Dear Leader's speech at Notre Dame was amazing and brilliant. Everyone in America should use it as a blueprint for change in their own lives.
HOWEVER,
it misses the most important issue. That issue is that he is trying to force these changes on people rather than inspire change in people. While everything that he said is true and fair and righteous, he is not following his own great advice. He is ruling over the country with more and more legislation, taking more and more freedoms, spending more and more printed money, driving this country ever more towards a socialized nation by utilizing fascism, statism and collectivism. You cannot legislate and or mandate peace, goodwill, or the golden rule. The end result of his actions is the demise of what he claims to be trying to lift up. He is too intelligent not to understand this, so in my humble opinion he aims to wipe this nation to nothingness. Our federal government has stepped way beyond the scope of its intended purpose. Can we get back to playing by the rules please? You know, the rules in the constitution?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Umm... about your art.
I want to talk about art. I want to share my views on the subject with you all because that's what artists do. They create and share. Say it with me... "Create and share."
Art is a wonderful thing. It allows mans spirit to round up all that is dear to him/her and express it in ways that help others "get it". The more we learn to "get" each other the better off the human condition is in my humble opinion. The problem has always been that its very hard to make a living when all you do is create art that no one wants to see. So in a sense the problem with art is that most of us don't "get" it and yet you want us to pay for it any way. Apparently when I say "any way" I mean it. Right now there is a group of artists in Tucson who think that their art is so important that every single hotel bed occupant needs to cough up a dollar so that they can continue to create and share art that no one gets. I assume no one gets it because no one is paying to look at it and that brings me to my point.
Imagine this if you will. I am sitting in my house all day cutting paper snow flakes out of newspaper. Imagine it. Lets even say that I am cutting them out poorly. Just the worst paper snowflakes you ever saw. Now lets say that I take one snowflake cut out and put it in your purse and take a dollar in exchange, every time you stay the night in a hotel. Let me say that again. I take one snowflake cut out and put it in your purse and take a dollar. Without asking. Without even telling you that I was in your purse. ALL OF YOUR PURSES AND WALLETS!!! That's what we are talking about here folks. Theft.
Now let me tell you what I think about the paper snowflake cutout. Its not worth a dollar and no one wants it or else some store would put it on a rack and sell it for you at a cost. I love good art. I buy it every single time I spend a dollar. In a real sense, a sense that dead beat artists don't "get", we are all artists. In a capitalistic marketplace everything that you see is art. Every landscaped yard, every hole dug, every telephone pole, the wire that is attached and the sound of a loved ones voice in your ear because it worked. Every carpet floor, every brick wall, every single copy that comes out of Kinko's. All art. The 2% milk in your fridge is art. Someone created the label even. The difference with that art and the snowflake is that people "get" the 2% milk. They all get it. At $2.59 a gallon. They like the art of a carpeted floor so much that they pay $6.00 a yard to walk on it every day. Its amazing. Art is every single thing you see, every sound you hear. Even nature is just gods art. He gave away the creative license to his art so that you can find a way to make your own. And when you do make it your own, make it something I "get" and let me see it so I can see if I want to purchase it or pay to look at it for an hour or drink it or walk on it or whatever. What I ask you kindly NOT to do is this: Please don't put your snowflake cutout in my wallet while taking a dollar from me while I am sound asleep in my hotel room bed. Thank you.
Now everyone send me a dollar because I cut this damned snowflake out!
Art is a wonderful thing. It allows mans spirit to round up all that is dear to him/her and express it in ways that help others "get it". The more we learn to "get" each other the better off the human condition is in my humble opinion. The problem has always been that its very hard to make a living when all you do is create art that no one wants to see. So in a sense the problem with art is that most of us don't "get" it and yet you want us to pay for it any way. Apparently when I say "any way" I mean it. Right now there is a group of artists in Tucson who think that their art is so important that every single hotel bed occupant needs to cough up a dollar so that they can continue to create and share art that no one gets. I assume no one gets it because no one is paying to look at it and that brings me to my point.
