Freedom Works Utah is holding a meeting on Media Training on November 1st.
Sadly, such meetings are few and far between. Even worse, the few meetings that exist rarely include networking time. The last Freedom Works meeting I attended was done in conjunction with the Man on the Moon Show. The meeting had speeches then immediately broke up as people left to attend the show.
My experience in the business world is that public meetings are usually just a show. The real work gets done in the networking sessions before or after the show.
I've concluded that the ideal meeting should have a short talk followed by either a moderated inclusive discussion or with a big block of networking time for unmoderated discussions.
Interesting, all of the Freedom Works meetings I've attended have been about the media.
I think this is a big mistake. In modern America, media is ubiquitous. There are millions of people out blogging and tweeting every day. The people who are blogging and tweeting are looking for messages to promote.
A better approach to media is to engage in the development of the message. If people in the freedom movement engaged in substantive conversations about Free Market Health Care; the people who are actively engaged in social media will promote latch on and promote the message.
Modern social media is a method of group think. Social media sites are built around algorithms which bring the most popular memes to the surface. When one is drawn into social media, one begins to engage in the group think mentality.
Group think is detrimental to the freedom movement which should be centered on independent minds engaged in critical thinking and rational public discourse.
When the freedom movement concentrates too heavily on the media, the movement gives in to the group think paradigm. The group think paradigm favors the left.
IMHO, a better approach is for the freedom movement to concentrate on developing the message.
As mentioned. There are millions of people engaged in social media. These people are looking for ideas to promote.
If the Freedom Movement concentrated on developing the message, the media would take care of itself.
In Internet marketing one often hears the phrase "Content is king." Sites that consistently provide quality content tend to rise above the fray, while sites that focus too much on the media tend to lose ground.
The primary concern of the Freedom Movement at the moment is Health Care. I believe strongly that if a group got together for a substantive conversation about free market health care reform that the effort would draw attention.
Quite frankly, I believe that a well defined message could win the day. Developing a well honed message would take a concerted effort.
I have developed a presentation about Free Market Health Care that I've been dying to give. The presentation is as follows: I will create a mathematical model for a society based on self funded care. I then create a model for group funded health care. I then show that a system based on self-funded care achieves better results than the society based on group funded care.
The presentation is substantive. I create and compare two models. I've timed the presentation. If I give it perfectly, the presentation takes 45 minutes. If I trip over my tongue (which is likely) it takes an hour. I am planning an hour for the presentation. It would then be followed by a moderated discussion.
I want to give the presentation to a group before publishing it as a YouTube video so that I can get some feedback.
Quite frankly, if I met a good public speaker, I would concentrate on filming and directing the presentation while the public speaker gives the talk.
In the screencast below I read a pithy introduction to the Health Care debate into a tinny five dollar microphone. The microphone fell apart and is held together by a piece of tap. I am tripping over my tongue big time. This video is longer than need be because I was playing with the media.
NOTE: The actual introduction to the presentation is only 5 minutes. The pithy introduction does not include my health care model. The goal of the pithy introduction is to note that there is a conflict between health care delivered at the individual level and health care at the group level. The pithy introduction has pithy remarks. For example, it notes that a horse with a healthy infestation of worms is sick. One cures the horse by killing the worms. There is a conflict between the health of the horse and health of the worms. There is no such thing as universal health.
ObamaCare is premised on the idea that the state administers care to people as a group. Think of a healthy group. A healthy group is young, vibrant and disease free. Health care at a group level eventually breaks down to a system in which one removes the sick, elderly and infirm. I introduce "wolf-care" as the quintessential model of group care. The wolves attend to the health of the deer by eating the slow. The tag line for wolf care is: "In a meadow with a healthy wolf pack, there are no unhealthy deer." Do you really want Group Care?
The pithy introduction is just a string of pithy remarks about the idiocy of the current health care debate. The goal was to test the screencasting format. I haven't made a video with the content of the presentation ... just some pithy remarks to test the media.
Pages
▼
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Kicking Down Those Who Stand Up for Liberty
Apparently the Utah GOP will be going after Mike Lee for his role in the government shutdown.
There is no surprise here. Republicans consistently kick down anyone who actually stands up for liberty.
Readers of this blog know that I was opposed to the government shutdown.
That argument was about strategy. The shutdown occurred at the wrong time. It diverted attention from the disastrous roll out of ObamaCare. Even worse, the shutdown did not have a clearly defined game plan which means the shutdown was destined to end in capitulation, which it did.
Bad timing aside, this was the first bold steps taken in the freedom movement.
I hope that Americans wake up to just how bad our political system has become and realize that bold action is warranted.
It should be apparent to anyone with half a brain that ObamaCare will fail. The question is: Will it fail into socialism or will it fail into freedom.
Here is the bad news. The government shutdown exposed the complete ineptitude of the GOP.
Conservatives have no plans and no structure in place so that ObamaCare can fail into freedom.
Since conservatives have done nothing to help create and promote free market alternatives to PPACA and the left has invested billions of taxpayer dollars into creating a structures for socialized care, the failure of PPACA will lead to socialism.
The Conservative Establishment has a long history of punishing anyone who moves beyond rhetoric and actually stands up for freedom.
This Conservative Establishment has created a horrible situation for our nation. The entrenched unwillingness of this group to even discuss free market health care reform means that there is no option except for ObamaCare to fail into socialism.
There is no surprise here. Republicans consistently kick down anyone who actually stands up for liberty.
Readers of this blog know that I was opposed to the government shutdown.
That argument was about strategy. The shutdown occurred at the wrong time. It diverted attention from the disastrous roll out of ObamaCare. Even worse, the shutdown did not have a clearly defined game plan which means the shutdown was destined to end in capitulation, which it did.
