Category Archives: Liberating Thoughts

Dinner Party

I was listening to the Thomas Jefferson Hour this past weekend and the question was asked about what four people Thomas Jefferson would have for a dinner party. The select party was Isaac Newton, John Locke, Francis Bacon and Maria Cosway. An interesting group to be sure.

That leads me to wonder who I might invite. I think I will start with a longer list and then try to trim it down.

    Plato
    Socrates
    Confucius
    Eleanor of Aquitaine
    I Newton
    F Bacon
    J Locke
    T Jefferson
    M Twain
    C Darwin
    A Huxley
    GB Shaw
    J Maxwell
    A Einstein
    O Wilde
    T Roosevelt
    E Roosevelt
    B Cosby
    B Fuller
    F Nietzsche
    FL Wright
    HG Wells
    Cleopatra
    Hammurabi
    Sun-Tsu
    L Da Vinci
    C Sagan
    I Asimov
    D Parker

Start a list like this and there is always someone else bubbling to the top. Time to stop it and trim

Whose Economic Policies Work Best?!?

Personally, I consider the National Debt to be the greatest threat to the future well-being of the United States. Followed closely by deficit spending. Given the economic news of the past week, with the Federal Government doing its best to socialize losses, I expect the debt will continue to grow. (Did you know the National Debt is about to hit $10 Trillion? That’s Trillion, with a Tr.)

Avedon compiled a review of past administration economic results that Dwight Meredith studied “Just For the Record” – covering 1962-2001.

The link has some specific numbers and links to other interesting pages.

A bit of Summary:
Continue reading Whose Economic Policies Work Best?!?

Trying to make history : AFA professor eyes run for Lamborn’s U.S. House seat

Trying to make history : AFA professor eyes run for Lamborn’s U.S. House seat : Local News : Local News : Colorado Springs Independent : Colorado Springs.

I had a chance to meet Hal last night. He is a very engaging speaker – recounting his adventures up at the DNC in Denver. And he has some good ideas on what Congress needs to be working on, check out his web site

It’s the Alexander Hamilton bit that worries me…I tend to be more Jeffersonian…

Reflections on the Fourth:

I have sort of half been paying attention to the buzz going around this year on the pending elections. The Nominees have been determined and now each side is looking for a VP that will make a difference.

I saw a reposting of a Washington Post piece on the allegiance of a patriot an American. It does well to capture what I think of as the base ideals of America, ideals that are run over roughshod in the current political climate.

I see that Clark made a statement that being a war hero, to have made a large personal sacrifice for your country, does not mean that you are qualified to be commander-in-chief. I also heard the follow-up – that reaching the strategic command level begins to reach the level of qualification Clark was referring to. Clark was lambasted for dissing McCain, which he wasn’t doing. And McCain’s people can’t say that just because McCain has made great personal sacrifices for his country that he is qualified to be President. Neither approach is correct; neither being a war hero nor being a strategic genius qualifies you to be the President – or Commander-in-Chief. And it is foolish to pretend it does. But, I suppose the pundits need to prattle on about something. The very thought of MacArthur as President sends shivers down my spine.

The President is a civilian authority. He, or she, has the resources of the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to call upon to review military options. That’s their job. I am afraid that too many in the current administration see the military as a foreign policy tool and since we paid so much for it, it seems kind of silly not to use it. So they invade sovereign nations that are not an eminent threat to the US or to its allies and squander billions of dollars of the US treasury and thousands of soldier’s lives. And Congress, our representatives, lets them get away with it. Why are WE letting THEM get away with it?

The President is not the King of the United States of America. Yet many seem to think of him as a king and to treat him as a king. His deciding decisions are the final authority on all matters great and small. If the President makes a decree that the pundits agree with, then it is treason to disagree with the President. (Of course, if the pundits disagree with him then he is a buffoon or a criminal.) Presidents shouldn’t make decrees; they should make suggestions, and maybe even suggest how a suggestion can be implemented, but they shouldn’t make decrees. Leave that for the idiots in Congress.

As we have observed this past Fourth, the United States of America was founded on the principle that we do not owe allegiance to one man, to one sovereign. The people are sovereign; the citizens are sovereign.

And there are natural rights that apply to all humans. These are inherent human rights that we hold to be self-evident. We started to define them in our Declaration of Independence and further refined them in our Constitution. These are natural human rights, unalienable; not just American rights. We just happened to be the first to codify these rights for all and our prosperity. It does well to ponder these rights on the Fourth, to remember where we came from and why, and to look upon our current path, and to see if we are still moving, progressing in the desired direction.

“The Four Freedoms”

The essential human freedoms don’t change over time, driven by partisan politics. They are a constant basic foundation of our social fabric.

Please don’t forget them.

American Rhetoric: Franklin D. Roosevelt — “The Four Freedoms”


In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception — the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Why?

I was down at the local Drinking Liberally meeting the other night and asked a general question of the group:

“Why should we have a government supported health care plan?”

Hillary’s health plan had just been recently announced.

I asked the question in all seriousness. I have been hearing of most of the presidential candidates proposing various versions of national heath care plans but I don’t remember hearing a discussion of the prerequisite  question: Why have national health care?

Continue reading Why?

Change

Just thinking about how to evaluate change.

First you those that aren’t going to change, no matter what. They and theirs have lived on this land forever and they ain’t going nowhere even if it has turned into a dust bowl.

Then you have some people that like where they’re at and they’d rather not move if they don’t have to, but they can see the dust bowl coming so they realize it may be time to pull up stakes.

There are those that keep an eye out for trouble on the horizon so they can get a head start to move on if need be. Are those dust storms on the horizon? Of course, sometimes those specks on the horizon aren’t trouble at all and they moved on for no good reason.

Then you have those that say we’ve been here for a while, we’ve seen what there is to see here, let’s pack up and move over the hill and see what’s there.  Doesn’t matter if the dust bowl is coming or not. It’s just time to move on.

Finally there are those that have never settled down and are forever jumping from one spot to another.  They will be completely oblivious to a dust bowl. For them, there is no change becasue there is nothing to change from.

Hmm, don’t know if I can go anywhere with this.  Need to think some more.

AT&T Silences Pearl Jam

AT&T Silences Pearl Jam; Gives ‘Net Neutrality’ Proponents Ammunition – Forbes.com

Almost perfect because what happened here was the act of AT&T as a content provider bleeping out content it was sponsoring and delivering—not depriving people of content someone else wanted delivered. (Yes, I know, if AT&T would do that to one of its own shows, just imagine … )

Carriers really shouldn’t be trying to bleep content.