I have spent some time downloading close to a terabyte of mp3 music, new age, from the Usenet portion of the Internet. I watch what others post, obviously, and interpret the “general rules for posting,” uploading, for when I plan on “sharing” my collection. I have found, during this time, that there are artists and titles I have in my collection that were not posted, and feel confident that I will not post duplicates.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumble, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection. Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how the others are terrible and need fixing. I draw the line at when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and what to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be the same. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy them selves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, that they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how the others ought to be. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect, it is the other kind that needs fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this subject with those of the other kind they get offended to the suggestion that those alike and I want to be left alone. I have been told that I must think I am better than they are because their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy not islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the Constitution.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Christianity, Cain, and Government
From the beginning of human history some individuals are born with the predisposition to discount others in their humanity. How the characteristics of this attitude are recognized is by the perpetrator’s dismissal of the importance of individualism. The name of the attitude is grounded mostly in pride, but other facets of this attitude are also found in arrogance.
Those individuals who discount other’s humanity do so without knowing this fact. It is natural for them to treat others as insignificant. When confronted with their attitude some are humbled and transcend their behavior with repentance. These are real Christians that follow the guide of Jesus’ philosophy, which they see in themselves what others see. Those who do not repent of this character flaw are the epitome.
Christianity is not only a religion, but also mostly a philosophy of living life as God would live it. Because Jesus’ life was, and is, the reflection of God, the Bible is the very word that was spoken throughout the spectrum of human history.
Cain was the first prototype of a human being. Adam and Eve were created from dust of the ground, but Cain was created from birth of the first human beings. Cain was also the first human being to act upon the attitude of dismissing other’s humanity. Able became the casualty of Cain’s attitude of dismissal. Cain saw in himself as being more important than Able. Cain found in Able approval where disapproval was festering in Cain.
Christianity should be teaching through philosophy the guidance of Jesus’ life that all humans are equal in each individual’s humanity. When so called Christians discount the individual, he then is committing the same act that Cain foisted upon Able. Christianity that is found in the halls of modern churches is not teaching this destructible facet of human behavior because the real Christianity is not easily found.
There are those who have in abundance this type of attitude who hold government office. Furthering a focus of governmental office holders is found declaring themselves as Christian and outright discounting some of their constituents. Reverend Jackson is a name that comes to mind that exemplifies this type of attitude. These individuals are recommitting Cain’s act. Instead of substantiating the humanity in all individuals, they only entertain the constituents who substantiate them. The American government was not originally designed in this way, it is quite the other way around.
Therefore, ideas have consequences, and the idea that those who seem to have disrupting opinions and ideas are really treating everyone’s humanity in equality. It is those who discount ideas that are seemingly disruptive who are murderers of humanity.
Those individuals who discount other’s humanity do so without knowing this fact. It is natural for them to treat others as insignificant. When confronted with their attitude some are humbled and transcend their behavior with repentance. These are real Christians that follow the guide of Jesus’ philosophy, which they see in themselves what others see. Those who do not repent of this character flaw are the epitome.
Christianity is not only a religion, but also mostly a philosophy of living life as God would live it. Because Jesus’ life was, and is, the reflection of God, the Bible is the very word that was spoken throughout the spectrum of human history.
Cain was the first prototype of a human being. Adam and Eve were created from dust of the ground, but Cain was created from birth of the first human beings. Cain was also the first human being to act upon the attitude of dismissing other’s humanity. Able became the casualty of Cain’s attitude of dismissal. Cain saw in himself as being more important than Able. Cain found in Able approval where disapproval was festering in Cain.
Christianity should be teaching through philosophy the guidance of Jesus’ life that all humans are equal in each individual’s humanity. When so called Christians discount the individual, he then is committing the same act that Cain foisted upon Able. Christianity that is found in the halls of modern churches is not teaching this destructible facet of human behavior because the real Christianity is not easily found.
There are those who have in abundance this type of attitude who hold government office. Furthering a focus of governmental office holders is found declaring themselves as Christian and outright discounting some of their constituents. Reverend Jackson is a name that comes to mind that exemplifies this type of attitude. These individuals are recommitting Cain’s act. Instead of substantiating the humanity in all individuals, they only entertain the constituents who substantiate them. The American government was not originally designed in this way, it is quite the other way around.
