Post-1960s Progressivism notes

Post-1960s Progressivism is an incoherent blend of the earlier Progressive emphasis
on material and spiritual uplift coupled with a new, adamantly relativistic orientation. his
altered Progressivism champions an understanding of freedom as “the right to define one’s
own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the meaning of human life.”
Policies that attack the traditional family through the promotion of sexual liberation, the
redefinition of racial equality in terms of atonement for alleged historical victimization, and
a preference for the preservation of the environment over human flourishing—demonstrate
that post-1960s Progressivism not only rejects the ethical ideal of earlier Progressivism; it
also denies the Founders’ conception of equality and rights as grounded in “the Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Post-1960s Progressivism actively promotes sexual liberation at the expense of
the traditional family in order to overcome the purportedly intolerant and repressive
standards of the older morality.  Women and gays especially are considered victims of
the older moral standards; they deserve legislation promoting their specific interests.
As victims, they join thereby the ranks of other minority groups who require special
privileges in recompense for discrimination. These policies dovetail with the current
elevation of environmental concerns above the rights of individuals—the environment
also must be freed from the exploitation of humankind.  

Terms:

Anti-foundationalism- the idea that there is no foundation or ground upon which can one base judgments about truth.

Irony- is the term used by postmodern thinkers like Richard Rorty to mean that there are no enduring truths.

Ruling Class-  "the complex of government, the mainstream media, most of the academy, much of our senior military class and industrial and public sector unions that are tied to government power."

Biocentric- environmentalism privileges nonhuman nature as opposed to human life and prosperity.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 201 lecture series, “Post-1960s Progressivism” (2012) by Dr. John Grant.

America’s Latest Propaganda Machine

From The Blaze. com (Oct. 17):

Glenn Beck on Thursday broached a topic that he said “horrified” him when it was brought to his attention roughly two weeks ago, describing it as an “effort to re-write our history and catalyze a new culture for America” with the help of “America’s latest propaganda machine.”

Beck proceeded to tell his viewers about two groups, the first called “Imagining America” and the second called “The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture.”

The latter isn’t actually a body of the United States government, but in the group’s own words, “the nation’s newest people-powered department, founded on the truth that art and culture are our most powerful and under-tapped resources for social change.”

Beck highlighted various individuals affiliated with the organizations, who he described as “the people that will be teaching and influencing your children” through “art and music and film and history books.”

Among the topics the individuals were caught on tape discussing was the fair redistribution of wealth and how “we’re funding the arts through the Cultural Development Fund, which is upwards of $20-some-odd million funding our cultural communities.”

Beck also said Imagining America was created by Bill Clinton, and that its membership now includes roughly 90 universities including Columbia University, Brown University, the University of Chicago, and more. [read more]

Companies Will Start Reading Your Mind To Figure Out How Much You're Willing To Pay

From Fastcoexist.com (Oct. 18):

The price that companies set for their products is already a high-stakes game of psychology and competitive strategy. But there’s still a lot of guesswork and uncertainty. Would pricing be more simple and profitable if market researchers could just read consumers’ minds?

Like it or not, such “feel good” pricing could be coming down the product pipeline.

The German news site Spiegel Online last week profiled the provocative work of a Swiss neuroscientist and former sales consultant who is devising a method of measuring brain waves to determine how much a person would be willing to pay for a good or service. Testing his theory has led the researcher, Kai-Markus Müller, to conclude that Starbucks is not actually charging enough for its expensive coffee. In fact, it's probably leaving profits on the table because people would probably still buy it if they charged more.

Müller figured this out by targeting an area in the brain that lights up when things don’t really make sense. A coffee for 10 cents? The brain reacts unconsciously because that is so cheap. A coffee for $8? The brain also reacts because it’s too expensive. Measuring our brain activity in this way apparently can get at optimal pricing. [read more]

Interesting. An unscrupulous gov’t could use this technology to figure out how much it should tax you. Or even possibly regulate you.

The Founders vs. The Progressives Overview lecture summary

Progressivism was a radical departure from the Founding and the Founders' ideas of liberty and equality had nothing to do with the progressive liberal transformation of America.