Bad timing aside, this was the first bold steps taken in the freedom movement.
I hope that Americans wake up to just how bad our political system has become and realize that bold action is warranted.
It should be apparent to anyone with half a brain that ObamaCare will fail. The question is: Will it fail into socialism or will it fail into freedom.
Here is the bad news. The government shutdown exposed the complete ineptitude of the GOP.
Conservatives have no plans and no structure in place so that ObamaCare can fail into freedom.
Since conservatives have done nothing to help create and promote free market alternatives to PPACA and the left has invested billions of taxpayer dollars into creating a structures for socialized care, the failure of PPACA will lead to socialism.
The Conservative Establishment has a long history of punishing anyone who moves beyond rhetoric and actually stands up for freedom.
This Conservative Establishment has created a horrible situation for our nation. The entrenched unwillingness of this group to even discuss free market health care reform means that there is no option except for ObamaCare to fail into socialism.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
A Grassroots Army to Dismantle Obamacare
Ted Cruz is right. A grassroots army could easily topple PPACA and set the United States on a course of health freedom and widespread prosperity.
The question that is driving me insane is: Where is this movement?
One would think that there would be people from coast to coast looking for ways out of the mess created by this intrusive legislation.
I am actively searching for groups interested in defeating ObamaCare, but no-one seems to have enough interest in the subject to do anything.
Yes, there are angry voices calling talk radio and thousands of people who complain on twitter. I simply can't find people who are out in the community acting.
It is the people who are active in the community who will win the day.
What we do in our lives is a thousand times more important than what we say. If there are no freedom lovers actively working in the community to solve this problem, then the left will win because there are thousands of left leaning groups engaged in their local communities.
One of the things I do to stay involved in my local community is to maintain community calendars. The calendars list community events, fundraisers and what not. I have calendars for towns like Salt Lake City, Park City, Provo. Through the years the calendars have listed 28,000 local events. I troll all the local boards for interesting events with a focus on fundraisers, fun runs, and art events.
I actually attend quite a few free events. I had to cut back in the last years because I cannot afford gas.
Although this blog and my tweet stream engage in critical thinking. The bulk of my social networking time is spent social networking to promote community awareness.
The act of building calendars gives me insight into who is active in the community and who is not. I live in the most conservative area of the planet (west of Tehran). In this most conservative state, the left is far more active in the community than the right.
IMHO This imbalance in community activity is the thing that will tip our nation from a free to a socialized state. Sadly, there is nothing that I can do but sit back and watch in horror.
Freedom Connector is a valuable tool for promoting local events. If people want to save the American Experiment in Self Rule, people have to be involved. If we are not involved we capitulate the future of our children to those who are involved.
The question that is driving me insane is: Where is this movement?
One would think that there would be people from coast to coast looking for ways out of the mess created by this intrusive legislation.
I am actively searching for groups interested in defeating ObamaCare, but no-one seems to have enough interest in the subject to do anything.
Yes, there are angry voices calling talk radio and thousands of people who complain on twitter. I simply can't find people who are out in the community acting.
It is the people who are active in the community who will win the day.
What we do in our lives is a thousand times more important than what we say. If there are no freedom lovers actively working in the community to solve this problem, then the left will win because there are thousands of left leaning groups engaged in their local communities.
One of the things I do to stay involved in my local community is to maintain community calendars. The calendars list community events, fundraisers and what not. I have calendars for towns like Salt Lake City, Park City, Provo. Through the years the calendars have listed 28,000 local events. I troll all the local boards for interesting events with a focus on fundraisers, fun runs, and art events.
I actually attend quite a few free events. I had to cut back in the last years because I cannot afford gas.
Although this blog and my tweet stream engage in critical thinking. The bulk of my social networking time is spent social networking to promote community awareness.
The act of building calendars gives me insight into who is active in the community and who is not. I live in the most conservative area of the planet (west of Tehran). In this most conservative state, the left is far more active in the community than the right.
IMHO This imbalance in community activity is the thing that will tip our nation from a free to a socialized state. Sadly, there is nothing that I can do but sit back and watch in horror.
Freedom Connector is a valuable tool for promoting local events. If people want to save the American Experiment in Self Rule, people have to be involved. If we are not involved we capitulate the future of our children to those who are involved.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Tax Net Wealth
I've said in the past: The United States government does not have a tax problem. It has a spending problem. The government exhausts whatever tax revenue it can lay it's hands on and then some. Spending is so out of control the Feds not only spend every dollar they can tax. They borrow heavily against future tax revenue building up a deficit of over $17 Trillion.
Tax Reform is likely to be a key issue of the 2014 and 2016 elections.
Tax Net Wealth is a proposal to include a direct tax on net wealth in the tax equation. The site is a bit vague on how one calculates net wealth. The site gives a tax rate blend of 2-4-8. There would be a 2% tax on wealth, a 4% tax on sales and an 8% tax on income. I assume that this is in addition to all the state and local taxes.
I love the low rates; however low rates can be deceiving.
Again, the site is not clear on how it determines net wealth. My guess is that the two percent tax is an annual tax that is recurring. So, let's say I had an asset worth $100.00. 2 percent of $100 is $2. I would have to pay two dollars each year for the privilege of owning the asset. In 25 years, I would pay $50 dollars for the privilege of owning the asset. I would pay a full $100 dollars in taxes (100% taxation) if I owned the asset for a full 50 years.
I am not sure how the program avoids double taxation. In this reform, I would pay an 8% tax on my income. I would then pay a 4% sales tax when I bought something, I would then pay a 2% yearly tax on durable items included in my net wealth.
