Monday, December 13, 2004
Politician's Purgatory
"Holy War"
The notion of a “holy war “ is an illusion. There is nothing holy about war. It is ugly, devastating, killing. A horde of ignorant fanatics killing in the belief they will be rewarded in an afterlife is naive, false and simply a waste of the only life they will ever experience. There is such a thing as a justified war. It is in retaliation to an attack. It is the national reflection of the recognition that the right of self defense either individually or collectively is proper , necessary and the expectation for the existence of a nation. The United States was founded with a recognition of religious tolerance. To pick a fight with a nation that has the greatest tolerance for religious differences and to use our freedom of access to attempt to humiliate and destroy us tells us the nature of our enemy. We are fighting the lemmings who march toward nihilism. They have chosen destruction as the purpose in their lives and will achieve the state that they worship. The state of nothingness which is all they will experience win or lose. Like all barbarians they cannot be taught to be civilized for it is not of this earth that they seek. And since this earth is all they will ever know, the rush at the moment before death is their only hope and reward. A life for a moment is a poor trade, but ignorance and the blindness of the true believer cares little for life or gain. And this is why they cannot win and never will.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Politician's Purgatory
The Mind Bombers
The Mind Bombers
Terrorism is practiced on the successful in America in a manner sickly similar to the suicide bombers elsewhere
It used to be success in the world of commerce was looked upon with respect and admiration. Now a bunch of envious grubs mostly embedded in the “Justice Department” attack every soul that rises above the average. Look at the suits against Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and a host of lessor entrepreneurs who must relinquish productive time and money to fight off the envious that try to create or reinterpret laws to make examples of those who dare to do something these vermin couldn’t accomplish if they had divine help.
If you look at the motives of the terrorist suicide bombers you see a striking vision of similarity with those who strike at the innocent and those who attack the successful. Neither the successful nor the innocent have done anything to harm anyone. The successful have provided jobs, a role model for success and an opportunity for investors to gain from their efforts. The innocent have worked in these jobs, admired the role models and invested. But the suicide bombers of the mind have ignored these accomplishments and sought to destroy the achievers in an unnamed attempt to punish them for daring to be able to succeed.
If the innocent are to retain their status, they need to rattle the cages of those pushing and supporting this attack on success. Whether they be tenured professors, misled lawyers, unprincipled politicians or corrupt journalists, they need to know the wrath of the innocent is not something that should be considered ineffectual. America was not founded on the premise that those who rise must be brought down. It was created by men who wanted success to be possible, praiseworthy and recognized. It was openly stated as “the pursuit of happiness”. It was not proposed as the undermining of successful effort by utilizing the force of law to restrict, harass and topple. Law can only be noble if justice is known and justice cannot be known if the earned is obliterated by word and deed.
Dale Netherton www.riverviewhunting.com
Terrorism is practiced on the successful in America in a manner sickly similar to the suicide bombers elsewhere
It used to be success in the world of commerce was looked upon with respect and admiration. Now a bunch of envious grubs mostly embedded in the “Justice Department” attack every soul that rises above the average. Look at the suits against Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and a host of lessor entrepreneurs who must relinquish productive time and money to fight off the envious that try to create or reinterpret laws to make examples of those who dare to do something these vermin couldn’t accomplish if they had divine help.
If you look at the motives of the terrorist suicide bombers you see a striking vision of similarity with those who strike at the innocent and those who attack the successful. Neither the successful nor the innocent have done anything to harm anyone. The successful have provided jobs, a role model for success and an opportunity for investors to gain from their efforts. The innocent have worked in these jobs, admired the role models and invested. But the suicide bombers of the mind have ignored these accomplishments and sought to destroy the achievers in an unnamed attempt to punish them for daring to be able to succeed.
If the innocent are to retain their status, they need to rattle the cages of those pushing and supporting this attack on success. Whether they be tenured professors, misled lawyers, unprincipled politicians or corrupt journalists, they need to know the wrath of the innocent is not something that should be considered ineffectual. America was not founded on the premise that those who rise must be brought down. It was created by men who wanted success to be possible, praiseworthy and recognized. It was openly stated as “the pursuit of happiness”. It was not proposed as the undermining of successful effort by utilizing the force of law to restrict, harass and topple. Law can only be noble if justice is known and justice cannot be known if the earned is obliterated by word and deed.