Imagine this if you will. I am sitting in my house all day cutting paper snow flakes out of newspaper. Imagine it. Lets even say that I am cutting them out poorly. Just the worst paper snowflakes you ever saw. Now lets say that I take one snowflake cut out and put it in your purse and take a dollar in exchange, every time you stay the night in a hotel. Let me say that again. I take one snowflake cut out and put it in your purse and take a dollar. Without asking. Without even telling you that I was in your purse. ALL OF YOUR PURSES AND WALLETS!!! That's what we are talking about here folks. Theft.
Now let me tell you what I think about the paper snowflake cutout. Its not worth a dollar and no one wants it or else some store would put it on a rack and sell it for you at a cost. I love good art. I buy it every single time I spend a dollar. In a real sense, a sense that dead beat artists don't "get", we are all artists. In a capitalistic marketplace everything that you see is art. Every landscaped yard, every hole dug, every telephone pole, the wire that is attached and the sound of a loved ones voice in your ear because it worked. Every carpet floor, every brick wall, every single copy that comes out of Kinko's. All art. The 2% milk in your fridge is art. Someone created the label even. The difference with that art and the snowflake is that people "get" the 2% milk. They all get it. At $2.59 a gallon. They like the art of a carpeted floor so much that they pay $6.00 a yard to walk on it every day. Its amazing. Art is every single thing you see, every sound you hear. Even nature is just gods art. He gave away the creative license to his art so that you can find a way to make your own. And when you do make it your own, make it something I "get" and let me see it so I can see if I want to purchase it or pay to look at it for an hour or drink it or walk on it or whatever. What I ask you kindly NOT to do is this: Please don't put your snowflake cutout in my wallet while taking a dollar from me while I am sound asleep in my hotel room bed. Thank you.
Now everyone send me a dollar because I cut this damned snowflake out!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Can we all agree? by Beau
Can we all agree that most people would put Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in their top ten American heroes list? If you surveyed every single Obama loving democrat, every single left wing mouthpiece from msnbc to the most vocal of the Hollywood liberals, you would be hard pressed to find a single person who would publicly bad mouth Dr. King for his political views. The majority of those same Obama loving supporters if randomly quizzed on the street would undoubtedly agree that King was a democrat and would stand and foolishly argue that case as well. Why is that? Could it be that the republican party is devoid of anyone like the late conservative republican Dr. Martin Luther King? If there is one among them let him speak now. If you know of one then please share his/her name with me.
Ok lets try something easier. Could you see MLK standing outside of an abortion clinic preaching damnation to the scared young women as they walked the fearful and bleak walk to the D and C operating rooms? Would he be an active voice against gay rights? Would he ever utter the words "...not Adam and Steve!!!" Would he call in to a conservative radio show from his big truck just to laugh about how he plans to plug in and turn on every electrical device that he owns in celebration of earth day? Would he agree with FISA? Would he praise the patriot act? Would he waterboard a suspected Muslim extremist to gain intel? Can you keep from chuckling at the thought of Marty and Dick quail hunting together on the prairies of Cheney's Turp'mtine plantation?
I don't believe so.
Questions too easy now? Ok let's moderate. Would Dr. King pay people to join his political party? Would he vote for a black man just because he's black? Would he ever support the fairness doctrine or the equal time rule for talk radio? Would he march to Washington for gay rights? Would he have a dream that one day the Federal Government would own the banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers? Would he ever hang a poster of Che' Guevara on his wall and wonder why mean old America won't let Iran build a nuclear weapon? Would he encourage socialism or fascism in any form? Would he see the need to bailout big businesses that followed greedy blue prints instead of letting them fail to set an example to others who choose greed over good sound business sense?
I would have to assume no.
Almost everyone assumes by my conservative rhetoric that I am a Republican even though I left the party some time ago. Most people on both sides of the isle cannot fathom a third party. I contend that Martin Luther King would have nothing to do with either parties of this calamitous duopoly. Today's republicans and democrats are so flawed they would drive Dr. King underground and leave him as impotent as they have Ron Paul. I also believe that Jesus would also opt to not wear a donkey or elephant pin. Coincident?
Probably not huh?