Therefore, ideas have consequences, and the idea that those who seem to have disrupting opinions and ideas are really treating everyone’s humanity in equality. It is those who discount ideas that are seemingly disruptive who are murderers of humanity.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The World of Music, its Listeners, and in Between
From the first album I purchased, the Beatles White album, I have been listening to music ever since, and I believe I have an ear for good music; for me. To quantify “good” I don’t mean that all music is good for listening. Good music for listening moves the soul, something about good music that reaches inward and moves the soul to reflect. As far back as I can remember I was drawn to music just because of its effect of my emotion. I tried to learn to play musical instruments, guitar and piano, but never could develop a satisfactory ability.
Even though I started listening to rock ‘n roll I have been yearning and searching for different genre of music for the pleasure of listening. Not to replace rock ‘n roll, but to expand my musical listening horizons. From the Beatles, late 1968-9, I followed rock ‘n roll to a new genre of rock called New Wave when it began in the late 1970s then migrated into the early 1980s. For those who don’t know what new wave bands were it presented itself as an evolving, or morphing, of rock ‘n roll. I then discovered new age in the 1990s.
The first album I found was “The Waiting” by Peter Buffett. He recorded his music on the disk label Narada. Narada produced compilation albums that were really never heard decades before. If the idea of compilation albums were utilized when I first started listening to music there would have been single tracks from the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Spirit all on one album.
What my argument here is trying to accomplish is, at least here in America, the exposure to music of all kinds does not have the avenue for individuals like myself to explore. I base this argument on the fact that I can go to any music store and find only a tiny fraction of the music I have discovered through the Internet, and the tracks were free of charge. Albeit I had to pay for the subscription to the Internet via cable company, but nevertheless it is striking that the wide variety of music is not channeled to potential customers correctly here in America.
The reason for what is happening in the American music industry in the past and today is that individuals who are in charge of controlling the music proliferation my analysis came down to the argument that they are reaping profits at the expense of variety. Instead of buying a compilation album at a cheaper price for experimenting in the music genres, customers are forced, through tight controls of proliferation, to buy full albums for more money, in return getting less in value.
The music industry of America is the culprit for the black market CD piracy. The reason for any black market to be in existence is because of the demand. When those who want another avenue for music to proliferate, and the music industry does not follow this demand, there will be those that migrate to the black market to get it. It is sad to say I have satisfied my music collection only by searching the Usenet News Groups, which I have found to be larger than the music industry. They are loosing out of profits by ignoring the demand.
Even though I started listening to rock ‘n roll I have been yearning and searching for different genre of music for the pleasure of listening. Not to replace rock ‘n roll, but to expand my musical listening horizons. From the Beatles, late 1968-9, I followed rock ‘n roll to a new genre of rock called New Wave when it began in the late 1970s then migrated into the early 1980s. For those who don’t know what new wave bands were it presented itself as an evolving, or morphing, of rock ‘n roll. I then discovered new age in the 1990s.
The first album I found was “The Waiting” by Peter Buffett. He recorded his music on the disk label Narada. Narada produced compilation albums that were really never heard decades before. If the idea of compilation albums were utilized when I first started listening to music there would have been single tracks from the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Spirit all on one album.
What my argument here is trying to accomplish is, at least here in America, the exposure to music of all kinds does not have the avenue for individuals like myself to explore. I base this argument on the fact that I can go to any music store and find only a tiny fraction of the music I have discovered through the Internet, and the tracks were free of charge. Albeit I had to pay for the subscription to the Internet via cable company, but nevertheless it is striking that the wide variety of music is not channeled to potential customers correctly here in America.
The reason for what is happening in the American music industry in the past and today is that individuals who are in charge of controlling the music proliferation my analysis came down to the argument that they are reaping profits at the expense of variety. Instead of buying a compilation album at a cheaper price for experimenting in the music genres, customers are forced, through tight controls of proliferation, to buy full albums for more money, in return getting less in value.