Here are the differences between the two:

1. What is freedom?
   • Founders view: People are created equal with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, religious liberty and property. The source of these rights are laws of nature and nature's God. These laws are discovered by human reason although their truth is confirmed by the Bible. We are obliged to respect those rights in others. These rights and duties constitute a natural moral order. Everyone is born free and no-one has the right to make a slave of another.
   • Progressives view: People are not born free. Freedom is a product of human making. Historical relativity: Human values change over time. History is changing in the right direction--more freedom. Negative freedom- freedom from the control & will of others. Negative freedom is good. True freedom is not just negative but positive or effective freedom. Positive freedom- positive control of resources and mental equipment including trained powers of initiative and reflection. Positive freedom requires transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and education--shaping the mind for growth and development. Self development for the sake of others is the aim of social ethics.
2. Purpose of gov't
   • Founders: Main task of gov’t is to secure the natural rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents. Law should protect life, liberty and property from predators. Otherwise leave people alone. Founders knew in a free society there would be inequality of wealth but since people own their own body, minds, and talents, gov’t should protect these unequal talents. The attempt to make everyone equal would destroy liberty; it would deprive the people of the possibility of failure—their best incentive to master their destructive impulses and cultivate their talents. Founders did believe in a safety net for those who couldn’t find any help otherwise. 
   • Progressives: The only way positive freedom can be realizes is to take away someone else’s negative freedom—someone else’s property. Human beings by nature are unfree and unequal. It becomes the main task of gov’t to make them equal. The State has the responsibility to create institutions to help individuals realize their potentiality that is theirs. Laws and institutions are there to create individuals by redistribution of resources and transforming the character of the inferior citizens by a process called Uplift.  Social conditions, not God, is in which man moves, lives and has his being. Gov’t has to create individuals because on their own they are nothing. 
3. Domestic policy
   • Founders: State gov’ts took care of almost all domestic policy. A tough criminal law is essential. Civil law must define contract, property and minor injuries so people can effectively their right to acquire and possess property and sue people for less than criminal injuries.  State laws must protect the integrity of the family by defining marriage and specifying duties and rights of family members. Local gov’t provides a safety net. Gov’t supports the minimum moral conditions of a free society through schools, the encouragement of religion, public monuments to the nation’s heroes, and other means. Beyond these tasks gov’t leaves citizens alone to take care of their affairs. Besides a national defense a gov’t can maintain nationwide free trade by preventing states from interfering with trade between states and by defining money as gold or silver coin to prevent gov’t from using inflation as a tool of public policy. The Founders promoted the virtues of justice; moderation and frugality for self-restraint; and sturdy self-reliance. They promoted courage and vigilance for the defense of freedom. And they promoted enlightenment of rights and duties. Unfair trade practices mean violence and/or fraud.
   • Progressives: Income and wealth redistribution. Private property will always harm the poor or be mismanaged in some way. Businesses must then be pervasively regulated. Unfair trade practices mean anything that impacts people in a way that bureaucrats disapprove of. Any successful company is likely to be viewed of as unfair. To promote Uplift gov’t support of schools and universities was greatly expanded. Schools were reorganized to promote progressive doctrines. Modern university is the church of progressivism. Prior to WWII, the Uplift agenda segregated the races by gov’t mandate. The progs argued that it is better that blacks be excluded from white society and be forced to provide for themselves.
4. Foreign policy
   • Founders: Defend the rights of Americans from outsiders. The gov’t  maintains a strong national defense against foreign attack. It secures the borders of the nation against the intrusions of non-citizens. They made alliances with foreign nations only if it served the cause of national defense. It is not the gov’t’s job to secure the rights for the rest of the world.
   • Progressives: The progs advocated a policy of benevolent imperialism. They argued that the U. S. has a mission, perhaps a divine mission, to engage in imperialism and nation building. The progs believed that the citizens of the Philippines were like children who were incapable of self-rule so America made the Philippines and other islands colonies. The progs applied the same rule for foreign and domestic affairs: Consent of the governed only matters for civilized people.
5. Consent of the governed
   • Founders: Gov’t can only be fully legitimate if it is based on consent. If we are ruled without consent then we are slaves.
   • Progressives: Gov’t is democratic when feeds, sustains, and directs individuals. To accomplish this gov’t must extend to all the ways of living of the people. Many reforms appear to be expansions of consent like direct elections of senators and primary elections. But these reforms lessen the power of local communities so the elites can get elected who then can put the prog agenda into action.  The result is the people are far removed from those they elect and the politicians get more power.
6. Gov't limited or unlimited?
   • Founders: The Founders wanted gov’t to be limited but strong in the areas where it is supposed to be strong: national defense, protecting individual rights by tough law enforcement and free markets. Individuals were to have a high degree of personal liberty. Private individuals should decide how land should be used.
   • Progressives: The progs favored unlimited power. There is no limit to the right of the state for the gov’t save its ability to do good. A typical prog policy was for the gov’t to own as much land as possible. Prior to 1900 most public land was sold or given to private owners. After 1900 that policy stopped. Now, private owners are viewed as threats to the environment or exploiters of the poor. Progs are impatient with democratic institutions. They are impatient with the view that men are not angels and should not be trusted with unlimited power. Progs therefore give people who believe like they do unlimited power to do good. The Ruling Class gets to extract vast amount of money from the productive people of America to fund themselves and the programs they run.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 201 lecture series, “The Founders versus The Progressives” (2012) by Dr. Thomas G. West

