O'Brother, O'Brien and Obama

A friend of mine made the above graphic. I find it a refreshing less than subtle reference to the warning of a certain Mr. George Orwell made about dangers of soft tyranny of a big government resulting from seemingly small steps towards eventual totalitarianism. Of course I refer to the book 1984. In this book, reductions in 'rations' are referred to increases. "Spin" became the primary exported product. Enemies we war with today are allies tomorrow and again enemies the following year, but in all this never really acknowledging motivation or providing true rationale. Do not question the party was the clear message. Such novels scared the hell of me as high school student with its warning that nothing is for free. Freedom allows for failure or success. It is indifferent.

Unfortunately, where are the options for someone who wants a limited, constitutional based republic that has little if any implied power, but only those expressly provided to it? The Tea Party? The GoP? Unfortunately, these parties miss the mark too. Government intrusion whether socialistic in nature, where everyone suffers equally under stagnation or if that government consists of religiously infused anti science 'social conservative' will suffer intellectual hypocrisy and become equally destructive. In the end, as Mr. Smith found out in the novel, both lead to same place - a 'nanny state' of social tyranny of neighbors reporting on neighbors and citizens losing even the most basic self sufficiency, including such as where to eat, whom to date, what 'words' are acceptable to speak. It is a high price to pay to relegate responsibility from the local and state level to the federal.

It is going to take a while to work this out. Power corrupts and those who have it tend to like to keep it that way.




Give Peace Some Peace



The Answer is A and C!

 I came across a peace symbol in an advertisement. I had always been curious about symbols, their origin, and how people will interpret them and how some people will advocate that interpretation over any other fact to push a point of view. It fascinates me how symbols can change over time and how any narrative can be forged regardless of facts. The peace symbol, after all this time has made a comeback. The children love them and they seem to understand the original idea behind it.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 Two Links with information I find very interesting:

The first is a classic example of creative interpretation without any substantive reasoning. Any facts will be burdened with hyperbole and selective inclusion. Perception is Reality to the subscriber of this viewpoint. It is hard to fathom. Perhaps they know better. Perhaps they are less ignorant they their writing suggests. Perhaps they are willfully misleading the reader.
 

WWJD do with Nukes?



Read more on The Peace Sign and Satanism




Is Spock the Devil?



The second is as good as any explanation for the actual history behind the modern peace symbol. This very  brief writeup has some historical context to support interpretation of the era and the era being the late 1950s to support Nuclear Disarmament. Whether the iconic peace symbol is satanic, anti-christian, pro-Star Trek, left wing, free masonry, or a contrivance of the communist sympathizer is not substantiated. Nor is it horribly relevant. It is the creation of Gerald Holtom in 1958 when he was commissioned by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament by Betrand Russell, noted philosopher, pacifist and socialist.

So what?  Is the idea of peace so horrific it must be aligned with satanic ritual? Did not our beloved Ronald Reagan share such ideas to reduce nuclear arms in 1982? Granted, he was into Astrology, but I wouldn't refer to him as a left wing or a communist sympathizer. How does the evangelical reconcile all this?

Read more on the  Peace Symbol Origin



Semaphore? Don't get all sciency on me!

 I can easily envision in certain places in the United States, this work of a left wing artist to promote peace and nuclear disarmament is ironically misconstrued by those who would subscribe to the basic tenants of Christianity.

Bundle This!

Have you ever tried to unbundle a service from Verizon? It is not possible. At least Verizon does not make this easy. After waiting on hold for what seems an eternity, the customer service represent is determined to have me keep the telephone service I no longer had use for. My logic was that because in fact, I never did use for it, so why have it? Doing what seems to make sense to one person is lost revenue for unused services by another. I am being told that should I remove a service I do not need, the other services such as Internet access and television will have their contract extended by another 24 months from today, but only reduce the entire bill by about $20 for only the phone portion of service currently costing me $50 before taxes. On top of the the extension, if that was not bad enough a $179 disconnection fee would be charged. The best possible outcome is for to wait until October when the contract expires and cancel EVERYTHING and move to someone one else.

Which I will!

Watch FOX News or Else!

 I was sent the above graphic that advocates a certain point of view. One which enforces the belief that those who watch Fox News viewers are not only not-smart, but paranoid, and confused. Their tag line says Fair and Balanced. Yet, to be balanced would they have to be extremely right wing by their repeated condemnation of the mainstream drive-by media as being left wing and in the pocket of liberals? To regain some credibility and to be logical would this necessitate FOX News to  remove the word fair as well? It seems FOX News has no interest in promoting a fair and balanced news source. The motivations are clearly to offer substitute news for a specific consumer much in the same way thatMSNBC does with its own newsertainment programming such as Rachel Maddow. Yet, does MSNBC pretend to be something it is not? No. Since FOX News demonstrativelyis so intellectually inconsistent is own tag line, how can a reasonable person put this in perspective?  One idea is to read, listen, and watch a variety of sources. Just like socialism is bad because it eradicates choice and options in favor of monopolies which otherwise could not be competitive. Those who consume FOX News exclusively may be self-imposing the equivalent of a vitamin deficiency from exclusively consuming an unbalanced diet of  only same food product. It is really easy to dismiss the FOX News viewer as under-educated, non-informed, teabagger. The issue is they do manage come together and believe otherwise.