The music industry of America is the culprit for the black market CD piracy. The reason for any black market to be in existence is because of the demand. When those who want another avenue for music to proliferate, and the music industry does not follow this demand, there will be those that migrate to the black market to get it. It is sad to say I have satisfied my music collection only by searching the Usenet News Groups, which I have found to be larger than the music industry. They are loosing out of profits by ignoring the demand.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Why Liberals are Murderers in Their Philosophy
As in chess, and other games, but it is not limited to the play of games, there is always a winner and a loser in the battle of how these games are played. In the Liberal thought camp everything, including opinions, is considered equal. At least this is what liberal’s desire and that is for the world to evolve to a level where there are no losers, and of course no winners. Everything’s equal so that there are no conflicts. A conflict, for liberals, is evil.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
In games a natural consequence is conflict. One side holds secure a win through a belief system. The other side, offensively or defensively, responds equally. When rules of the game are respected and strictly followed, a side will be victorious. For the liberal anticipation is nonexistent. When rules of the game are known and applied equally another aspect to game playing is anticipation.
Conflict and anticipation are natural occurrences when opposing parties are engaged in game playing. Both sides anticipate what levels of skill are to be employed to secure a victorious outcome. Another facet that occurs in the play of games is obviously consequences. When conflict is applied to the play of games, and anticipation is utilized, judgments are decided upon. Consequences, positive and negative, are the natural result of conflict.
The application of anticipation (judgments), and the respect of rules, will always produce consequences. This is the part of the rule of life that the liberals choose to ignore (most are oblivious to it), they do not want the anticipation of consequences to be in existence. The desire for positive outcomes during game conflict is as natural as the sun rising in the east. Making decisions is the process of anticipating positive consequences to game conflict. This confuses liberals and therefore is considered evil.
An example of a liberal thought process is as follows: if an individual wants the latest technological advanced vehicle sacrifices future purchases due to the present desire. If that individual then anticipates that future purchases are more important than the latest technological vehicle is judging upon the consequences of the conflict, new vehicle or future purchases. To the liberal the conflict is evil therefore is discounted. To the liberal purchase the vehicle now then deal with the future purchases later. When time evolves to the present and purchases are needed, but cannot due to the past purchase of the vehicle then something else other than the past judgment is the cause of the present conflict.
The analysis of the liberal thought is that consequences confuse their desire for the world to be equal in all things. A consequence, to the liberal, is tied directly to conflict, which is evil. So, to the liberal anticipation, or judgment, is not to be employed because it is against (evil) their outlook on the world. Judging and equality are two opposites of the philosophical spectrum to the liberal.
This is why the liberals are wrong and this type of philosophy needs to be eradicated. This philosophical outlook on the world kills people. As in my other installment, liberalism murders humans. Reality of this world is that everything is a play of games. With no anticipation of consequences to the application of strategy to the rules of the game, surely there are only losers and no winners. Liberalism must be shown its “evilness” and be sure to steer away from it.
Liberalism is trying to think emotionally, which is an oxymoron. Emotion is not thinking, and when an opposing side of a game is feeling it will surely lose the game of life.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The Idea of Atruism as an Ideal
What seems to permeate the minds of most Americans today, and the rest of the world, is altruism as the goal. Altruism, for the most part, is accepted as something to be desirably achieved in the life of the world’s populous, and developed towards fellow human beings. It is one aspect of human compassion that can be measured. It culminates its reality in the actions of humans towards others in a number of ways. I will address three of many examples.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
The World of CD Ripping and Usenet
Anyone who reads this post I would like to introduce an aspect of CD ripping and sharing of mp3 files on Usenet. This article is intended for those that may not know about CD ripping, so, if you do know about this subject this most likely will bore you.
Specifically, I am referring to world of CD ripping and those who are involved.
If you don’t know what CD ripping is, the best description is digitally "recording" tracks from a music CD album, thereby changing the CD track's digital audio format. The music CD track's file extension is most likely "CDA," for CD Audio when looking at the CD's file directory in, for example, Windows.
For example it may look like:
All types of CD players can interpret the “CDA” file format. The format of the CDA file contains pure digital values, much like WAV files found on most computer systems. The simple sound recorder that is installed with MS Windows is a WAV recorder. Every bit of sound is represented digitally in a WAV and CDA file format.