An Internal Memo That Warns Terrorists May Be Doing ‘Dry-Runs’ to Prepare for Next 9/11-Style Attack

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 10):

A horrifying internal memo obtained by WTSP-TV reportedly details an incident which some pilots believe may have been a “dry-run” for terrorists plotting another 9/11-style attack.

Delta Airlines pilot Wolf Koch told the news station that it is “very foolish” to believe that an attack similar to the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, could never happen again. In that attack, the deadliest on American soil, more than 3,000 people were killed.

In fact, Koch and other flight crews are worried that terrorists are already planning future attacks.

The memo obtained by WTSP-TV, which originated at the union that represents pilots for US Airways, reportedly states that “there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in flight threat.”

“What most security experts will tell you that if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow,” Koch said. [read more]

God help us all if another attack happens. If another attack comes it will be Obama’s fault. When your enemies don’t fear or respect you don’t be surprised if they try to attack you. Weakness never does a country any good no matter how persuasive or likeable a leader think he is. You can’t persuade anyone if they think you are a joke.

Obamacare website security called 'outrageous'

From CSMonitor.com (Oct. 14):

Cybersecurity professionals are voicing questions about potential red flags in the new federal health care website system that could open the door to theft of personal information.

In the two weeks since the Affordable Healthcare Act site, www.healthcare.gov, went live, most complaints have centered on long wait times with sites initially overloaded by interested visitors. In response, government officials are scrambling to get more capacity for the main site and its satellites.

But potentially far more serious questions are emerging about cybersecurity. Experts have said that hackers could “spoof” the website with a look-alike website to collect personal information, or criminals could use an automated program to try repeatedly to enter the site even if it didn’t get a login correct.

Experts have stopped short of calling these concerns “vulnerabilities” – a term that means a proven weak spot to hackers. But they say these red flags need attention.

“I’ll ask you your Social Security, your date of birth, [so] an hour later I can empty your bank account,” John McAfee, who founded the cybersecurity company of the same name but is no longer associated with it, complained on Fox News. The Obamacare websites, he said, have “no safeguards,” and the main site's architecture is "outrageous."

'Clickjacking.' The government site lacks defenses to prevent an attacker from putting an invisible layer over the legitimate website, Ms. Shah added. As a result, a user clicking on a link or button might end up at a renegade site that looked just the same – and end up divulging personal information to that site. [read more]

So, now only do people have to contend with website delays now they have to worry about conartists stealing their info possibly their identity. Well, that’s what you get when the federal gov’t builds a website.

Along the same lines:

Oct. 14: Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are (Not surprising. This is like saying turtles move slow.)

Oct. 17: Obamacare Website Violates Licensing Agreement for Copyrighted Software

                 ObamaCare's Black Box (From the article: The failures [of the website] that have all but disabled ObamaCare are the result of deliberate political choices, which HHS and the White House are compounding with secrecy and stonewalling.)

The Rules of Society

In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.

Source: The Social Contract and Discourses (1761) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In other words the “superior intelligence” is an omniscience being like God. This why gov’t cannot be God or even act like God because being composed of mankind it is related to our nature and its happiness is dependent on the governed.  Progressive gov’t leaders wish to be omniscience (even omnipresent and omnipotent like God) but they can’t and shouldn’t be.

