all the politicians have left Washington, which in your case may be sooner than you think.
They have provided solutions to the ongoing budgetary problems which have for too long plagued this nation.
We need to cut spending, cap available funds to a percentage of GDP, and introduce means for balancing the budget for every fiscal year.
The Republicans have made a move. We have yet to the Democrats propose something meaningful.
A carte blanche raise in the debt ceiling is not acceptable, Mr. President. Congress will not tolerate it. The American people will not accept it.
You were elected to lead. You are expected to provide something concrete for this country to work with. Enough blaming. Enough with the empty rhetoric about everyone "acting like adults." You need to act like a leader, get everyone on both sides into the room and come up with a plan that will cut spending, cap outgoing revenues which do not even exist, and balance the budget over the long-haul, long after you and all the politicians have left Washington, which in your case may be sooner than you think.
Response to Daily Breeze poll: How should California award its electoral votes?
With the decline of comity (at least in name only) in the halls of Washington, it is a welcome topic for the Daily Breeze to revisit: how should California award its electoral votes?
A few years ago, there were discussions of having the electoral votes of this state automatically transferred to the Presidential candidate who won the majority popular vote across the country. Such an extreme measure would have robbed the votes in this state from their civil efficacy as citizens. One state, one vote, for each state.
The Daily Breeze Considered two other options:
Let's consider a third: The Congressional District Method. If California opted for this system, the majority winner in each Congressional District would win one electoral vote for than district. The candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote state-wide wins the two electoral votes representing the two Senators accorded to each state.
This option has the following advantages:
1) Every electoral vote in the state would be in play. Each voter in the state would be better represented. Republican voters in the Central and Eastern parts of the could contribute toward awarding their preferred candidate some electoral votes in the general election.
2) Political candidates of both parties would be more inclined to campaign in California, which up to now has been all but guaranteed to the Democratic candidate for the last twenty years. This has discouraged Republicans and Independents, and has hardly galvanized Democrats.
3) Voter turnout during general elections would increase, since more voters would feel that their vote actually counted.
4) In the event that there has to be a recount, tallying could focus on specific Congressional districts in dispute as opposed to a burdensome canvassing of the entire state.
It's unfortunate that the Daily Breeze did not submit the Congressional District Method as an option for apportioning California's electoral votes in the Presidential General Elections.
A few years ago, there were discussions of having the electoral votes of this state automatically transferred to the Presidential candidate who won the majority popular vote across the country. Such an extreme measure would have robbed the votes in this state from their civil efficacy as citizens. One state, one vote, for each state.
The Daily Breeze Considered two other options:
Let's consider a third: The Congressional District Method. If California opted for this system, the majority winner in each Congressional District would win one electoral vote for than district. The candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote state-wide wins the two electoral votes representing the two Senators accorded to each state.
This option has the following advantages:
1) Every electoral vote in the state would be in play. Each voter in the state would be better represented. Republican voters in the Central and Eastern parts of the could contribute toward awarding their preferred candidate some electoral votes in the general election.
2) Political candidates of both parties would be more inclined to campaign in California, which up to now has been all but guaranteed to the Democratic candidate for the last twenty years. This has discouraged Republicans and Independents, and has hardly galvanized Democrats.
3) Voter turnout during general elections would increase, since more voters would feel that their vote actually counted.
4) In the event that there has to be a recount, tallying could focus on specific Congressional districts in dispute as opposed to a burdensome canvassing of the entire state.
It's unfortunate that the Daily Breeze did not submit the Congressional District Method as an option for apportioning California's electoral votes in the Presidential General Elections.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Response to Janice Hahn's Election to the CA-36th
Janice Hahn won 55% of the vote in the CA-36th, yet she did not harvest a majority vote from many of the municipalities in the South Bay. Will she indeed represent the needs of the entire District, or just butter up the same state-dependent sycophants whom she played to as Councilwoman?
Let's consider her "record" as LA City Councilwoman:
She sat by while the city of Los Angeles jacked up parking rates 400% in San Pedro, then tried to reverse the fee raise in the heat of her (second) campaign for Congress. San Pedro, a core element of her constituency, is still struggling through the current anemic economic recovery.