Dale Netherton www.riverviewhunting.com
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Politician's Purgatory
Animals Do Not Have Rights
The issue of "animal rights" is not being addressed in
academia with a proper analysis of the definition of
"rights". Animals do not have rights, only conceptual
beings who understand what rights are and how they
function have rights. Rights are conditions of existence
required by man in a social context.They are what we have
as the kind of entities we are. An animal cannot respect
rights, understand rights, delineate rights or be given
rights. For instance lets take the right to life. Many
animals eat their young. Does this indicate this is a
recognized right that must be protected by the species?
Hardly. Man is different from animals in that he can
define what is or is not in his interest qua man, convey
these expectations and yes even enforce adherence to
protective behavior. A violation of human rights entails
the initiation of force against a fellow human or his
property. If this initiation of force is done in the
name of the rights of other species it is still a
violation of man's rights because there are no others.
Sympathy for the perceived plight of animals does not
translate into ascribing "rights" to animals. A
biological entity must be able to develop what rights are
to possess them. It must include a conceptual faculty.
All people qualify for rights. Some people violate other
people's rights. Whether people retain and protect their
rights first depends on their definition and
understanding of the concept of rights. Expanding the
concept to include animals, plants, minerals, etc only
obfuscates and ultimately destroys the concept of the
essential meaning that is the protectorate of our
individual and collective survival. If human rights are
compromised either by inclusion or exclusion even those
who claim what they mistakenly deem a noble cause will
suffer at the hands of those who will equate human life
with the worth of a rock. If only some humans or all
that exists has rights is an error of the same kind. This
is not the result that the human race should seek or
condone.
academia with a proper analysis of the definition of
"rights". Animals do not have rights, only conceptual
beings who understand what rights are and how they
function have rights. Rights are conditions of existence
required by man in a social context.They are what we have
as the kind of entities we are. An animal cannot respect
rights, understand rights, delineate rights or be given
rights. For instance lets take the right to life. Many
animals eat their young. Does this indicate this is a
recognized right that must be protected by the species?
Hardly. Man is different from animals in that he can
define what is or is not in his interest qua man, convey
these expectations and yes even enforce adherence to
protective behavior. A violation of human rights entails
the initiation of force against a fellow human or his
property. If this initiation of force is done in the
name of the rights of other species it is still a
violation of man's rights because there are no others.
Sympathy for the perceived plight of animals does not
translate into ascribing "rights" to animals. A
biological entity must be able to develop what rights are
to possess them. It must include a conceptual faculty.
All people qualify for rights. Some people violate other
people's rights. Whether people retain and protect their
rights first depends on their definition and
understanding of the concept of rights. Expanding the
concept to include animals, plants, minerals, etc only
obfuscates and ultimately destroys the concept of the
essential meaning that is the protectorate of our
individual and collective survival. If human rights are
compromised either by inclusion or exclusion even those
who claim what they mistakenly deem a noble cause will
suffer at the hands of those who will equate human life
with the worth of a rock. If only some humans or all
that exists has rights is an error of the same kind. This
is not the result that the human race should seek or
condone.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
The U.S. and the U.N.
What is keeping the U.S. in the U.N.?
If a major scandal was observed in a major U.S. corporation the U.S. Congress would immediately express concern, issue admonitions, call for the heads of those accountable and promise a full investigation and punishment for those responsible. Why would the Congress want to investigate an organization that they will continue to support no matter what their investigations and findings reveal? It is already quite clear that the United Nations is not United. It is becoming clearer every day there is corruption that has been going on for years and may have contributed to the global instability we are having to pay for with taxpayer money and American lives.
In view of the magnitude of the failures of the United Nations, the costs the American people have born through association and support of this organization and the fact that we have not had the support for the ideals they claim to stand for and which we agreed to, when will it be time for the United States to declare, “ We’ve had enough, we quit.” In our past we did not stand for taxation without representation and we rebelled. Why are we willing to stand for it now? In the past we required loyalty in our pursuit of defense of our nation. Why do we now look to an ineffective, openly opposed group of nations composed of the very authoritarian regimes we are trying to defeat for sanction and cooperation?
It is not because we do not know that the United Nations is corrupt, uncooperative and ineffectual. We have evidence for all of these defects. It is because we are acting like we want to belong to the group no matter the makeup, the morals or the results. We are acting like the children we admonish for not standing up against the peer group that demands allegiance. We are acting like the wimp who doesn’t want someone to not like him even if he has to denounce all that he thinks he should stand for. We are acting like the ghetto youth who doesn’t want to join the gang but is too afraid not to. In short we are acting against our ideals and who we are when we continue to support the United Nations.