Healthcare Law to Fine Hospitals That Provide Free Services to Poor

From The New American.com (Oct. 9):

President Obama’s healthcare law is full of increased costs to taxpayers, in the form of taxes, higher premiums, and of course, fines. In fact, the healthcare law may punish charitable hospitals for treating uninsured Americans by issuing large fines to those institutions that continue to provide treatment to uninsured Americans.

The Daily Caller reported, “A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people.”

With approximately 60 percent of American hospitals classified as nonprofit, this can prove to be a substantial amount of money in penalties. Hospitals that fail to meet the new standards could face fines upwards of $50,000.

John Kartch of the Americans for Tax Reform added that the law requires tax-exempt hospitals to regularly prove that they are necessary by filing paperwork with the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said Kartch.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

[read more]

So, much for caring for the poor. Then again The Left believes that’s the gov’ts responsibility anyway. Can’t have non-profits and charities doing that.

Insurers Getting Faulty Data From U.S. Health Exchanges

From Bloomberg.com (Oct. 7):

Insurers are getting faulty and incomplete data from the new U.S.-run health exchange, which may mean some Americans won’t be covered even after they sign up for an insurance plan.

While it’s not clear how widespread the problem is, the reports from industry consultants are the first hint that the technical troubles faced by consumers trying to enroll in health plans under the Affordable Care Act may also be hitting the insurers. The companies are receiving electronic files that can’t open or have so much missing information on new enrollees they’re unusable, the consultants said.

Some insurers have been forced to fix entries by hand, said Bob Laszewski, an insurance-industry consultant based in Arlington, Virginia.

“If we don’t see substantial improvement by the end of this week, then I would throw up the yellow flag,” said Dan Schuyler, a consultant advising states and insurers on the exchanges. “If we don’t see it in the next two to three weeks, it’s time for red flags. The concern is some people could get to Jan. 1, and not have coverage.” [read more]

The Unaffordable No-Care Act should have been a red flag. Period. Total control of your life anyone? This is what Obama meant by “transforming” America.

The Obama administration doesn’t really care if insurers get the right info or not. Why? Because the end-game is single-payer universal health care where the insurers quietly fade away. They were conned just like the people who voted for Obama.

Maybe, Obama is trying to make people mad at the insurers enough that they will demand a single-payer system. Or he could even try to get the insurers ticked off enough so they will drop out of the exchanges. Who knows.

Happy Columbus Day!

In his Book of Prophesies, Christopher Columbus said he could not have reached the shores of America without prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit. His exact words were:

“It was the Lord who put it into my mind....I could feel His hand upon me... the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies....All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me...There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures. . .I did make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps….No one should fear to undertake a task in the name of our Savior if it is just and the intention is purely for His service.”

Here are some biographical info about Christopher Columbus:

Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa in 1451. At the time Genoa comprised its own city state. Historians believe that Christoforo Colombo (as he was called then) was well educated. He knew several languages including Latin, Portuguese, and Spanish, as well as the native language of Genoa, Ligurian. He is known to have read many classical works including Ptolemy, St. Augustine, the stoic Seneca, and most particularly a book by or about Marco Polo.

Columbus came from a family of wool merchants and weavers. The young Columbus himself became a member of the weaver's guild, but decided on a more adventurous calling and went to sea. On a voyage in 1476, when he was about 25, his ship was wrecked, and he was cast ashore in Portugal. Fortunately, he had a brother (Bartolomeo) who was already there working as a map maker. Christopher Columbus established himself in Portugal. From there he went on many merchant voyages. He was probably master of the ships he sailed on, and may even have been part owner.

Columbus was a planner and an adventurer. He looked for opportunity wherever he could find it. Ever since Constantinople had fallen in 1453 the trade routes to the east had largely been shut down. The Portuguese, looking to take advantage of their position, jutting out into the Atlantic and just north of Africa, decided to look for a route around the huge continent. Although they had not reached China by the 1490s their voyages seemed promising and had already proved profitable. Columbus proposed that there was a faster way to reach the far East. Paradoxically, he suggested that explorers might find the rich cities of China and India by going west!

When he was still a teenager, he got a job on a merchant ship. He remained at sea until 1470, when French privateers attacked his ship as it sailed north along the Portuguese coast. The boat sank, but the young Columbus floated to shore on a scrap of wood and made his way to Lisbon, where he studied mathematics, astronomy, cartography and navigation.