 FOX News has elements of being anti-education, anti-science, and self deluding. Consider Mr. Glenn Beck, who's education is limited to what he chose to learn when not performing as a shock jock.  Mr. Beck suggested that an education such as his is due to the good fortune of having access to a Public Library and is the equivalent of a publicly provided secondary education, but at a much better price. He believes the books there are free. A book is a tool. Selective reading does not necessarily make one educated, nor does it allow for perspective.  I seriously doubt he was challenged to consider much that fell outside his comfort and concepts put forth not to necessarily agree with, but to at least understand. The idea of education is lost on him. The promotion of ignorance is a  terrible thing, yet, he promotes it. It allows him to form a belief based on narrow information and provide a forum to promote his belief. For example, one example that if the USA continues to expand from the center by adopting a so-called  liberal agenda, we will end up much like the former USSR or North Korea. What his education disallows for his pondering of what would happen if we moved to far to right? Where we could end up with theocracies not unlike Iran. For those of you in Rio Linda, that is 'religious' run dictatorships. He fails to discuss this aspect, does he consider himself to be unfair?  No. quite the opposite and that should scare most people.

Unsolicited Evangelicals

Below is snippets of a message I received. I am  not sure why someone would have the need to send something so provocative as well as being so intellectually dishonest. At the end of the message is what the constitution says on the matter, not anyone's particular opinion. The law.  I am glad we have something to prevent mob rule such as our constitution.

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established Orthodox churches in the colonies..

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of Interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.


How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this Country is now suddenly wrong and Unconstitutional?


Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was Built on

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or

Delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn. ..

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!



If you agree, pass this on

___________________________________________

The law disagrees. No bogus polls, just the law:


Otherwise known as the establishment clause in the First Amendment


Article [I.]


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



and this little notion from the constitution

Article. VI.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Inside Voice

While sitting in the comfy chairs at Starbucks this morning, my oldest son and I had our conversation involuntarily altered by injecting a lot of what did you say? and can you repeat? Across the room sat a lady who apparently was capable of using her inside voice to converse with her companion suddenly deemed it essential that she needed to speak loudly on her cell phone. Really loudly. It is doubtful that this person ever realizes that her speaking volume is no way associated to her hearing volume?  I was reminded of days of those nice Koss stereo headphones my less astute family members would use while attempting to talk resulting only in raising their own voice apparently for my benefit. A curious reaction to music in their own ears.  So is loud cell use an involuntary reflex of sensory bombardment or simple rude behaviour of the person perhaps presuming that no one cares about being forced to hear their side of a conversation? There may be something else. That is habit.

Often times the excitement of the conversation is driving this need to be louder than what is is considered customary or reasonable for the immediate environment. The person engaged in this one half of conversation is unaware of their action because the other half of the conversation is not there to provide real time visual feedback.  Since cell phone technology is digital, it does not make the signal any better if you are almost yelling or holding it like Captain Kirk talking but without the ability to hear. A bad connection full of incomplete words cannot be remedied by this technique.

Maybe the solution to break this bad habit for the benefit of everyone in earshot is to simply look at the person and clue the clueless by your sudden notice. If that fails, there is always the option to relocate your conversation to their proximity, increase your own volume, and work in the subject of human behaviour and civility. Of course, one could get up and just walk away. But why impact yourself unnecessarily from the burden imposed by others?  One could ask who are you to do this to just confront a social bully? Well, Captain Kirk would argue Who do I have to be? I think the key to civility is expectations and managing these appropriately.  If the offender get mad, you can always say, What? in your loudest non-yell voice.

Of course, you could end up with hot coffee in your face if you live in Brooklyn for making such demands on a person, so there are risks. Ah...stereotypes and archetypes. Where would we be without them!

A New Standard in Bias

I came across the headline of the pending changes to the Texas educational standards and ended up frustrated, mad and confused. All this had to be an exaggeration, conjecture, or something I just misunderstood. The simple fact is, the absurdity is understated. A quick reading of the actual draft left me perplexed and concerned. A more careful read made me angry. The neat thing about a draft is the changes and evolution of the document just pop out leaving little to imagination about the intent of the author.

Read the draft HERE.


So these non-educated, non-historians, nonsensical board members have done their work. It's quite interesting to see how their thoughts come together. What they decide to leave in, what they decide to leave out speaks volumes. Their choice of words speak much as well as the context which they are used. Words such as imperialism, expansionism, and aggression are used with deliberation.


What is driving all this? Members of board would suggest their objective was to move things to the center from the left. The center? What about historical facts? Apparently the impact of the telegraph or vaccines is considered left wing. One could ask if Bill Clinton's sex scandal truly warrants to be considered an incident or scandal, as the draft revision puts it, but there is no mention of Oliver North and Ronald Reagan's involvement with the Iran-Contra affair. The former being incorrectly characterized as an impeachment, when it was technically did not ever make to a senate vote and the latter being technically high treason. If you read the draft you may consider the implications on how New Deal creations like the FDIC and the SEC affect your daily life, but the Patriot Act simply has a role in your life. It does not get the same suggested concern and is made to sound more benign than the SEC or the FDIC? The board believes George Wallace worthy of discussion but Thomas Jefferson is removed as not being relevant to enlightenment? We cannot reasonably expect that any person has zero bias, but what is so extraordinary here is that the bias is so blatant.