The appeal of the tax is that it uses the magic numbers 2-4-8. I am always suspicious of tax reform proposals that start with magic numbers like 2-4-8 or 9-9-9 because Congress always has the ability to change the rates.
Once we have a direct tax on net wealth, there is likely to be politicians using wealth envy to drive the tax to astronomical heights. The deceptively low rate makes it even more tempting to jack up the wealth tax.
This said, I really think the author is on to something. The progressive tax rate should be triggered by net wealth rather than net income. I hope the author develops the idea further so that people can analyze it.
Tax Reform is likely to be a key issue of the 2014 and 2016 elections.
Tax Net Wealth is a proposal to include a direct tax on net wealth in the tax equation. The site is a bit vague on how one calculates net wealth. The site gives a tax rate blend of 2-4-8. There would be a 2% tax on wealth, a 4% tax on sales and an 8% tax on income. I assume that this is in addition to all the state and local taxes.
I love the low rates; however low rates can be deceiving.
Again, the site is not clear on how it determines net wealth. My guess is that the two percent tax is an annual tax that is recurring. So, let's say I had an asset worth $100.00. 2 percent of $100 is $2. I would have to pay two dollars each year for the privilege of owning the asset. In 25 years, I would pay $50 dollars for the privilege of owning the asset. I would pay a full $100 dollars in taxes (100% taxation) if I owned the asset for a full 50 years.
I am not sure how the program avoids double taxation. In this reform, I would pay an 8% tax on my income. I would then pay a 4% sales tax when I bought something, I would then pay a 2% yearly tax on durable items included in my net wealth.
The appeal of the tax is that it uses the magic numbers 2-4-8. I am always suspicious of tax reform proposals that start with magic numbers like 2-4-8 or 9-9-9 because Congress always has the ability to change the rates.
Once we have a direct tax on net wealth, there is likely to be politicians using wealth envy to drive the tax to astronomical heights. The deceptively low rate makes it even more tempting to jack up the wealth tax.
This said, I really think the author is on to something. The progressive tax rate should be triggered by net wealth rather than net income. I hope the author develops the idea further so that people can analyze it.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Racism v. Prejudice
NOTE: Here in Utah, I've found many people who are adamantly opposed to ObamaCare but who deliriously support of RomneyCare. IMHO, the two plans are identical in form. The difference is the group that controls the ring of power. In the Book of Mormon one group is considered "White and Delightsome" the other group is considered "Dark and Loathsome."
I think that Americans have done a great job overcoming past prejudices. Unfortunately, we suffer the problem that many of our belief systems still bear traces of racism.
The suffix "ism" implies an ideology. Racism implies that one has a structured belief system formed around race.
I see this as different from prejudice in which one has made judgments about others, but has not necessarily formed ideas about race into an ideology.
While racism and prejudice tend to walk hand in hand, it is possible for ignorant buffoons to be wandering around with prejudices without having formed any larger ideas around the ideas. Likewise it is possible for a person to hold an ideology in which race plays a fundamental role while being open-minded.
Many modern ideology in the Hegelian tradition are built around racial conflicts. Hegel's philosophy of history essentially had racially based nation states pitted in conflict with each others. There were many thinkers in the Marxian tradition who held ugly thoughts about races in conflict. Despite racist aspects of these ideologies. There are many people in this tradition who are committed to overcoming prejudices.
I've written numerous posts criticizing Glenn Beck's revival of "Covenant Theory." This theory holds that history includes a series of covenants handed down by The Heavenly Father. As the people of the world broke the covenants, The Heavenly Father would curse them and write the curses on their skin.
Following is a quote from the prophet Brigham Young as reported on the essay: White and Delightsome on MormonCurtain:
The term "White and Delightsome" comes from the Book of Mormon which, like the Book of Commandments, is a foundational text. below is a quote from 2 Nephi 21 through 24 [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5]
Racism was taught to the young. This is from "Juvenile Instructor" (26:635):
The whole Book of Mormon hinges on the idea that Native Americans were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. They were split into two groups. The Nephites were white, delightsome and righteous. The Lamanites were dark skinned, loathsome and evil. King Benjamin gave the people an election. The loathsome Lamanites won the election. There was a war followed by genocide.
In recent decades the mainstream Mormon church has done a phenomenal job rooting out prejudices. Unfortunately, the foundational texts of this movement include a discredited racist ideology.
I do not believe that Glenn Beck is either racist or prejudice. I fear that Mr. Beck stumbled on Covenant Theory and saw it as a powerful belief system that explains the problems of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck lit on a theory which is racist in nature. I see no way to revive Covenant Theory without reviving an ugly racist ideology.
Here in Utah, the leadership is adamantly opposed to ObamaCare, but support without question RomneyCare. They are essentially the same plan. The only difference is the leadership.
I am opposed to both plans, and am left to speculate why Utah is the way Utah is.
The problem of a racist past is not exclusive to the right.
If one reads through Leftist Ideology, one will find numerous Leftist heroes invoking race opportunistically. The KKK was a branch of the Democratic Party. Che Guevara made racist comments, etc.. The left and right are mirrors of each other; so one often finds the same train of thought on both sides of the equation.
The American has a deep rift between left and right, but the two sides of the coin are made of the same metal and both sides of this dialectical conflict keep coming to the same bad conclusions.
I think that Americans have done a great job overcoming past prejudices. Unfortunately, we suffer the problem that many of our belief systems still bear traces of racism.
The suffix "ism" implies an ideology. Racism implies that one has a structured belief system formed around race.
I see this as different from prejudice in which one has made judgments about others, but has not necessarily formed ideas about race into an ideology.
While racism and prejudice tend to walk hand in hand, it is possible for ignorant buffoons to be wandering around with prejudices without having formed any larger ideas around the ideas. Likewise it is possible for a person to hold an ideology in which race plays a fundamental role while being open-minded.