Immigration Reform Rally on ‘Closed’ National Mall OK’d by Park Service

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 7):

The Park Service will reportedly allow a pro-immigration reform rally to occur on the National Mall even though the site is technically closed due to the partial government shutdown.

Organizers for the event, titled “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform,” set up a stage and equipment for the Tuesday rally as the public was kept out. A spokesperson for the event told the Washington Examiner that the Park Service has granted them permission to utilize the site.

“The President and his administration have a history of picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and this is no different,” Dane told The Blaze. “Americans who fought for freedom are denied access to the WW II memorial while those who violate our laws are rewarded.” [read more]

Gee, I wonder if the TEA Party can demonstrate in the Mall? Hmmm.  Meanwhile, WWII vets can see their memorial before they die. Or the American people can’t view Mount Rushmore (its out in the open for Christ sakes! Okay, I can see not letting visitors go inside) or the Lincoln Memorial. Is this the top down part of top down-bottom up-inside out? Causing inconvenience for no good reason? (Or maybe there is a sinister reason and not by the Park Service…)

Examining World Religions summary

Scientific skeptic Hugh Ross wanted to prove through scientific means that the world religions are humanly crafted frauds. So, he decided to be honest and would look at the holy books of the religions.

First, he looked at the Hindu Vedas and found several scientific absurdities like time being eternal and about the moon and the planets. The general rule of thumb the author was using is that when we look at the cosmos—in fact when we look out in any field of scientific endeavor—we discover consistency, beauty and harmony. There’s freedom from contraction. So, his assumption was that if the God that created the universe decided to communicate with us humans in a direct fashion, that communication would have those same characteristics. But for things of human origin, we can expect human feelings and ideas to creep in, and that’s what he looked for. He looked for those human perspectives.

Second, Mr. Ross looked at the Buddhist texts and found they borrow a lot from the Hindu texts. So, he wasn’t satisfied with those texts.

Then, he looked at the Qur'an of the Islamic faith. He found it too esoteric. If you were one of the “enlightened ones” you could then understand the holy book. More frequently Mr. Ross found that the Qur'an places historical events in the wrong geographical location. Hope the author doesn’t travel anywhere in the Mideast if they read his essay.

Fourth, he looked at the Book of Mormon and found the founder Joseph Smith got some prophecies wrong. And the ones he did get right, newspaper reporters predicted too.

Finally, Mr. Ross looked at the Bible. He found no esoteric poetry, No hint of “hidden” meanings. Almost every statement in the Bible was scientifically testable. For example, in Genesis he found eleven creation events and three initial conditions. All put in the correct chronological sequence and all correctly described from a scientific perspective.  The author said the Genesis creation account reflected the scientific method. Mr. Ross read the entire Bible and couldn’t find any contradiction or provable error. 

Source: Hugh Ross, "A Scientist Who Looked and was Found,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Boehner and Reid

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 2):

A series of leaked emails authored by House Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff Mike Sommers show that the Speaker may have coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Congress from Obamacare.

The emails were leaked Tuesday by Reid chief of staff David Krone, who actually has a history of this sort of thing. [read more]

This is despicable. Then again it is not surprising. The Ruling Class always looks out for themselves. It’s almost like a reflex. If Obamacare is not good then exempt everyone from it or at least make it optional without penalty. Can’t the republican house find a better leader? Someone who is looking out for the American public?

In other news, the senate leader Harry Reid was asked this question by a reporter:

"If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?"

His answer?

"Why would we [the Senate] want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

Wow! So, kids with cancer are non-essential people now? And since when is cancer a “problem?” I thought it was a deadly disease. Maybe, the reporter should have phrased the question like this:

If you can help one potential Democrat voter who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

or

If you can help one potential Democrat donor who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

Another example of the collective or group is more important than the individual.

Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans

From Daily Caller.com (Sept. 28):

President Barack Obama famously promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” He later got even more specific.

“If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” Obama said.

But as Obamacare’s rollout approaches, we have learned this is not true. Here are the ten states where consumers may like their health care plans, but they won’t be able to keep them.

1) California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. The first bomb dropped in California with a mass exodus from the most populated state’s Obamacare exchange. Aetna, the country’s third largest insurer, left first in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California’s Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well.