Los Angeles is hemorrhaging millions in pension obligations and generous health care benefits to city workers, many of whom have been laid off in the midst of the economic downturn which has hit this country. There is little record that she actually did anything about it. Multiply by thousands the fallout of public handouts, and you have a pretty ugly picture of what the entire nation is dealing with.
"Local government teaches you about solving people's problems," Hahn crowed while presenting her plans for her brief tenure as Congressional representative. Sadly, the Congresswoman-elect has not offered any specifics on how to resolve these problems in the long-term. There is scant evidence that throughout her lackluster political career she has done anything to assist any constituent except one: herself.
Hopefully, the voters next March will take reconsider the damage this interim Congresswoman will inflict on this nation and elect a fiscal conservative who will challenge the economic calamities which the Obama Presidential administration is forcing upon us. We need a representative who will command the respect of the entire CA-36th, not just the far-gone liberals in the margins of Los Angeles obsessed with social non-issues while ignoring the fiscal problems of this district and the entire country.
Let's consider her "record" as LA City Councilwoman:
She sat by while the city of Los Angeles jacked up parking rates 400% in San Pedro, then tried to reverse the fee raise in the heat of her (second) campaign for Congress. San Pedro, a core element of her constituency, is still struggling through the current anemic economic recovery.
Los Angeles is hemorrhaging millions in pension obligations and generous health care benefits to city workers, many of whom have been laid off in the midst of the economic downturn which has hit this country. There is little record that she actually did anything about it. Multiply by thousands the fallout of public handouts, and you have a pretty ugly picture of what the entire nation is dealing with.
"Local government teaches you about solving people's problems," Hahn crowed while presenting her plans for her brief tenure as Congressional representative. Sadly, the Congresswoman-elect has not offered any specifics on how to resolve these problems in the long-term. There is scant evidence that throughout her lackluster political career she has done anything to assist any constituent except one: herself.
Hopefully, the voters next March will take reconsider the damage this interim Congresswoman will inflict on this nation and elect a fiscal conservative who will challenge the economic calamities which the Obama Presidential administration is forcing upon us. We need a representative who will command the respect of the entire CA-36th, not just the far-gone liberals in the margins of Los Angeles obsessed with social non-issues while ignoring the fiscal problems of this district and the entire country.
Mother Teresa: Works-Righteousness that Worked No Righteousness
Mother Teresa has been regarded by many, from the denizens of the Catholic Church to the most remote of believers to the most active of humanitarian-atheists as one of the finest examples of charitable humanity that has every graced the face of the Earth.
If it were only that simple, that supported, or even true.
Despite her immense efforts to cater to the needs of the most outcast of people in the most despised and defiled slums of India, she poured out in her journals about a chronic remorse which dogged her every day. What was this chronic pain which she kept silent from the world? What could have caused it? Are there any circumstances or choices in the eventful life of the Saint from Calcutta which would suggest why she was so miserable in spite of the fame and fortune which she harvested for herself and her causes?
Suffice to say that she did a lot for the world, did her work bring her any closer the Kingdom of God?
Personal and private writings expose that frequently she opined in her private correspondence a state of despondent separation that vexed her soul. She felt spiritually dry, isolated from God, unable to hear His voice or discern his spirit.
Yet work she continued to do. Charity she continued to invest in. For fifty years until her death, she referred off and on to the desolate emptiness that gripped her soul.
Perhaps her activities were not as high and mighty, saintly and holy as originally assumed. . .
Some reports indicate that her order of nuns practically venerated her as a god. They prayed to her, revered her with utmost authority, a scandalous set-up which would hinder any evangelist outreach.
Of course, was Mother Teresa's goal the broadening of the Kingdom of Heaven, or just the extension of her own ministry?
According to other reports, she received financial contributions from ruthless dictators like Baby Doc Duvalier, murderers who presided over the massive famine and deaths of their own people, yet congratulated themselves on doling out cash to a small-time operation in other parts of the Third World.
She gave people food, but did she give them the Bread of Life, He who came down from heaven to nourish hunger souls who has spent their labor on that which could never satisfy?
For a woman who did so much, was any of it spiritual activity? Despite the expansion of her influence, apparently she was mostly invested in promoting herself, her outreach, her work, not the Kingdom of Heaven.
Small wonder that Mother Teresa felt so alone, tired, and empty in spite of all the toil that she put herself and her staff through.