Many modern ideology in the Hegelian tradition are built around racial conflicts. Hegel's philosophy of history essentially had racially based nation states pitted in conflict with each others. There were many thinkers in the Marxian tradition who held ugly thoughts about races in conflict. Despite racist aspects of these ideologies. There are many people in this tradition who are committed to overcoming prejudices.
I've written numerous posts criticizing Glenn Beck's revival of "Covenant Theory." This theory holds that history includes a series of covenants handed down by The Heavenly Father. As the people of the world broke the covenants, The Heavenly Father would curse them and write the curses on their skin.
Following is a quote from the prophet Brigham Young as reported on the essay: White and Delightsome on MormonCurtain:
Brigham Young 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).
The term "White and Delightsome" comes from the Book of Mormon which, like the Book of Commandments, is a foundational text. below is a quote from 2 Nephi 21 through 24 [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5]
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
Racism was taught to the young. This is from "Juvenile Instructor" (26:635):
"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them."
The whole Book of Mormon hinges on the idea that Native Americans were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. They were split into two groups. The Nephites were white, delightsome and righteous. The Lamanites were dark skinned, loathsome and evil. King Benjamin gave the people an election. The loathsome Lamanites won the election. There was a war followed by genocide.
In recent decades the mainstream Mormon church has done a phenomenal job rooting out prejudices. Unfortunately, the foundational texts of this movement include a discredited racist ideology.
I do not believe that Glenn Beck is either racist or prejudice. I fear that Mr. Beck stumbled on Covenant Theory and saw it as a powerful belief system that explains the problems of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck lit on a theory which is racist in nature. I see no way to revive Covenant Theory without reviving an ugly racist ideology.
Here in Utah, the leadership is adamantly opposed to ObamaCare, but support without question RomneyCare. They are essentially the same plan. The only difference is the leadership.
I am opposed to both plans, and am left to speculate why Utah is the way Utah is.
The problem of a racist past is not exclusive to the right.
If one reads through Leftist Ideology, one will find numerous Leftist heroes invoking race opportunistically. The KKK was a branch of the Democratic Party. Che Guevara made racist comments, etc.. The left and right are mirrors of each other; so one often finds the same train of thought on both sides of the equation.
The American has a deep rift between left and right, but the two sides of the coin are made of the same metal and both sides of this dialectical conflict keep coming to the same bad conclusions.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Obstructionism as a Strategy
Personally, my complaint with the 2013 government shutdown was that the GOP clearly did not have a game plan for the event. Lack of a clear game plan meant the GOP would be forced to capitulate.
Since capitulation was the only possible outcome, I wish the GOP capitulated a week earlier..
Quite frankly, the worst part of the shutdown was the timing. The shutdown occurred during the roll out of the deeply flawed health exchanges. This allowed Obama to use the shutdown to divert attention from his failed policies.
Quite frankly, I think this fiasco happened because Conservatives place far too much stock in obstructionism. Conservatives also have a reluctance to engage in discourse ... which surrenders the culture to the left.
At this point, I fear that the only real hope is for people in the freedom movement to do something that Conservatives are reluctant to do. They need to talk about the issue.
By talking about the issue, I believe that people in the freedom movement need to have meetings in which they discuss health care. I would love to attend or host a meeting on free market health care reform.
Obstructionism works for Occupy Wall Street. In my opinion, The Tea Party should be about open discourse about the free market.
Speaking of our friends on the left. It is amusing to find that leftists by the tens of thousands on MoveOn.org have been calling for the leaders of the Republican Party to be arrested and tried for sedition. The Republican Leaders were defending the traditional view of the Constitution. The label of "sedition" is more properly leveled at the people who subvert the Constitution, not the people defending it.
The fact that so many people seeing defending the Constitution as sedition is a direct result of the way Conservatives engage in discourse.
The Founders gave this nation a beautiful heritage, but all people see is obstruction.
The only way to change this is for people in the freedom movement to occasionally talk to people. For example, imagine that good that could come if a group held a meeting on free market health care reform.
Anyway, I am extremely depressed. I am not sure if I am more upset with Obama for taking our freedoms or with this Conservative movement that claims to defend freedom and systematically fails.
Since capitulation was the only possible outcome, I wish the GOP capitulated a week earlier..
Quite frankly, the worst part of the shutdown was the timing. The shutdown occurred during the roll out of the deeply flawed health exchanges. This allowed Obama to use the shutdown to divert attention from his failed policies.
Quite frankly, I think this fiasco happened because Conservatives place far too much stock in obstructionism. Conservatives also have a reluctance to engage in discourse ... which surrenders the culture to the left.
At this point, I fear that the only real hope is for people in the freedom movement to do something that Conservatives are reluctant to do. They need to talk about the issue.
By talking about the issue, I believe that people in the freedom movement need to have meetings in which they discuss health care. I would love to attend or host a meeting on free market health care reform.
Obstructionism works for Occupy Wall Street. In my opinion, The Tea Party should be about open discourse about the free market.
Speaking of our friends on the left. It is amusing to find that leftists by the tens of thousands on MoveOn.org have been calling for the leaders of the Republican Party to be arrested and tried for sedition. The Republican Leaders were defending the traditional view of the Constitution. The label of "sedition" is more properly leveled at the people who subvert the Constitution, not the people defending it.
The fact that so many people seeing defending the Constitution as sedition is a direct result of the way Conservatives engage in discourse.
The Founders gave this nation a beautiful heritage, but all people see is obstruction.
The only way to change this is for people in the freedom movement to occasionally talk to people. For example, imagine that good that could come if a group held a meeting on free market health care reform.