Fifty-four percent of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

2) Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system — which spans 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children’s Hospital — will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

3) Connecticut: Aetna, the third largest insurer in the nation, won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange in its own home state, where it was founded in 1850. The reason? “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers,” said Aetna spokesman Susan Millerick.

4) Maryland: 13,000 individuals covered by Aetna and its recently-purchased Coventry Health Care won’t be able to keep their insurance plans if they want Obamacare subsidies on the exchanges. Aetna and Coventry canceled plans to offer insurance in the exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

[read more]

Wow, that’s quite a few states. The rest of states are: Iowa, Georgia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. Half of the states are states that generally vote liberal. I wonder what they think about losing their coverage? If they are Obama zombies probably put the blame somewhere else.

But isn’t this the ultimate plan anyway? Single-payer healthcare system like in Canada. Put the evil insurance companies out of business so the nice-compassionate-wise monopolized gov’t insurance company can take of your health care needs? Of course, who knows what the tax premium will be when the competition goes out of business. Anything, the gov’t wants it to be. 

Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'

From The Weekly Standard.com (Sept. 30):

Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center."

However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" Here is how the page currently appears:

The page in question is not a new one, as the webpage's Internet address remains the same, still containing the word "free": www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-get-free-or-low-cost-care/.  However, there is no notation anywhere on the page that it was revised; the change just appeared unannounced. [read more]

So, Obamacare is not free anymore? What?! The American people have been lied too! This is an outrage!

Actually, the message should read to be honest:

Where can I get high-cost very-little-to-no-care in my community? If you can’t afford any health care plan, well it sucks to be you. Welcome to the New Normal.

More Guns, Less Crime summary

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott,  Jr. talks about a robber named Darnel “Bubba” Lowery and his accomplice robbed and murdered a musician. He said basically they picked the musician because he was “vulnerable.” After taking the money from the musician Mr. Raglin asked if the man’s car was a stick or an automatic. Then he shot the guy. The musician cooperated and just handed over the money.

What’s interesting is this: Lowery and his accomplice decided against robbing cab drivers or drug dealers because they both sometimes carried guns.

Serial killers, rapists, muggers, etc. are just predators. Their prey is the victim. They size-up the situation when they look at a victim and think to themselves: Is my reward greater than my cost when I attack the victim? The cost being arrested, seen by a bystander or policeman or even being harmed by the victim? If the answer is yes, then they will pounce. Just like a lion attacking the weakest in the herd a criminal will go after the most vulnerable. Probably someone alone, someone not very strong or physically fit, someone not aware of their surrounding, and even someone as a study suggested who is not showing confidence in their behavior. And if the criminal believes his potential victim is not armed, like with a gun, then so much the better for the criminal. I wonder if the victims of Jack the Ripper had guns would they had a chance to survive? Keep in mind England back then banned firearms. It still has the ban. So, those victims never had the opportunity to use a gun to defend themselves. Maybe one would have survived. Ripper himself used a knife to commit the crimes.

In the book the author provides strong evidence that concealed-handguns laws reduce violent crime and that higher arrest rates deter all types of crime.

Massive killings drop dramatically when states adopt nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws*.

Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws have equal deterrent effects on murders committed both with and without guns.

Mr. Lott says a gun-control advocate from the Violence Policy Center did not even want to look at his original study. Why? Because the advocate didn’t want to give publicity to the paper. That’s the stated reason. The real reason I believe is because the Left is arrogance and small minded. They never want to learn because they know all the answers or at least they believe they do. That and they are afraid they might be proved wrong. It was only after his paper got publicized did the advocate want to read it. Even then it was only to criticize it. Even Congressman Schumer attacked not only the paper but the author too (which is not surprising. That’s what the Left does. When you attack their narrative you are attacking a basic tenet of their religion. The quicker conservatives or anyone else learns this the better off they will be.)

Source: More Guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) by John R. Lott, Jr.

*Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun law- the term nondiscretionary means that once a person meets certain well-specified criteria for obtaining a concealed-handgun permit, no discretion is involved in granting the permit—it must be issued.

Explaining God Away

An evolutionary scientist says, “Ah, the answer is that it’s hard-wired into us by the process of natural selection.” That is, belief in God is something that helped our ancestors survive. Therefore, in a sense, evolution selected that trait, so that's why we all have it. But there's a problem with this.