My liberal friends cannot find fault with my views, but contend that I am wrong simply because I am a conservative.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the crazy left wing idiots all conservatives are republicans and all republicans are over bearing religious control freaks, hell bent on creating a church state, whereby the christian bible should be used in the stead of our constitution. Their favorite celebrities have painted conservatism with the same brush as the religious zealotry of "God hates fags" meanwhile the angry christian right are anything but Christ-like and add up to a very small percentage of the multitudes who believe in Jesus Christ. The conservative machine is made up of people from all walks of life, and at its core are people who voted for change this last election and many atheists as well. Many have been driven to the left by default due to the direction that their republican party has taken. They find themselves shaking their heads in confusion but holding strong to the less violent side. Their true conservative values, like rewarding hard work and keeping government out of our bedrooms, are still intact. Most of the walk away republicans know that freedom of speech applies to Michael Savage as much as it applied to JFK and they, like me, could care less that some crazy liberal in England banned him from her country... because it didn't happen in ours. We already knew England had its issues. That's kind of the whole point of America isn't it?
It is my opinion that most people are conservative by nature, but most republicans are not very conservative at all. Let me use a hot topic of the day to illustrate.
Gay marriage: The truly conservative voice knows down deep that government should make no laws with regard to matters such as these. A truly conservative government rules by the constitution and nothing else. There is nothing in the constitution that is for or against gay marriage. That's not an accident. Its part of the design. Its in every fiber of the framework of this country. If it makes you happy and it hurts no one then it is legal according to our founding documents.
To give marriage a legal definition is at its core a farce. For some people marriage is a covenant of loyalty and life long devotion made between two people and the God of Abraham. For others an ideal marriage would be a handfasting betrothal of a year and a day, which the participants can then decide to renew or not at the end of that period. Many people believe that their parents should choose their spouse while others could not wait to get away from their parents and know in their hears that marriage is not for them at all. The point here is that its a spiritual decision that should not be limited to one christian based, government regulated version. No matter how much Christianity was involved in the beginning of this country the framers left room for all spiritual walks and even the absence of.
The legal definition of marriage as
"The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship."
is not only unconstitutional but factually incorrect. The only way for that to not infringe upon your constitutional rights is if all other alternatives are invariably harmful to someone. Otherwise its just dictating who and how people can vow their lives to each other before god. Is that not what a marriage is? The only way for that definition of marriage to be factually correct would be to prohibit churches from performing them or to allow churches to engage in other matters of contract law.
Now I am just getting silly.
The roll of the government is to guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever I am confused about whether a law is righteous or not I hold it to the fire of that alone. That means that as long as a marriage does not infringe upon any one's right to these three things then it should be lawful. Children are not allowed to be married unless they are of a certain age, their parents agree to the marriage, and the government is satisfied that a child is not being married off against their will. Why? To insure children are afforded the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean that we need a law that says "Gays can marry". It means that government should not have a say at all. Marriage is not a right to be granted to people who fit the criteria of the state. It is an inalienable right that is endowed to us by God alone. The document says so. Does that mean that the founding documents are pro gay rights? No. It means the founding documents do not get a vote in the matter. If I am wrong then show me how anyone is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by every wedding that is not between one man and one woman. Explain to me how anyone is supposed to be free to choose his religious beliefs while being governed by Abrahamic text at the same time? Show me anything in the constitution that denies any legal aged person the right to its own spiritual covenants.
The reasons behind our government getting involved in laws regarding marriage has nothing to do with morals or values at all. It has to do with money. By defining marriage as one man and one woman it promotes the form of marriage that makes the most money. At every turn our federal and state governments have promoted this form of marriage. Any other option is a less efficient way to generate money. In fact, most of the hand picked bible based laws are just that. The most efficient way to generate prosperity. For proof one only needs to read their old testament. Ever noticed that all of the ten commandments and all of the guidelines laid out in the old testament promote prosperity in a spiritual sense even the ones that promote prosperity in a physical one? In other words Gods rules all revolve around insuring that as many people as possible are born and that as many of those people as possible live for God and God alone.