Anyway, I am extremely depressed. I am not sure if I am more upset with Obama for taking our freedoms or with this Conservative movement that claims to defend freedom and systematically fails.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Marriage Equality v. Procreation
The Salt Lake Tribune reports, in a scandalous tone, that Utah Legislators dared use the word "procreation" in their effort to defend traditional marriage.
While I am the first to criticize religious beliefs that lead to racism or other injustice (such as Covenant Theory). I applaud arguments that reflect the deeper moral sense of the Christian tradition.
The traditional Christian view starts with the view that human life is sacred. If life is sacred, then the process that creates life is sacred. In theology, the term "procreation" refers to the process that creates human life.
A sacrament is way of acknowledging the sacred nature of an action. In Christian Theology, one sees the sacrament of marriage as a way to sanctify procreation. This is an affirmative view that holds life sacred.
Humans, like most multi-cellular forms of life on this planet (including fish and trees) reproduce through sexual reproduction involving a man and a women. In sexual reproduction, the DNA of the male combines with the DNA of a female to create a new DNA pattern. This process of sexual reproduction (combining DNA) appears to be fundamental to the evolution of life on this planet. Saying otherwise is anti-science.
The ideas behind procreation have both a solid theological and scientific foundation.
Way back in the 1980s, I was an early supporter of Same Sex Marriage. For that matter, I still support recognition of same sex civil unions and really have no problem with people calling their relation a "gay marriage" as long as "gay marriage" is held to be something different from the sacrament of marriage.
In the 1980s, I went to a lecture with some progressive friends. I was for gay-marriage. I felt that if two people wanted to call their relation a marriage, then more power to them. Oddly, my progressive friends were against gay-marriage. One made a point of rejecting all forms of marriage as antiquated. The other, who I suspect was gay, thought the gay experience should be commitment free life style. In his view, marriage was a thing of the past and in the glorious progressive future no-one would be constrained by any form of social commitment ... well, other than commitment to the glorious state.
During the presentation, a slick lawyer argued that, once the state recognizes gay marriage, then the progressive legal community could start attacking churches under the equal protection clause. If Gay Marriage was held to be the legal and logical equivalent of a heterosexual marriage, then lawyers could attack any church that held that marriage was a sacrament formed around procreation.
Please note. The current movement is called "The Marriage Equality Movement." True equality would me that the state must punish any church that holds that marriage is a sacrament formed around procreation.
This idea of attacking churches scares me. Procreation is the belief that human life is sacred. Attacking the idea that life is sacred leads to some very dark places.
Having sat through a lecture in which a sleazebag lawyer outlined a course for a fundamental attack on religious beliefs, I changed my position. Oddly, my progressive friends changed their positions as well.
BTW: I knew people who hate the institution of marriage, but who actively support "gay marriage" as a way to attack their enemies ... Progressivism is sickening.
I have no problem with people calling their personal relationship a "gay marriage." Calling one's relation a marriage is an act of free speech. But forcing others to acknowledge one's relation as equal to the sacrament of marriage is a different thing.
Attacking sacred beliefs of others is not an act of extending liberty. It is a direct attack on the moral conscious of a people.
The traditional Christian view is that life is sacred. The process that creates life is sacred and is recognized as such with the sacrament of marriage.
The marriage equality movement demands that churches be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. This goes squarely against ages of thinking and the scientific evidence surrounding evolution.
If I could find a way to support gay marriage that wouldn't be hijacked by the far left and used as an attack on procreation, I would support the move. I support people calling their relation a "gay marriage." I support same sex civil unions, but this is not what the "marriage equality" movement is after. This ugly movement wants a full scale attack on religion. They want a attack on beliefs in the sanctity of human life and they want an attack on religious freedom.
When culture warriors begin an assault on fundamental freedoms, I will stand with the fundamental freedoms every time. So, I applaud the Utah legislature for using the term "procreation." The idea that life is sacred and that marriage is a sacrament built around the sanctity of life is beautiful.
If anything, I wish the Christian community would take their belief in the sanctity of human and life and question the practices in the fertility industry which destroys numerous embryos for each life created by this mad science.
ADDED: After writing this post, I stumbled on an article about a Christian group being listed as a "Domestic Hate Group" for supporting traditional marriage.
While I am the first to criticize religious beliefs that lead to racism or other injustice (such as Covenant Theory). I applaud arguments that reflect the deeper moral sense of the Christian tradition.
The traditional Christian view starts with the view that human life is sacred. If life is sacred, then the process that creates life is sacred. In theology, the term "procreation" refers to the process that creates human life.
A sacrament is way of acknowledging the sacred nature of an action. In Christian Theology, one sees the sacrament of marriage as a way to sanctify procreation. This is an affirmative view that holds life sacred.
Humans, like most multi-cellular forms of life on this planet (including fish and trees) reproduce through sexual reproduction involving a man and a women. In sexual reproduction, the DNA of the male combines with the DNA of a female to create a new DNA pattern. This process of sexual reproduction (combining DNA) appears to be fundamental to the evolution of life on this planet. Saying otherwise is anti-science.
The ideas behind procreation have both a solid theological and scientific foundation.
Way back in the 1980s, I was an early supporter of Same Sex Marriage. For that matter, I still support recognition of same sex civil unions and really have no problem with people calling their relation a "gay marriage" as long as "gay marriage" is held to be something different from the sacrament of marriage.
In the 1980s, I went to a lecture with some progressive friends. I was for gay-marriage. I felt that if two people wanted to call their relation a marriage, then more power to them. Oddly, my progressive friends were against gay-marriage. One made a point of rejecting all forms of marriage as antiquated. The other, who I suspect was gay, thought the gay experience should be commitment free life style. In his view, marriage was a thing of the past and in the glorious progressive future no-one would be constrained by any form of social commitment ... well, other than commitment to the glorious state.