The problem with saying that belief in God or morality is hard-wired into us—that our belief-forming faculties or moral impulses are the product of evolution and therefore can’t tell us the truth about things but only help us survive—is that you’ve proved too much. If we can't trust what our belief—forming faculties tell us about God and morality, because it’s just to help us survive, why should we trust our belief—forming faculties when they tell us evolution is true? How dare you use the scalpel on every other thing, everybody else’s belief, but not your own?

Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame has argued this at a very high level in a number of his books. He’s a philosopher, and he says: If we believe that everything in us is only the product of evolution, and that all our belief-forming faculties are there only because they help us survive, not because they tell us the truth, then we cannot trust our cognitive faculties to tell us what’s really out there. In fact, if anything, a mildly paranoid take on reality will certainly help us survive more than an accurate take on reality. And therefore, if we can’t trust what our faculties tell us about God or morality, how dare you say, “But you can trust what your faculties tell you about the theory of evolution?” Therefore, if we have a theory like evolutionary theory, we can’t trust our mind.

At the end of the Abolition of Man, regarding people who explain away religion and morality as “Well, it’s just evolutionary” or "It's just this, just that,” C. S. Lewis writes:

You cannot go on "explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on "seeing through" things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To "see through” all things is the same as not to see.

So if as Nietzsche says, “All truth claims are really just power grabs,” then so is his, so why listen to him at all? And if, as Freud says, “All views of God are really just psychological projections to deal with our guilt and insecurity,” then so is what he says about God. So why listen to him? And if, as the evolutionary scientist says, what our brain tells us about morality and God is not real, it’s just a chemical reaction designed to pass on our genetic code, then so is what their brains tell them about the world and evolution itself, so why listen to them? In the end, to see through everything is the same as not to see anything. And if we try to explain away belief in God like that, by appealing to evolution, then we’ve explained away everything. So we can’t explain it away.

Source: Timothy J. Keller, “Reason for God: The Exclusivity of Truth,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Parent ‘Manhandled’, Arrested While Speaking Out Against Common Core at Public Forum

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 20):

A parent in Towson, Md., was arrested Thursday night at a public forum after vocally expressing his concerns about the Baltimore County School District’s plan to use Common Core standards in its curriculum.

Robert Small, a concerned father, was forcefully removed from the meeting by a police officer after he interrupted Baltimore County Schools Superintendent Dallas Dance during the question-and-answer portion of the forum.

The meeting apparently didn’t allow parents to stand up and ask questions or comment. Parents and other attendants were instead asked to write their questions on a piece of paper and officials would read them.

However, Small began speaking out against the district’s use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave. “Let’s go!” he said sternly.

When Small didn’t immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cop’s use of force.

“Don’t stand for this,” the father said as he was dragged out. “You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?”

Small also urged other parents to demand answers on Common Core and the curriculum being used to educate their children.

Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer and faces a $2,500 fine and up to 10 years in prison. He was also charged with disturbing a school operation, which carries an additional $2,500 and up to six months in jail.

[read more]

The good news is (if you can call it that) the charges were dropped by the state attorney. He said “in the interest of justice, further prosecution will not accomplish anything more.” Not that what Small did was constitutional or legal (the attorney said Small “disrupted the meeting”), but having him arrested was good enough. Also, he said the security guard did nothing wrong. Okay, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the security guard who thought he was just doing his duty.

Clearly arresting Small is bordering on 1st amendment right violations.

I wonder why the parents could not ask questions out in the open anyway. Could it be the superintendent wanted to filter out any questions or comments he didn’t want the other parents to hear because maybe he believes the Common Core curriculum has issues or even dare I say a fraud? Or maybe he thinks the parents are like raucous cattle (like Small suggested) who need to be controlled. Or both? Yes, to either answer should any sane person nervous.

I hope this isn’t a trend where parents are treated like children in public school forums and  seen but not heard. After all parents have to trust the gov’t public schools and not question them like good sheep followers.

The 7 Characteristics of a Conscious Culture

1.        Trust: Conscious business have high levels of internal and external trust.  Internally, there is a high level of trust between the leadership and employees, within the leadership team itself and across teams at all levels. Externally,  there is a high degree of trust between the company and its customers, suppliers, other business partners, the communities within which it operates, investors and governments.

