See this is funny because it is from the 5 second films crew but it is longer than 5 seconds and not their usual goofy stuff:
Make this Memorial Day Special
I would be willing to wager that there are many people who don’t know why we have Memorial Day. Luckily I am here to either inform or refresh your memory on the topic.
Memorial Day was something that came about in the years following the Civil War. There are several towns, both in the north and south that lay claim to being the birthplace of the holiday. At its earliest it was called “Decoration Day” which is when people went to decorate the graves of those who died fighting. The first officially declared Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868 when both union and confederate graves were decorated at Arlington Cemetary. At this time people in southern states did not recognize that day as the holiday. That did not occur more fully until after World War 1, when it became a holiday for more than just Civil War soldiers. In 1971 it was actually, finally made a federal holiday.
Make a special point to remember those who didn’t even know you, but died for you. And also remember those who may not have died while fighting, but did fight for you. And don’t just remember them on Memorial Day or Veterans Day, just kick it up a notch on those days.
Also let’s not let the following hilarious video be true:
Hayek All the Way
Hayek and Keynes. Most people have never heard of either of them. At the pointless “Rally to Restore Sanity” a great many geniuses were infuriated and flummoxed by a sign asking if Obama was Keynesian:
Leaving this embarrassing ignorance aside, Keynes and Hayek are metaphorically duking it out every day. Viewing historical examples Hayek has beaten Keynes into a bloody pulp. Despite the historical beat-downs powerful people still love and use Keynes. I really appreciate the series of videos that have been put out by EconStories explaining the differences between the two. The latest video is well worth the educational watch:
The fact that Hayek is so disrespected, first by a cavity search then by being declared the loser after knocking Keynes out, is downright hilarious to me as it rings very, very true. Good to see Hayek get a little respect from non-Federal Reserve types at the end. Even though what is represented here has serious consequences in the real world the video is pretty dang funny and even has a Bernanke look alike.
Surprised by 9/11 Truthers
I saw something a couple of months back and instantly thought that it would be more fuel to the 9/11 truth movement and their fun conspiracy theories that the U.S. government killed 3,000 Americans. Imagine my surprise when about 3 months later I have yet to see anything come out of it. At this point I will point out what it was. I just ask that you remember that I do not believe that the towers were imploded by government agencies and I believe that it was terrorists and heat that brought the buildings down.
Knowing how I feel, watch this:
In Bush’s description of watching 9/11 events unfold he says:
“…and shortly thereafter I was…started seeing images of the…aaah…of the building being….uh…you know…starting to crumble”
What I am shocked at is that the 9/11 truthers didn’t grab onto the word “being” and say that Bush was saying that the buildings were being demolished but caught himself mid-sentence.
I just thought I would bring it to people’s attention because it has been bothering me that no one has been making this claim. Once again, I don’t see how the thousands of people could have not noticed the CIA wiring the two towers for implosion in the months before 9/11 and find those conspiracies to be easily debunked and dismissed.
The Ignorant Masses and Their Ignorant Leaders UPDATED
“Know your rights”. Who hasn’t heard that phrase? More importantly, who actually follows it? And who actually learns about the system of government in the United States? Apparently very, very few.
Continue reading “The Ignorant Masses and Their Ignorant Leaders UPDATED”
Old Newspapers I Have: Tuesday October 3, 1995
Here is a beauty that I kept from the Midland Reporter Telegram in Midland Texas. The main story, is of course, one everyone should be familiar with. See here for the ultimate follow-up to this headline. Other big news of the day included a book signing tour from Colin Powell, abortion protest cases being decided by the supreme court in the absence of the chief justice and a local bus crash.
Continue reading “Old Newspapers I Have: Tuesday October 3, 1995”
One of the Most Ignorant Videos I Have Ever Seen
In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.
Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:
Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.
No argument there.
But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.
Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.
Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.
Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.
Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.
I could go on……
Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.
For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.
The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.
” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.
First off – again with an 1814 quote.
Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.
Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.
Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.
In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.
The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.
Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.
Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.
The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.
Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.
To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)
Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.
False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.
It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.
The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.
There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:
There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply
Main Point = A is not in B
C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false)
C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B
C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B
C said something about F
Therefore A is not in B
Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.
Constitution Mania
Laws are not established for the good people in a society. Laws are for those who cannot control themselves and therefore must be controlled. More and more in recent times laws have jumped out of their proper frame to come after the good people of society. The American Revolution occurred, in part, because laws were beyond their proper place and came after the common man (Stamp Act). The Constitution of the United States of America established the best system yet devised on earth for men to be free to act for themselves while maintaining some control on those in society who cannot control themselves.
There are many ways to get past the Constitution to gain more control over all people in society. Let’s look at a few, shall we?