During the presentation, a slick lawyer argued that, once the state recognizes gay marriage, then the progressive legal community could start attacking churches under the equal protection clause. If Gay Marriage was held to be the legal and logical equivalent of a heterosexual marriage, then lawyers could attack any church that held that marriage was a sacrament formed around procreation.
Please note. The current movement is called "The Marriage Equality Movement." True equality would me that the state must punish any church that holds that marriage is a sacrament formed around procreation.
This idea of attacking churches scares me. Procreation is the belief that human life is sacred. Attacking the idea that life is sacred leads to some very dark places.
Having sat through a lecture in which a sleazebag lawyer outlined a course for a fundamental attack on religious beliefs, I changed my position. Oddly, my progressive friends changed their positions as well.
BTW: I knew people who hate the institution of marriage, but who actively support "gay marriage" as a way to attack their enemies ... Progressivism is sickening.
I have no problem with people calling their personal relationship a "gay marriage." Calling one's relation a marriage is an act of free speech. But forcing others to acknowledge one's relation as equal to the sacrament of marriage is a different thing.
Attacking sacred beliefs of others is not an act of extending liberty. It is a direct attack on the moral conscious of a people.
The traditional Christian view is that life is sacred. The process that creates life is sacred and is recognized as such with the sacrament of marriage.
The marriage equality movement demands that churches be forced to extend the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples. This goes squarely against ages of thinking and the scientific evidence surrounding evolution.
If I could find a way to support gay marriage that wouldn't be hijacked by the far left and used as an attack on procreation, I would support the move. I support people calling their relation a "gay marriage." I support same sex civil unions, but this is not what the "marriage equality" movement is after. This ugly movement wants a full scale attack on religion. They want a attack on beliefs in the sanctity of human life and they want an attack on religious freedom.
When culture warriors begin an assault on fundamental freedoms, I will stand with the fundamental freedoms every time. So, I applaud the Utah legislature for using the term "procreation." The idea that life is sacred and that marriage is a sacrament built around the sanctity of life is beautiful.
If anything, I wish the Christian community would take their belief in the sanctity of human and life and question the practices in the fertility industry which destroys numerous embryos for each life created by this mad science.
ADDED: After writing this post, I stumbled on an article about a Christian group being listed as a "Domestic Hate Group" for supporting traditional marriage.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Coin Metaphor
Dialecticians love to present the public with false dichotomies. One might create a conflict and say this is the left position and this is the right position. People then have at each other.
A great metaphor for exposing a false dichotomy is: The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal.
A great metaphor for exposing a false dichotomy is: The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal.
Sunday, October 06, 2013
Covenant Theory and Antisemitism
Mr. Goldhagen presented several ideas about the cause of antisemitism such as wealth envy or the false perception that Israel is persecuting Palestinians.
I will present my pet theory on the cause of antisemitism:
The Bible establishes the Jewish people as The Chosen People who just happen to have a Covenant with God.
Power mongers love this structure. When people feel that an institution has a Covenant with God, they will give the institution fealty and do things they would otherwise find distasteful.
This idea that anything done for "the cause" is just is the heart of radicalization. The cause is so just that it justifies the use of destructive means to gain power.
If the end is sanctioned by God, then this end is so great that it justifies any means.
Here is the problem: In order to convince a group of people that one has a Covenant with God, one has to find a way to dispatch with the ancient Israeli covenant.
My pet theory is that Covenant Theory is the cause of antisemitism. Groups that want to claim a new covenant have to frame the Jewish race as sinful people who lost their covenant.
For example, the Divine Right of Kings claimed that the monarchy had a Covenant with God that stretched back to Ancient Israel. For the Divine Right of Kings to work, the kings had to attack the Jewish race. The advocates of the Divine Right of Kings portrayed Jews in the most unsavory light.
Islam presents various covenants, but has to dismiss the covenant of the Bible; so they teach antisemitic fantasies.
I live in Utah; So, I witness the LDS version of "Covenant Theory." The Book of Mormon starts by presenting a fantasy in which the Lost Tribes of Israel traveled by submarine to the New World. The group had a Covenant with God, but due to the character faults of the Jewish people, they broke the Covenant and were turned into red savages (Native Americans). The LDS Church issued a new covenant.
This is the same pattern as is in the Divine Right of Kings. To claim a new covenant, one has to dispatch with the ancient covenants of Israel.
I've come across Christian Groups that push that idea that the Covenant predicts that Israel will be the center of a great war and we have to arm Israel to the teeth. This view is not all that pro-semitic because it throws a group of people onto a battlefield.
The causes of religious antisemitism is clear. So, why is there antisemitism in Communism and other modern ideologies that hate religion.
This has to do with the origins of these theories.
This is important to remember: The Hanoverian Kings of England were German. The Hanoverian Kings funded the German University System in the 1700 and 1800s. The Kings of England tasked the university system with finding ways to frame the monarchy as progressive.
Hegel came up with a Modern Logic and Modern Philosophy of History which presented the Divine Right of Kings in pseudo-scientific speak. Hegel's Theory of philosophy has mankind evolving in history through a series of conflicts between nations representing different ideologies.
Feuerbach realized anti-religion could work as well, if not better, at radicalizing people than religion.
Marx incorporated the dialectics of Hegel and the radical atheism of Feuerbach in a new ideology that kept and enhanced the racial aspects of Covenant Theory. (The wording of Hegel's dictate "From each according to his abilities to each according to needs" is very close to Commandments issued by Joseph Smith in the United Order of Enoch. Marx actually studied the Mormon experience.).