2.        Accountability: Conscious cultures combine high levels of trust with and caring with a strong emphasis on accountability. People stick to their commitments and hold esch other responsible for performance, efficiency and deliverables. Suppliers are accountable to the company and vice versa.  Accountability goes hand-in-hand with high levels of decentralization and empowerment, both of which are the norm in conscious businesses.

3.        Caring: The human need to care and be cared for is an extremely powerful motivation – often equal to and sometimes even exceeding the need to pursue one’s self-interest. Conscious cultures are marked by genuine, heartfelt love and care for all stakeholders. People in conscious cultures behave in ways that are thoughtful, authentic, considerate and compassionate.

4.        Transparency: There are few secrets in a conscious culture because there is little to hide! Financial books are usually open, salary information is more readily available, and strategic plans are widely discussed and disseminated. Conscious firms embrace the fact that most information of genuine significance soon becomes known in this age of instant digital connectivity.

5.        Integrity: A Conscious culture is marked by strict adherence to truth telling and fair dealing. Conscious firms readily forgive lapses in judgment, but do not tolerate lapses in integrity. The commitment to integrity goes far beyond mere adherence to laws. Conscious firms typically set global standards that exceed the requirements placed on them by law; they are guided by what they believe is ethically right, not merely by what is legally required or socially acceptable.

6.        Loyalty: Conscious businesses exist in a system of high loyalty. All the stakeholders are loyal to each other and the company. This is a natural consequence of the relationship mind-set that permeates the business. Stakeholders are more patient and understanding with each other when short-term blips or other unusual situations occur. High accountability ensures that those who consistently fail to live up to expectations experience consequences for their non-performance.

7.        Egalitarianism: Conscious companies do not have a class system that separates leaders from front team members at large. The salary differential between the top and front lines is smaller than typically found in traditional companies. Senior executives do not enjoy special privileges and perks that are not available to others. To a large extent, all employees have input in to how the company is managed and led. There is usually an open-door policy so that employees can communicate with the leadership team in an informal way.

Source: Conscious Capitalism. Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (2013) by John Mackey and Raj Sisodia.

Those characteristics above could also be applied to gov’ts (especially the federal gov’t).  Wouldn’t that be nice? As for the transparency (which Obama promised when he ran for POTUS), the State cannot be completely transparent about military secrets. I understand that especially during war time, but that doesn’t mean it can’t try to be transparent in other areas. Isn’t that what a democratic republic supposed to be?

I like to see the feds have more integrity and accountability too. That’s a good starting place. Yea, I know I’m dreaming.

In the book, the authors say every conscious business should have these tenets or building blocks:

1. Conscious leadership. Types of intelligence: Emotional, Spiritual (morals, deepest meanings, values), Systems. Servant leadership.
2. Higher purpose and core values. Higher purposes: The Good (service to others), The True (furthering human knowledge), The Beautiful, The Heroic (courage to do what is right)
3. Conscious culture and management.
4. Stakeholder integration.

One last thing. In the book the authors mentioned Nordstrom Rule #1: Use good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.

Not a bad suggestion for everyday life.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 30

• If killing Jihadists with drones ticks the Jihadists off and make them want to cause even more terrorism then why the heck did Obama have Bin Laden killed? After all Bin Laden was their leader. Wouldn’t that action really tick them off?
• To the Left group identity is the only identity that is important and relevant.  The Left really need to think outside the group.
• I wonder if Native Americans of the past had people who blamed bows-and-arrows for crime.
• If all of humanity is downloaded to a supercomputer who is going to maintain the supercomputer’s physical structure? I mean someone or some group has to be still in their skin so to speak to make any repairs. You can’t do that bodiless inside a computer.
• If I was a defendant in court, I would be nervous being judged by low-information jurors.
• Creativity requires risk-taking, questioning the status quo, and individuality. A collective therefore cannot be creative.
• A penny saved is a penny taxed.
• I believe there hasn’t been a law in a country where owning a firearm is mandatory. Think about it.
• Truth and reason are optional to the Left especially the far-Left.
• It’s too bad in those Star Trek shows that someone didn’t leave behind the Constitution in an underdeveloped planet. Then again it probably wouldn’t have made a good plot.