We are not called to do, but to be. We are not called to earn our salvation, but to receive this most precious of gifts from the One who died for us. To this day, believers (true or nominal) still insist themselves into work, work, work, as if they can do anything for God, the One who has made everything, done everything, and wants to give everything: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32) It cannot be emphasized enough. . . every person who seeks Jesus must accept that he has nothing. We can only bring our lost state, our poverty to the Cross, where He blessed us with His Forgiveness, His faith, and His redeeming power, all through His Holy Spirit. Without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).
Mother Teresa is the quintessential example of Works-Righteousness, which is an offense to God the Father (Is. 64:6). Like many adherents to religion (yet not to Christ himself), people still think that they can (or at least that they have to) work their way into God' good graces. This is nothing more than the debasement of the perfect righteousness demanded by the law and despising the precious blood of Jesus Christ, whose death is the only propitiation for our sins.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3-4)
It is Satanic deception and arrogant folly that anyone can work their way into the perfection demanded by God's immutable law.
Based on the hectic efforts of the worker from Calcutta in contrast to the private torture that she attempted to cope with, Mother Teresa obviously confronted the inescapable reality that we cannot earn, nor deserve by our own merit, the peaceable and peaceful Love which accords every believer salvation and sanctification.
Rather than being a saint, Mother Teresa was another scrap of sorry humanity, a dreg who placed her own power, position, and prominence ahead of the saving work of Jesus Christ. Rather than being canonized, she should be demonized as one more self-deceived presumptuous Pharisee.
These scriptures underscore the predicament of placing our works ahead of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ:
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. (Luke 10:20)
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10) The significance of this verse matters in that we do nothing apart from the power and permission of God Himself. We cannot take upon ourselves the glory or congratulations for anything that we accomplish for the Kingdom of Heaven.
For Jesus Himself exhorted his disciples shortly before His death:
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (Johnn 15:5)
Mother Teresa did not abide in Jesus; hence, she could not claim to sense His life-giving, loving, enriching presence in her life. Sadly, she has been numbered with the sadly (and damned) deceived:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:22-23)
A harsh judgment on a woman so widely renowned? Hardly!
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Cor. 13:3)
And
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb. 11:6)
Mother Teresa never promoted the Person and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. She did not seek Him from whom all blessings flow. Thus was she in no wise rewarded by the one necessary longing of the human soul.
It is not small matter that Jesus instructed His followers as the one necessary thing:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42) What is that needful thing that Jesus speaks of? Resting at His feet, receiving life and truth from Him, which in turn empowers to minister to a dying world. In context, Jesus is gently admonishing the busy sister Martha to follow Mary's example.
Would that Mother Teresa had done the same thing. The sad fate of the servant of Calcutta should guide those who strive to be servants of Christ instead of being served by Christ, who in turn works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13)
If it were only that simple, that supported, or even true.
Despite her immense efforts to cater to the needs of the most outcast of people in the most despised and defiled slums of India, she poured out in her journals about a chronic remorse which dogged her every day. What was this chronic pain which she kept silent from the world? What could have caused it? Are there any circumstances or choices in the eventful life of the Saint from Calcutta which would suggest why she was so miserable in spite of the fame and fortune which she harvested for herself and her causes?
Suffice to say that she did a lot for the world, did her work bring her any closer the Kingdom of God?
Personal and private writings expose that frequently she opined in her private correspondence a state of despondent separation that vexed her soul. She felt spiritually dry, isolated from God, unable to hear His voice or discern his spirit.
Yet work she continued to do. Charity she continued to invest in. For fifty years until her death, she referred off and on to the desolate emptiness that gripped her soul.
Perhaps her activities were not as high and mighty, saintly and holy as originally assumed. . .
Some reports indicate that her order of nuns practically venerated her as a god. They prayed to her, revered her with utmost authority, a scandalous set-up which would hinder any evangelist outreach.
Of course, was Mother Teresa's goal the broadening of the Kingdom of Heaven, or just the extension of her own ministry?
According to other reports, she received financial contributions from ruthless dictators like Baby Doc Duvalier, murderers who presided over the massive famine and deaths of their own people, yet congratulated themselves on doling out cash to a small-time operation in other parts of the Third World.
She gave people food, but did she give them the Bread of Life, He who came down from heaven to nourish hunger souls who has spent their labor on that which could never satisfy?