Similarly the laws in the U.S. all promote physical and spiritual prosperity. The problem with that is this. While we are supposed to insure that the rules all revolve around promoting prosperity for all the people who are born and that all of those people live long, healthy, fruitful lives we are not supposed to write laws that promote or deny any specific religion at all. Any laws that promote spiritual prosperity are based on a specific religion. The separation between church and state is more important to the Christian cause than anything else. Does a person who lives a godly life under duress and fear of imprisonment please god? Are you really serving god when there is a law against all other alternatives? Are you really serving your country when you demand an equal opportunity to write unconstitutional language into our laws instead of demanding that all unconstitutional laws are removed?
Its time to be honest about this. Marriage is a spiritual covenant. No one should decide who, when, how, why or to what degree anyone else promises anything to anyone else unless someone is injured by that promise. Anything else is a matter of legal contract and should be allowed, respected, recorded and protected in the same manner as the sale of a car. No one should ever tell anyone who, when, what and why and to what extent they can share their own belongings with as long as no one is injured by the very act of that sharing.
What party agrees with this principle and holds every issue to the same standard? That's what party I would like to belong to. Who is with me? Who has the enough faith in humanity to let each individual choose their own path so long as that path does not infringe upon another's right to do the same? I know that it is the only way. I contend that there is no issue too complicated to be broke down and judged by these same standards.
Ok lets try something easier. Could you see MLK standing outside of an abortion clinic preaching damnation to the scared young women as they walked the fearful and bleak walk to the D and C operating rooms? Would he be an active voice against gay rights? Would he ever utter the words "...not Adam and Steve!!!" Would he call in to a conservative radio show from his big truck just to laugh about how he plans to plug in and turn on every electrical device that he owns in celebration of earth day? Would he agree with FISA? Would he praise the patriot act? Would he waterboard a suspected Muslim extremist to gain intel? Can you keep from chuckling at the thought of Marty and Dick quail hunting together on the prairies of Cheney's Turp'mtine plantation?
I don't believe so.
Questions too easy now? Ok let's moderate. Would Dr. King pay people to join his political party? Would he vote for a black man just because he's black? Would he ever support the fairness doctrine or the equal time rule for talk radio? Would he march to Washington for gay rights? Would he have a dream that one day the Federal Government would own the banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers? Would he ever hang a poster of Che' Guevara on his wall and wonder why mean old America won't let Iran build a nuclear weapon? Would he encourage socialism or fascism in any form? Would he see the need to bailout big businesses that followed greedy blue prints instead of letting them fail to set an example to others who choose greed over good sound business sense?
I would have to assume no.
Almost everyone assumes by my conservative rhetoric that I am a Republican even though I left the party some time ago. Most people on both sides of the isle cannot fathom a third party. I contend that Martin Luther King would have nothing to do with either parties of this calamitous duopoly. Today's republicans and democrats are so flawed they would drive Dr. King underground and leave him as impotent as they have Ron Paul. I also believe that Jesus would also opt to not wear a donkey or elephant pin. Coincident?
Probably not huh?
My liberal friends cannot find fault with my views, but contend that I am wrong simply because I am a conservative.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the crazy left wing idiots all conservatives are republicans and all republicans are over bearing religious control freaks, hell bent on creating a church state, whereby the christian bible should be used in the stead of our constitution. Their favorite celebrities have painted conservatism with the same brush as the religious zealotry of "God hates fags" meanwhile the angry christian right are anything but Christ-like and add up to a very small percentage of the multitudes who believe in Jesus Christ. The conservative machine is made up of people from all walks of life, and at its core are people who voted for change this last election and many atheists as well. Many have been driven to the left by default due to the direction that their republican party has taken. They find themselves shaking their heads in confusion but holding strong to the less violent side. Their true conservative values, like rewarding hard work and keeping government out of our bedrooms, are still intact. Most of the walk away republicans know that freedom of speech applies to Michael Savage as much as it applied to JFK and they, like me, could care less that some crazy liberal in England banned him from her country... because it didn't happen in ours. We already knew England had its issues. That's kind of the whole point of America isn't it?
It is my opinion that most people are conservative by nature, but most republicans are not very conservative at all. Let me use a hot topic of the day to illustrate.