There are other files with formats that most computer users know as "mp3." MP3 formatted files are compressed, and therefore needs a decoder program to play/hear the music file. There are some portable car CD players that can recognize "mp3" formatted music files. Of course, there are other audio file formats such as AAC, FLAC, and OGG to name a few. Specific computer programs can interpret these file formats, or specific hardware players can also interpret these types of formats. For example, the Apple iPod player can play different file formats.
The argument for the many different audio-file formats boils down to preference, general acceptability, and file compression (storage area concerns). The “CDA” format is widely acceptable (and the preference matches), but file sizes can be very large, i.e., a typical CD album is one big file totaling 700mbytes, or more. If one wanted to store a CD collection on a computer hard drive there would not be a lot of space for a large collection. As a typical CD album having 700mbytes, 300 more would be one gigabyte. Average hard drive sizes is ~80 gigabytes (and larger as time goes). That means with all the other software files loaded onto a computer not many albums could be saved to hard drive. Compression ratios of audio file formats vary. WAV files are comparable to CD files in size. MP3 are widely acceptable and can be variably compressed (more about this later) as much as one tenth of a CDA file and WAV files. AAC, WMA and OGG follows MP3 format by acceptability and compression ratios.
There is a growing acceptance of an audio-file format called FLAC, Free Lossless Audio Codec. Unlike the FLAC format, MP3 is “lossy,” as in loss-ee, in its fidelity, but FLAC is lossless. Which brings up the argument between the MP3 crowd and this new format, and a reason for this journal installment. The point I am making isn’t arguing for or against any particular file format, but instead arguing against the attitudes of some individuals who favorably view these different file formats over others.
The attitude of some MP3ers who are partial to the MP3 format can be described having disdain towards those who may not favor the MP3 format for whatever reason, and visa versa. Focusing on my point further is that within the MP3 crowd there is even more of disdain towards those who may have a favor towards a higher compression ratio, i.e., smaller file sizes.
I should now define what is meant by the variable compressions of MP3 file formats. I will try to stay away from technical abstracts. To create MP3 files computer programs interpret, or “record,” CDA track digital values then compress, or subtract redundant digital values based upon a listening (hearing) model.
As a side bar, digital images use the same concept in file compression, i.e., JPEGs. Movie files with an extension of MPG also uses compression schemes. Dish Network broadcasts their signal in the MPG2 compression scheme, the unit that sends the signal to your TV set interprets the MPG2 scheme from the dish receiver.
The “subtraction,” or the compression ratio, is partially the fidelity information of the CDA track. When players decode MP3 formatted files back into the CDA, or specifically WAV, original to be played, and because of the subtraction process, the resulting decode is not exactly like the original CDA. Therefore, MP3s are known as “near” CD quality.
Next, MP3 coding by computer programs have the ability to vary the compression ratio, either manually choosing one of various choices, or the program will vary the compression ratio automatically. The recording process incorporates what is known as sampling and recording frequency. The higher the recording frequency and the sampling rate the better the playback fidelity, or moves closer to CD quality. What is sacrificed in the coding process is file size. The higher the frequency and sampling the bigger the file size. Sampling rates start from 16 bits and ranges to 320,000 (320k) bits per second. It is said that 160k or 192k bit sampling rate is equivalent to CD quality. The higher rates qualify at studio quality.
The FLAC crowd, then, has the argument that if a bigger file size is needed for saving fidelity, then keep the fidelity yet compress the file size, and in the process why keep MP3 formats.
To reiterate, I am not arguing for or against a particular coding format. What I am arguing against is the attitude of some individuals who look down upon those that prefer the smaller file size of MP3s due to storage constraints. Yes, some MP3ers disdain other MP3ers who favor smaller file size for better storage ability. Why? It is the fidelity issue of recording, or ripping, of a CD that irritates some against others when recording at smaller sampling rates and then share them in the Usenet. Again, why? When “sharing” MP3 with others using the Usenet, some individuals will tag (replying to a post) with “WARNING, DO NOT DOWNLOAD… 128s” in the re: subject line. Somehow they get the satisfaction of warning their fellow Usenet mates that certain files for downloading are "inferior" in quality.