First we have the “living document” crowd. This group declares that the Constitution was meant to evolve and change with the times. Just to keep it straight, there is a built in mechanism to adapt the Constitution to new challenges in the amendment process. The amendment process has been used before as a way to warp the Constitution and grab way too much power for the federal government. (ie. 16th, 17th and 18th amendments) Progressive and statist policies that are much related and similar to the aforementioned amendments have been easier to implement outside of amendments through things like case law and executive orders. Each of these help to detract from the original intent of the document.
Another way to be able to get past the Constitution is to pretend that it is some complicated document that is too difficult for the average person to understand. These people act as though it might as well be written in Sanskrit or hieroglyphics. For those who can read and don’t have extra motives it is plain that they are wrong.
The most obvious and, let’s just say it, the most fun people are those who just ignore it straight up. Here is a great collection of many people who are in power that have a deep love for the Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Worst Spectrum Ever
In high school and college I was taught that along the political spectrum we have communists on the left and fascists on the right. I have heard many others outside of a school setting use this view many, many times as well. I must say that I have always absolutely despised this view of things. Come with me now and learn why.
First off, if I have Stalin on the left and Hitler on the right where can a fella go to not be bossed around or killed for beliefs or ethnicity? On the left we have crap and on the right we have crap, how can this “spectrum” suddenly become more pleasant when it gets halfway between the two views? Most people don’t know that this view of right “wing” and left “wing” refers to seating arrangements in French parliament during the 1700’s. The people on the left were the commoners and the people on the right were the fat cats. The left side extended to views such as socialism and communism because such views claim to work for the little guy and the right side extended to crony capitalism and government being in bed with business for obvious reasons. The “wings” view sucks as it leaves me without a place to sit. But that is not the only reason that it sucks. Both ends of this spectrum begin with a premise that I reject outright and that is; that government should have a certain level of power that is beyond what I will allow. The right side in this view wants business to grow in size and power along with the government and the left side wants government to grow in size and power as it controls what people have. Both options sound horrible. Much of the beauty of the American Way is that bad guys are supposed to fail and not be bailed out and that little guys can get ahead and become big guys without then having what they have earned taken from them in equalization efforts.
There are many versions and views of the political spectrum, many of which have obvious flaws. One of the most popular and one that I have the least issues with is the Nolan Chart. This chart has four Superman symbol shapes (Truth, Justice and the American Way, aaaahhhhyeah!!) around a centrist square. This view shifts from right-left to North, South, East and West where communism and fascism would be more correctly near each other on the bottom. Here is my result:
One flaw in this is, of course, a flaw in every political name assignment game. It ignores other situations and takes only my approach to federal government and could give the appearance that that is how I am in all situations. I had a star right at the north of the libertarian shape. If the survey had been about interaction with others of my own free will I would have been deep in the liberal section. If it had been about how I personally conduct my life it would have been deep conservative. I do not see a situation in which I would ever venture to the statist or centrist regions. Another problem is that it, as do most other views, has liberal being opposite of conservative. Liberal the way it was classically meant focused on allowing freedom for individuals. Conservatism is focused on preserving traditional things that are viewed as positive. These are not opposite from each other. Conservatism is the opposite of progressivism. Progressivism and statism are also opposite liberalism. When I say that I am liberal in relation to interaction with others I do not mean the popular meaning of today where I want to force people to pay for my health care or to wipe with one square to save the environment. I mean that I want to allow others to do as they will, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When I say that I am conservative in my personal living I do not mean, as many have a view of today, that I want to bailout corporations and start up a PATRIOT act. The definitions have been skewed from their original meaning. Most people have taken these changed definitions and made them a big part of their worldview.
Another way of looking at things which I like, which makes things much more clear as to why the most popular spectrum is dumb, is the Law spectrum.
This helps to explain my uneasiness with a view that has total government on both ends. This view sums up what the American founders were thinking very well. They did not want another tyrant and they didn’t want to just have anarchy. The system they set up allowed bad guys to fail and little guys to grow. Under this system groups of people could come together of their own volition and disperse their incomes amongst each other if they wanted without government involvement at all. It also allows people the freedom to be greedy jerks or to do other things that are not “nice” but are not infringing on the rights of other people.
If I were someone seeking power and control I would definitely want the popular “wing” political view to prevail and be taught as it would make people feel as though they must have some form of imposing government and they should pick their favorite of the sides.
If you follow the Nolan link and take the survey let me know your results below.
Misattributed to Jefferson
Quite a common quote thrown around is said to have been made by Thomas Jefferson. I have not been able to track down an actual reference for the statement coming from Jefferson and am prepared to publicly call B.S. on it. As with most things I leave it open to new information. Continue reading “Misattributed to Jefferson”