For a woman who did so much, was any of it spiritual activity? Despite the expansion of her influence, apparently she was mostly invested in promoting herself, her outreach, her work, not the Kingdom of Heaven.
Small wonder that Mother Teresa felt so alone, tired, and empty in spite of all the toil that she put herself and her staff through.
We are not called to do, but to be. We are not called to earn our salvation, but to receive this most precious of gifts from the One who died for us. To this day, believers (true or nominal) still insist themselves into work, work, work, as if they can do anything for God, the One who has made everything, done everything, and wants to give everything: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32) It cannot be emphasized enough. . . every person who seeks Jesus must accept that he has nothing. We can only bring our lost state, our poverty to the Cross, where He blessed us with His Forgiveness, His faith, and His redeeming power, all through His Holy Spirit. Without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).
Mother Teresa is the quintessential example of Works-Righteousness, which is an offense to God the Father (Is. 64:6). Like many adherents to religion (yet not to Christ himself), people still think that they can (or at least that they have to) work their way into God' good graces. This is nothing more than the debasement of the perfect righteousness demanded by the law and despising the precious blood of Jesus Christ, whose death is the only propitiation for our sins.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3-4)
It is Satanic deception and arrogant folly that anyone can work their way into the perfection demanded by God's immutable law.
Based on the hectic efforts of the worker from Calcutta in contrast to the private torture that she attempted to cope with, Mother Teresa obviously confronted the inescapable reality that we cannot earn, nor deserve by our own merit, the peaceable and peaceful Love which accords every believer salvation and sanctification.
Rather than being a saint, Mother Teresa was another scrap of sorry humanity, a dreg who placed her own power, position, and prominence ahead of the saving work of Jesus Christ. Rather than being canonized, she should be demonized as one more self-deceived presumptuous Pharisee.
These scriptures underscore the predicament of placing our works ahead of the Finished Work of Jesus Christ:
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. (Luke 10:20)
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10) The significance of this verse matters in that we do nothing apart from the power and permission of God Himself. We cannot take upon ourselves the glory or congratulations for anything that we accomplish for the Kingdom of Heaven.
For Jesus Himself exhorted his disciples shortly before His death:
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (Johnn 15:5)
Mother Teresa did not abide in Jesus; hence, she could not claim to sense His life-giving, loving, enriching presence in her life. Sadly, she has been numbered with the sadly (and damned) deceived:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:22-23)
A harsh judgment on a woman so widely renowned? Hardly!
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Cor. 13:3)
And
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb. 11:6)
Mother Teresa never promoted the Person and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. She did not seek Him from whom all blessings flow. Thus was she in no wise rewarded by the one necessary longing of the human soul.
It is not small matter that Jesus instructed His followers as the one necessary thing:
But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42) What is that needful thing that Jesus speaks of? Resting at His feet, receiving life and truth from Him, which in turn empowers to minister to a dying world. In context, Jesus is gently admonishing the busy sister Martha to follow Mary's example.
Would that Mother Teresa had done the same thing. The sad fate of the servant of Calcutta should guide those who strive to be servants of Christ instead of being served by Christ, who in turn works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13)
George Washington: The First, one of the Least, and one of the Best
George Washington, Leading Commander of the American Colonial Forces, did not want to be President. Yet he was universally regarded by both Congress and countrymen as the most fitting leader for the fledgling Republic.
In fact, when the Framers of the Constitution drafted the Article delineating the role of the Chief Executive in the New Federal Government, everyone tacitly agreed that the first one to fill the role would be General Washington, who at the time was serving as the President of the Constitutional Convention.
He did not want the job, pure and simple. Like any citizen soldier, he wanted to serve his country, then retire to his estate and live out the rest of his days in quiet contemplation and domestic tranquility. Despite his innate resistance to the call, Washington accepted the election and became the United States' first President.
He was the perfect man for the job. His reluctance to take on the immense leadership was not only well-founded, but expedient for the young nation. As an unwilling executive, he did little, expected little, and allowed little beyond what the Constitution would allow.
A consitutional President, he limited his role as chief executive. His limited role was aided in part by the lack of disernible political parties (despite the schism in domestic policy which emerged in his cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton).