Modern intellectual history is pathetic.
The Hegelian Left convinced adherents that Jewish Cabals were behind Capitalism. The Hegelian Right convinced its adherents that Jewish Cabals were behind Communism. When, in fact, the Jewish people had relatively little to with either side of this great split.
Jonah Goldhagen pointed out the odd fact that antisemitism is often strongest in areas where there are very few Jews. IMHO, what is happening is that people were exposed to the ideologies built on the variations of "Covenant Theory" that appeared in the West. For example, Communist China would have learned that Jews behind capitalist conspiracies. The antisemitism comes from the fantasy at the heart of Communism.
The rise of global antisemitism is not just bad news for Israel, it is something that should trouble us all.
The rise of antisemitism indicates that there is a rise in the divisive ideologies that tore the world apart last century and led to two world wars and genocide.
Antisemitism is an irrational sentiment that has its origins in power mongers trying to claim divine authority for their institutions. A rise in antisemitism is a powerful indicator showing that the world is reviving failed ideologies of the past and that the world is headed in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Action without a Coherent Plan
Socialism began in the 1800s as a reactionary (conservative) movement. Conservatives wanted to preserve the social structure of the monarchy; so conservatives sought ways to make the monarchy look progressive with promises of the greatness that will come if people just supported centralized institutions.
The modern left formed by people who bought into the promises of the social justice that would come from centralization.
We've had two centuries of non-debate in which Left and Right claw at each other with neither party adequately defending our freedom.
This shrill non-debate is reflected in the current government shutdown.
Members of the GOP are making a valiant stand against the imposition of PPACA (ObamaCare). But their efforts have no clear end game.
Since the effort lacks a coherent plan to eliminate PPACA, I fear this effort will not achieve the goal of restoring health freedom.
PPACA is a network of exchanges imposed at the state level but regulated at the federal level. The glorious stand against funding ObamaCare might slow the implementation of this bad law.
The lack of a coherent strategy to rid of us PPACA might make the effort backfire.
A coherent plan to turn back PPACA must include a way to break the state run health exchanges.
As far as I know, the only possible way to create such a coherent plan is to discuss the mathematics of health care.
For the last five years, I've been in search of a Conservative group willing to discuss the mathematics of health care.
I've been unable to find anyone within 700 miles of Salt Lake City with enough interest in preserving freedom to spend an evening talking about it.
Since Conservatives have done a pathetic job of defending freedom, and since conservatives adamantly refuse to discuss free market health care reform, I am stuck in a mire where I am forced to examine the roots of conservatism.
I live in the most conservative (west of Tehran). Conservatives here simply slam the doors on debate and belittle those who try to engaged in substantive discussions of the issue.
Simply shutting down the debate does not solve the problem.
Personally, I have never seen a problem solved by closing down discourse. I read about the great problem solving efforts in history. Every single successful problem solving effort involved people who were willing to discuss the issue.
Even though I've gone five years without finding anyone brave enough to talk about the issue, I fervently believe that the freedom movement could win the day if only people were willing to meet and talk.
Personally, I have never met a conservative who was willing to discuss ideas. (BTW if you happen to be a conservative: Yelling past people, kicking them down, then insulting them after you spit in their face is not discourse).
I want to be cheering on the effort to defund ObamaCare, but I don't see it restoring the free market. Defunding ObamaCare will simply change the group that controls the exchanges.
Restoring Health Freedom would involve people engaging in discourse.
Conservatives, by definition, are closed-minded people who refuse to engage in discourse.
So, I harken back to the foundations of Conservatism.
In 1776, Conservatives stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and fired their muskets at the US Founders.
After the revolution, Conservatives turned inward and fired their vitriol at those who challenged the institutions of the monarchry.
I live in Utah which was founded by a conservative group of the early 1800s.
With the possible exception of Iran, Mormons are the most "severely conservative" people on the planet. So, I've been rereading the foundational literature of this severely conservative group and getting depressed.
Conservatism began as a reaction to the classical liberalism of the US Founders. Classical Liberalism is different from Modern Liberalism. Classical Liberals saw property rights as the foundation of liberty. The US Founders were creating a society on property rights with a widespread distribution of property.
The quote below is from the Book of Commandments written by Joseph Smith between 1830 and published in 1833. This document is supposed to be listing the New Commandments and to be considered on par with the Ten Commandments in the Bible. This is foundational literature. It reflects the foundations of Conservatism.
You can find photocopy of the plate on The Institution for Religious Research.
Please, read the quote again.
This is the type of reactionary thought taking place in the 1800s that evolved into modern conservatism.
Today, we have conservatives who love to spout free market rhetoric. The actions of conservatives seem to be systematically undermining the liberties established by the US Founders.
This type of disconnect between rhetoric and action is precisely what occurs when the rhetoric of a movement is at odds with its foundations.
We look at DC, and see Conservatives making a lot of noise about liberty, but systematically failing to advance liberty.
Perhaps this is because Conservatism is a paradoxical partisan approach to politics that undermines liberty. Read the quote again. If you are a conservative, this quote is foundational conservative literature. It is the most profoundly conservative document in US History. When I read this document, I see an ideology that is in conflict with the classical liberal ideals of the US Constitution and US Founders who were striving to create a society based on property rights.
When I look at the shrill debate in DC, I see a group engaged in rhetoric and action with no coherent plan. With no coherent plan to eliminate PPACA, the most this action could hope to accomplish is the capture of PPACA.
I am not a conservative. I am a fan of the classical liberal ideals of the US Founders and inscribed in the US Constitution. I don't want to stand against PPACA just to make noise. I want to stand against PPACA to restore freedom. I am convinced that the only way to restore freedom is for people to talk, but the Book of Commandments commands that those not in the political hierarchy of the partisan group must be cast out.