The Bush Doctrine is weakened by membership in the United Nations. The “ War on Terrorism” is confounded by the compromises with terrorist regimes within the United Nations . The United Nations is an organization consisting of nations that don’t like Americans. Yet our representatives keep funding this organization as a matter of blind faith that somehow it will become something other that what it is. This blind faith goes on in spite of history, disappointments and outrageous ineffectiveness. This country was founded on the idea that we are a sovereign nation and we don’t need the love of the world to be the kind of nation where human rights are respected, where opportunity is abundant and there is an open invitation to those who want to come to our shores and live in a peaceful productive manner. The other side of this idea is we are not interested in joining with other countries to undermine our values, our ideals and our way of life. This means that if we should ( in some attempt to experiment in the impossible ) misstep and join an organization and it in fact failed to be a benefit to our welfare, we would have the courage and the sense to reject that membership. We would stand alone as we did when our brave founders stood up for themselves and did what was necessary to insure the establishment and the continuance of a nation of freedom and prosperity that the world has never seen before.
We have been a nation that has the ability and the guts to take a stand and set an example. We should not turn our back on this heritage. We should demand of our representatives that they assert this legacy and reject the United Nations as no longer worthy of our support or recognition This would send a message that we are no longer willing to give those whose actions are abhorrent to our values the benefit of the doubt and try to get along by compromising what we believe in and stand for. Should the United Nations reform and become what it claims it stands for we are free to seek membership and support such an organization. There is no evidence we can work within it and accomplish this. We need to leave and we need to leave now.
If a major scandal was observed in a major U.S. corporation the U.S. Congress would immediately express concern, issue admonitions, call for the heads of those accountable and promise a full investigation and punishment for those responsible. Why would the Congress want to investigate an organization that they will continue to support no matter what their investigations and findings reveal? It is already quite clear that the United Nations is not United. It is becoming clearer every day there is corruption that has been going on for years and may have contributed to the global instability we are having to pay for with taxpayer money and American lives.
In view of the magnitude of the failures of the United Nations, the costs the American people have born through association and support of this organization and the fact that we have not had the support for the ideals they claim to stand for and which we agreed to, when will it be time for the United States to declare, “ We’ve had enough, we quit.” In our past we did not stand for taxation without representation and we rebelled. Why are we willing to stand for it now? In the past we required loyalty in our pursuit of defense of our nation. Why do we now look to an ineffective, openly opposed group of nations composed of the very authoritarian regimes we are trying to defeat for sanction and cooperation?
It is not because we do not know that the United Nations is corrupt, uncooperative and ineffectual. We have evidence for all of these defects. It is because we are acting like we want to belong to the group no matter the makeup, the morals or the results. We are acting like the children we admonish for not standing up against the peer group that demands allegiance. We are acting like the wimp who doesn’t want someone to not like him even if he has to denounce all that he thinks he should stand for. We are acting like the ghetto youth who doesn’t want to join the gang but is too afraid not to. In short we are acting against our ideals and who we are when we continue to support the United Nations.
The Bush Doctrine is weakened by membership in the United Nations. The “ War on Terrorism” is confounded by the compromises with terrorist regimes within the United Nations . The United Nations is an organization consisting of nations that don’t like Americans. Yet our representatives keep funding this organization as a matter of blind faith that somehow it will become something other that what it is. This blind faith goes on in spite of history, disappointments and outrageous ineffectiveness. This country was founded on the idea that we are a sovereign nation and we don’t need the love of the world to be the kind of nation where human rights are respected, where opportunity is abundant and there is an open invitation to those who want to come to our shores and live in a peaceful productive manner. The other side of this idea is we are not interested in joining with other countries to undermine our values, our ideals and our way of life. This means that if we should ( in some attempt to experiment in the impossible ) misstep and join an organization and it in fact failed to be a benefit to our welfare, we would have the courage and the sense to reject that membership. We would stand alone as we did when our brave founders stood up for themselves and did what was necessary to insure the establishment and the continuance of a nation of freedom and prosperity that the world has never seen before.
We have been a nation that has the ability and the guts to take a stand and set an example. We should not turn our back on this heritage. We should demand of our representatives that they assert this legacy and reject the United Nations as no longer worthy of our support or recognition This would send a message that we are no longer willing to give those whose actions are abhorrent to our values the benefit of the doubt and try to get along by compromising what we believe in and stand for. Should the United Nations reform and become what it claims it stands for we are free to seek membership and support such an organization. There is no evidence we can work within it and accomplish this. We need to leave and we need to leave now.