Gay marriage: The truly conservative voice knows down deep that government should make no laws with regard to matters such as these. A truly conservative government rules by the constitution and nothing else. There is nothing in the constitution that is for or against gay marriage. That's not an accident. Its part of the design. Its in every fiber of the framework of this country. If it makes you happy and it hurts no one then it is legal according to our founding documents.
To give marriage a legal definition is at its core a farce. For some people marriage is a covenant of loyalty and life long devotion made between two people and the God of Abraham. For others an ideal marriage would be a handfasting betrothal of a year and a day, which the participants can then decide to renew or not at the end of that period. Many people believe that their parents should choose their spouse while others could not wait to get away from their parents and know in their hears that marriage is not for them at all. The point here is that its a spiritual decision that should not be limited to one christian based, government regulated version. No matter how much Christianity was involved in the beginning of this country the framers left room for all spiritual walks and even the absence of.
The legal definition of marriage as
"The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship."
is not only unconstitutional but factually incorrect. The only way for that to not infringe upon your constitutional rights is if all other alternatives are invariably harmful to someone. Otherwise its just dictating who and how people can vow their lives to each other before god. Is that not what a marriage is? The only way for that definition of marriage to be factually correct would be to prohibit churches from performing them or to allow churches to engage in other matters of contract law.
Now I am just getting silly.
The roll of the government is to guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whenever I am confused about whether a law is righteous or not I hold it to the fire of that alone. That means that as long as a marriage does not infringe upon any one's right to these three things then it should be lawful. Children are not allowed to be married unless they are of a certain age, their parents agree to the marriage, and the government is satisfied that a child is not being married off against their will. Why? To insure children are afforded the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean that we need a law that says "Gays can marry". It means that government should not have a say at all. Marriage is not a right to be granted to people who fit the criteria of the state. It is an inalienable right that is endowed to us by God alone. The document says so. Does that mean that the founding documents are pro gay rights? No. It means the founding documents do not get a vote in the matter. If I am wrong then show me how anyone is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by every wedding that is not between one man and one woman. Explain to me how anyone is supposed to be free to choose his religious beliefs while being governed by Abrahamic text at the same time? Show me anything in the constitution that denies any legal aged person the right to its own spiritual covenants.
The reasons behind our government getting involved in laws regarding marriage has nothing to do with morals or values at all. It has to do with money. By defining marriage as one man and one woman it promotes the form of marriage that makes the most money. At every turn our federal and state governments have promoted this form of marriage. Any other option is a less efficient way to generate money. In fact, most of the hand picked bible based laws are just that. The most efficient way to generate prosperity. For proof one only needs to read their old testament. Ever noticed that all of the ten commandments and all of the guidelines laid out in the old testament promote prosperity in a spiritual sense even the ones that promote prosperity in a physical one? In other words Gods rules all revolve around insuring that as many people as possible are born and that as many of those people as possible live for God and God alone.
Similarly the laws in the U.S. all promote physical and spiritual prosperity. The problem with that is this. While we are supposed to insure that the rules all revolve around promoting prosperity for all the people who are born and that all of those people live long, healthy, fruitful lives we are not supposed to write laws that promote or deny any specific religion at all. Any laws that promote spiritual prosperity are based on a specific religion. The separation between church and state is more important to the Christian cause than anything else. Does a person who lives a godly life under duress and fear of imprisonment please god? Are you really serving god when there is a law against all other alternatives? Are you really serving your country when you demand an equal opportunity to write unconstitutional language into our laws instead of demanding that all unconstitutional laws are removed?
Its time to be honest about this. Marriage is a spiritual covenant. No one should decide who, when, how, why or to what degree anyone else promises anything to anyone else unless someone is injured by that promise. Anything else is a matter of legal contract and should be allowed, respected, recorded and protected in the same manner as the sale of a car. No one should ever tell anyone who, when, what and why and to what extent they can share their own belongings with as long as no one is injured by the very act of that sharing.
What party agrees with this principle and holds every issue to the same standard? That's what party I would like to belong to. Who is with me? Who has the enough faith in humanity to let each individual choose their own path so long as that path does not infringe upon another's right to do the same? I know that it is the only way. I contend that there is no issue too complicated to be broke down and judged by these same standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+001.jpg)