What this aging Republic needs now more than ever is a Chief Executive who lacks the outrageous ambition which has exploded the role and influence of the Presidency at the expense of Congress. This proposition is all the more challenging because the current political process has evolved to the point where anyone who wished to President must promote himself extensively. In order to garner the popular vote, he must pitch popular positions in monosyllabic sound bites, all of which put pressure on the elected winner to expand his role in Washington.
Despite the enormous hindrances which either discourage the adherents of limited government or force presidential hopefuls to compromise worth constitutional principles, the reckless spending of the past thirty years plus the growing dissatisfaction of the people with a large dysfunctional government may induce candidates to persuade voters to the need for a more restrained president, less compromised Congress, and more limited government.
In other words, a man with the reluctant spirit to lead, like George Washington, may emerge once again on the scene, content to be one of the least of Presidents, and in turn be one of the Greatest.
In fact, when the Framers of the Constitution drafted the Article delineating the role of the Chief Executive in the New Federal Government, everyone tacitly agreed that the first one to fill the role would be General Washington, who at the time was serving as the President of the Constitutional Convention.
He did not want the job, pure and simple. Like any citizen soldier, he wanted to serve his country, then retire to his estate and live out the rest of his days in quiet contemplation and domestic tranquility. Despite his innate resistance to the call, Washington accepted the election and became the United States' first President.
He was the perfect man for the job. His reluctance to take on the immense leadership was not only well-founded, but expedient for the young nation. As an unwilling executive, he did little, expected little, and allowed little beyond what the Constitution would allow.
A consitutional President, he limited his role as chief executive. His limited role was aided in part by the lack of disernible political parties (despite the schism in domestic policy which emerged in his cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton).
What this aging Republic needs now more than ever is a Chief Executive who lacks the outrageous ambition which has exploded the role and influence of the Presidency at the expense of Congress. This proposition is all the more challenging because the current political process has evolved to the point where anyone who wished to President must promote himself extensively. In order to garner the popular vote, he must pitch popular positions in monosyllabic sound bites, all of which put pressure on the elected winner to expand his role in Washington.
Despite the enormous hindrances which either discourage the adherents of limited government or force presidential hopefuls to compromise worth constitutional principles, the reckless spending of the past thirty years plus the growing dissatisfaction of the people with a large dysfunctional government may induce candidates to persuade voters to the need for a more restrained president, less compromised Congress, and more limited government.
In other words, a man with the reluctant spirit to lead, like George Washington, may emerge once again on the scene, content to be one of the least of Presidents, and in turn be one of the Greatest.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Civil Disobedience: The New Way to Balance the Budget
Stop paying!
Stop paying into the Ponzi Scheme with the United States Seal.
If they don't know how to spend the money, don't let them have any.
Etienne de La Boetie, a Renaissance-era French noble, considered this radically passive (or passively radical) option.
What if everyone simply did not pay their taxes. Can the Internal Revenue of the United States indict every person in the country for not paying their taxes?
The national government would continue to spend by its own means, but at least they would not have the heinous privilege of wasting our money, i.e. throwing good, hard-earned money after bad.
Stop paying into the Ponzi Scheme with the United States Seal.
If they don't know how to spend the money, don't let them have any.
Etienne de La Boetie, a Renaissance-era French noble, considered this radically passive (or passively radical) option.
What if everyone simply did not pay their taxes. Can the Internal Revenue of the United States indict every person in the country for not paying their taxes?
The national government would continue to spend by its own means, but at least they would not have the heinous privilege of wasting our money, i.e. throwing good, hard-earned money after bad.
Salvador Allende Killed Himself . . So what was the Point?
The autopsy report has been released by British coroner David Prayer:
Salvador Allende killed himself by firing a shotgun into his chin while Pinochet's forces were storming Chile's Presidential mansion in a military coup.
That was the accepted story then; it has been confirmed.
Yet what was the purpose of the exhumation and re-autopsy? Historical Revisionists will stop at nothing to discredit the Pinochet regime which harassed and tortured a number of political prisoners. Past question, those actions of the state were reprehensible.
Yet the economic boon that followed Pinochet's investment in free market reforms simply cannot be denied, no matter how brutal his authoritarian regime. Let us not forget that he allowed a plebiscite to remove him from power after his fifteen-year rule, a political move which no Communist has ever permitted.
No matter what steps socialist sympathizers take to further discredit the Pinochet regime, the free market maneuvers which resurrected a moribund nation then and still thrive today would never have been put in place by the Communist puppet Salvador Allende.