By this foundational believe that people who are not in the covenant be cast out, Conservatives have created a dystopia where it is impossible to discuss ideas of adequately defend liberty.
The modern left formed by people who bought into the promises of the social justice that would come from centralization.
We've had two centuries of non-debate in which Left and Right claw at each other with neither party adequately defending our freedom.
This shrill non-debate is reflected in the current government shutdown.
Members of the GOP are making a valiant stand against the imposition of PPACA (ObamaCare). But their efforts have no clear end game.
Since the effort lacks a coherent plan to eliminate PPACA, I fear this effort will not achieve the goal of restoring health freedom.
PPACA is a network of exchanges imposed at the state level but regulated at the federal level. The glorious stand against funding ObamaCare might slow the implementation of this bad law.
The lack of a coherent strategy to rid of us PPACA might make the effort backfire.
A coherent plan to turn back PPACA must include a way to break the state run health exchanges.
As far as I know, the only possible way to create such a coherent plan is to discuss the mathematics of health care.
For the last five years, I've been in search of a Conservative group willing to discuss the mathematics of health care.
I've been unable to find anyone within 700 miles of Salt Lake City with enough interest in preserving freedom to spend an evening talking about it.
Since Conservatives have done a pathetic job of defending freedom, and since conservatives adamantly refuse to discuss free market health care reform, I am stuck in a mire where I am forced to examine the roots of conservatism.
I live in the most conservative (west of Tehran). Conservatives here simply slam the doors on debate and belittle those who try to engaged in substantive discussions of the issue.
Simply shutting down the debate does not solve the problem.
Personally, I have never seen a problem solved by closing down discourse. I read about the great problem solving efforts in history. Every single successful problem solving effort involved people who were willing to discuss the issue.
Even though I've gone five years without finding anyone brave enough to talk about the issue, I fervently believe that the freedom movement could win the day if only people were willing to meet and talk.
Personally, I have never met a conservative who was willing to discuss ideas. (BTW if you happen to be a conservative: Yelling past people, kicking them down, then insulting them after you spit in their face is not discourse).
I want to be cheering on the effort to defund ObamaCare, but I don't see it restoring the free market. Defunding ObamaCare will simply change the group that controls the exchanges.
Restoring Health Freedom would involve people engaging in discourse.
Conservatives, by definition, are closed-minded people who refuse to engage in discourse.
So, I harken back to the foundations of Conservatism.
In 1776, Conservatives stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and fired their muskets at the US Founders.
After the revolution, Conservatives turned inward and fired their vitriol at those who challenged the institutions of the monarchry.
I live in Utah which was founded by a conservative group of the early 1800s.
With the possible exception of Iran, Mormons are the most "severely conservative" people on the planet. So, I've been rereading the foundational literature of this severely conservative group and getting depressed.
Conservatism began as a reaction to the classical liberalism of the US Founders. Classical Liberalism is different from Modern Liberalism. Classical Liberals saw property rights as the foundation of liberty. The US Founders were creating a society on property rights with a widespread distribution of property.
The quote below is from the Book of Commandments written by Joseph Smith between 1830 and published in 1833. This document is supposed to be listing the New Commandments and to be considered on par with the Ten Commandments in the Bible. This is foundational literature. It reflects the foundations of Conservatism.
You can find photocopy of the plate on The Institution for Religious Research.
25 Thow knowest my laws, they are given in my scriptures, he that sinneth and repenth not, shall be cast out.
26 If thou lovest me, thou shat serve me and keep all of my commandments; and behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, wih a covenant and deed which cannot be broken; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.
27 And it shall come to pass, that the bishop of my church, after that he has received the properties of my church, that it can not be taken from the church, he shall appoint every man a steward over his own property, or that which he has received, in as much as is sufficient for himself and family:
28 And the residue shall be kept to administer to him who has not, that every man may receive according as he stands in need:
29 And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer the poor and needy, as shall be appointed to the elders of the church and the bishop; and for the purpose of purchasing lands, and the building up of the New Jerusalem, which is hereafter to be revealed; that my covenant people may be gathered in one, in the day that I shall come to my temple.
Please, read the quote again.
This is the type of reactionary thought taking place in the 1800s that evolved into modern conservatism.
Today, we have conservatives who love to spout free market rhetoric. The actions of conservatives seem to be systematically undermining the liberties established by the US Founders.
This type of disconnect between rhetoric and action is precisely what occurs when the rhetoric of a movement is at odds with its foundations.
We look at DC, and see Conservatives making a lot of noise about liberty, but systematically failing to advance liberty.
Perhaps this is because Conservatism is a paradoxical partisan approach to politics that undermines liberty. Read the quote again. If you are a conservative, this quote is foundational conservative literature. It is the most profoundly conservative document in US History. When I read this document, I see an ideology that is in conflict with the classical liberal ideals of the US Constitution and US Founders who were striving to create a society based on property rights.
When I look at the shrill debate in DC, I see a group engaged in rhetoric and action with no coherent plan. With no coherent plan to eliminate PPACA, the most this action could hope to accomplish is the capture of PPACA.
I am not a conservative. I am a fan of the classical liberal ideals of the US Founders and inscribed in the US Constitution. I don't want to stand against PPACA just to make noise. I want to stand against PPACA to restore freedom. I am convinced that the only way to restore freedom is for people to talk, but the Book of Commandments commands that those not in the political hierarchy of the partisan group must be cast out.
By this foundational believe that people who are not in the covenant be cast out, Conservatives have created a dystopia where it is impossible to discuss ideas of adequately defend liberty.