Below is my imagined meeting notes:

• Refer to it as Bill Clinton's impeachment as if it were fact. But as far as any other incidents similar to this - make that scandals - leave it to just Watergate and Teapot Dome. Let's leave the names out. For crying out loud, do not refer to the Iran-Contra affair, ever!
  
• McCarthy was vindicated by history. We have some letters to prove it, even though we still cannot find the names he was naming as those papers were blank sheets. So what if the reality of his committee was a witch hunt. The ends do justify the means and there were at least a couple of spies. Understood?
  
• Some unnamed groups in the 1960s simply wanted to keep the "status quo" on civil rights. That's all. Nothing wrong with the status quo. No need for specifics on events, who these groups are, or even what that really means. It is not racism. It's the status quo and emphasise that change is scary.
  
• Geography and geographic factors are to INCLUDE Panama Canal and the failed levies in New Orleans. Really. these are geographical. The dust bowl and great plains are geographical as well. Even though it was likely I was taught only the great plains were 'geographical'. The canal and levies were 'made' constructs, but so what. The Dust Bowl was just an era of bad climate and bad policy of ripping of topsoil and god knows we cannot bring up bad farm policies or admit the effects of climate change.
  
• When it comes to society and resources, let's remove the notion of conservation. Instead, let's ONLY talk about the Fed taking your property. Really! Teddy Roosevelt was wrong to do this stuff.
  
• Rock and Roll is the term used in describing mainstream pop culture along with some other forms of music such as country and western. I know its not 1955 people, but quite frankly I don't care. Let's not bring up jazz or any great American composers though as their influence must be minimal. But at the same time, let's study 'some literature' but let's remove anything specific on Grapes of Wrath and such. Maybe Grapes is covered in geography when discussing the Dust Bowl?
  
• Upton Sinclair's The Jungle need not be considered any more. It might make people question their food supply once again. Just do not talk about it and no one will even consider how the food gets there. Whatever you do, no references to George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984.
  
• America's expansion no longer refers to America actually increasing its size or expanding through immigration and acquisition of territory. It refers to external threats such as Hawaii, Guam, and Cuba.
  
• Social Darwinism? Is that what we renamed Evolutionary Psychology? Well, let's talk about this in the context of Prohibition, Red Scare, race relations, and the changing roles of females. I do not exactly understand what it is meant by Social Darwinism in the context with the others subjects, but I'll make something up as it sounds really good.
  
• Please refer to the Battle of Midway as an 'issue' in WWII. Consider contextual discussion as Holocaust and Japanese Internment 'issues'. We'll discuss 'military events' such as the Bataan Death March, the invasion of Normandy, and 'military advancement' in another section. Make sure there is nothing too provocative that may suggest or interferes with us be portrayed as the protagonist.
  
• Use the term home front when referring to the US in WWII. I had no idea the Germans and Japanese had standing armies here. Must have been how New Braunfel's was founded. Really, though - it sounds a lot better than suggesting we exclusively went off to war some 'place' no one today can even find on a map. The last thing we need is the kids thinking globally.
  
• Was it American Indian Code Talkers? I am not sure on this. I will leave it there and we'll fix it later when we get our story straight on how we want this topic discussed, if at all.
  
  
• The US expanded after WWII. The USSR was the aggressor. They did not expand. Get it? By the way, make sure you talk about JFK's role in the Cuban Missile thing. He is to be referenced by name. Other events post WWII? We'll just talk about some of the events, no need to get into names here. I am sure there were reasons, but let's keep it consistent with our narrative? OK?
  


• There is the USA and there are other Foreign countries. Not other countries. Other sovereign nations can only be sovereign if we set up the regime so they fall in line and will NEVER give us issues. Let's be honest here, why would we would ever get involved if they were sovereign to begin with? Maybe if they had oil, gold, or diamonds, but I would have some doubts. Let's take the time to make this clear, righteous sounding, and simple. Never mind if sounds a little ominous, these kids won't appreciate the nuance and might help with recruitment.
  
  
• Don't forget the Social Gospel. We'll discuss this one in detail later at our meeting on wedge issues to fight those sciency people by teaching the controversy. Maybe we can mix in to discussion on urbanisation or some social discussion on intelligent design?

Also, a hat tip the folks who managed to get military oriented short films in the elementary schools as well as visits to the elementary school by currently surviving service personnel on leave. Without any expectation of our wars ending or a clear purpose there is little point in wasting a decade or so before we hit the high school students with marketing 'service' as their best option. It is not like the standards we are setting will prepare anyone for college or the job market. A decade ago I would not have imagined we'd have such material as this available to our youngest students. Well done!


All the above notes could be true!

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113