Salvador Allende killed himself by firing a shotgun into his chin while Pinochet's forces were storming Chile's Presidential mansion in a military coup.
That was the accepted story then; it has been confirmed.
Yet what was the purpose of the exhumation and re-autopsy? Historical Revisionists will stop at nothing to discredit the Pinochet regime which harassed and tortured a number of political prisoners. Past question, those actions of the state were reprehensible.
Yet the economic boon that followed Pinochet's investment in free market reforms simply cannot be denied, no matter how brutal his authoritarian regime. Let us not forget that he allowed a plebiscite to remove him from power after his fifteen-year rule, a political move which no Communist has ever permitted.
No matter what steps socialist sympathizers take to further discredit the Pinochet regime, the free market maneuvers which resurrected a moribund nation then and still thrive today would never have been put in place by the Communist puppet Salvador Allende.
On "Acting Like Adults" Part V
What should we do, then, when we are pressed by the powers that be, by our colleagues, or even our kids to start "acting like adults".
Press them to define "adult".
Much of the time, they will either be flummoxed to provide a positive answer. If they sputter nothing but negatives, tell them to stop evading the question. If they say that an adult acts like so-and-so, press them to explain what qualities exhibited by that person add up to "adulthood."
Responsibility is not enough. Children have to take on responsibilities at home, just as older people have jobs and families to attend to.
If it has to do with knowledge, simply acknowledge that there are many smart people who cannot take care of themselves, who make no effort to care for the needs of others, or who refuse to make sense of their place in the world/
In all likelihood, most people throw out the charge of "act like an adult" to shame the freedom in which an older person chooses to demonstrate in their lives, regardless of the scolding or shame that he or she may face. In other cases, most people so despite not receiving immediate agreement or validation that they slam the purposed obstinacy of others as "childish".
Yet we should not allow the petty frustrations of others dissuade us from doing what is right.
Press them to define "adult".
Much of the time, they will either be flummoxed to provide a positive answer. If they sputter nothing but negatives, tell them to stop evading the question. If they say that an adult acts like so-and-so, press them to explain what qualities exhibited by that person add up to "adulthood."
Responsibility is not enough. Children have to take on responsibilities at home, just as older people have jobs and families to attend to.
If it has to do with knowledge, simply acknowledge that there are many smart people who cannot take care of themselves, who make no effort to care for the needs of others, or who refuse to make sense of their place in the world/
In all likelihood, most people throw out the charge of "act like an adult" to shame the freedom in which an older person chooses to demonstrate in their lives, regardless of the scolding or shame that he or she may face. In other cases, most people so despite not receiving immediate agreement or validation that they slam the purposed obstinacy of others as "childish".
Yet we should not allow the petty frustrations of others dissuade us from doing what is right.
On "Acting Like Adults" Part IV
"Acting Like an Adult" does not necessarily preclude one from behaving like a child, either. Sometimes, an adult must act like a child in order to accomplish what needs to be done.
Older people have every right to be children at heart, enjoying their time on this earth as they please, laughing at silly stories, playing jokes, and looking forward to better days, even if their passing is near.
Not always playing by the rules and taking risks: would that more adults in high places were willing to break past these limits. Much more would be accomplished. Instead or chronic stone-walling, with either side of a conflict merely waiting for the other to fail, both side would offer solutions without vapid reserve.
Acting like an adult sometimes entails acting like a child. Taking direction, admitting that one does not know something. Refusing to cooperate, in some cases, may be perceived as childish, yet in fact demonstrates a determined willingness to be an independent adult,refusing to bow to public pressure or accepted opinion.
Older people have every right to be children at heart, enjoying their time on this earth as they please, laughing at silly stories, playing jokes, and looking forward to better days, even if their passing is near.
Not always playing by the rules and taking risks: would that more adults in high places were willing to break past these limits. Much more would be accomplished. Instead or chronic stone-walling, with either side of a conflict merely waiting for the other to fail, both side would offer solutions without vapid reserve.
Acting like an adult sometimes entails acting like a child. Taking direction, admitting that one does not know something. Refusing to cooperate, in some cases, may be perceived as childish, yet in fact demonstrates a determined willingness to be an independent adult,refusing to bow to public pressure or accepted opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)