“128” is referring to the sampling rate of the MP3 coding process. When I mentioned that MP3s are known as “near” CD quality, most MP3s are recorded at 128kbps for the file size attraction. In other words there are those who claim they can determine/hear the difference between a file that has been recorded at a sampling rate of 128kbps and a file that has been sampled at higher rates. My argument, again, isn’t towards any one file size or format, I am arguing that those who prefer the higher sampling rate of MP3 recordings need to keep their hands off postings of files that are recorded at the lower rate. Specifically, I am saying that it isn't any of their business what files are of any specific sampling rate. If files are found to have "inferior" quality sampling rates then don't down load them, plain and simple.
Let me put my argument in another term. (Knowing there are international members, please forgive me if you do not know the geographical region of the US).
If I drove from Orange County, Ca. to Adams County, Co., it can be said without distortion of facts that I drove from L.A., Ca. to Denver, Co. Those that favor higher sampling rates will disagree with the human hearing differences between a MP3 file of 128k sampling and a file with a 192k sampling. I am arguing the point that there is not enough differences between the two to harbor the kind of disdain attitude. This attitude is not normal and need to steer away in a different direction.
Continuing, my contention is that any posting is property, a free flea market, if you will. These posted files have ownership. This argument cannot be ignored or waved off as unimportant. A poster is sharing THEIR files, it is THEIR property, with whoever wants to download them. The disdain of some that feel they have the right to “mark” posts as unfavorable is essentially “spray painting” posters property. Instead of having a favorable liking of files that have a higher sampling rate, they are instead criminal “taggers.”
Here is the rub of the issue. Some, maybe allot, do not have high speed (DSL and cable modem) Internet provider. Therefore, those, the "taggers," who do not have high speed internet, also who disdain 128s, are irritated over those who post them and don't inform potential downloaders, in the subject line or with a NFO file, what sampling rates the MP3s are in. So, when one downloads and finds out it is "inferior" there is hell to pay for them spending time downloading "crap." They rationalize "tagging" for their wasted time in downloading.
It is too bad that they feel, or think, that way. An arguer once told me in the signature part of his post that those who think of themselves as normal are in fact delusional. In other words, if normal why change. I say they see themselves as normal, which applies to them, also.
Specifically, I am referring to world of CD ripping and those who are involved.
If you don’t know what CD ripping is, the best description is digitally "recording" tracks from a music CD album, thereby changing the CD track's digital audio format. The music CD track's file extension is most likely "CDA," for CD Audio when looking at the CD's file directory in, for example, Windows.
For example it may look like:
track01.cda
All types of CD players can interpret the “CDA” file format. The format of the CDA file contains pure digital values, much like WAV files found on most computer systems. The simple sound recorder that is installed with MS Windows is a WAV recorder. Every bit of sound is represented digitally in a WAV and CDA file format.
There are other files with formats that most computer users know as "mp3." MP3 formatted files are compressed, and therefore needs a decoder program to play/hear the music file. There are some portable car CD players that can recognize "mp3" formatted music files. Of course, there are other audio file formats such as AAC, FLAC, and OGG to name a few. Specific computer programs can interpret these file formats, or specific hardware players can also interpret these types of formats. For example, the Apple iPod player can play different file formats.
The argument for the many different audio-file formats boils down to preference, general acceptability, and file compression (storage area concerns). The “CDA” format is widely acceptable (and the preference matches), but file sizes can be very large, i.e., a typical CD album is one big file totaling 700mbytes, or more. If one wanted to store a CD collection on a computer hard drive there would not be a lot of space for a large collection. As a typical CD album having 700mbytes, 300 more would be one gigabyte. Average hard drive sizes is ~80 gigabytes (and larger as time goes). That means with all the other software files loaded onto a computer not many albums could be saved to hard drive. Compression ratios of audio file formats vary. WAV files are comparable to CD files in size. MP3 are widely acceptable and can be variably compressed (more about this later) as much as one tenth of a CDA file and WAV files. AAC, WMA and OGG follows MP3 format by acceptability and compression ratios.
There is a growing acceptance of an audio-file format called FLAC, Free Lossless Audio Codec. Unlike the FLAC format, MP3 is “lossy,” as in loss-ee, in its fidelity, but FLAC is lossless. Which brings up the argument between the MP3 crowd and this new format, and a reason for this journal installment. The point I am making isn’t arguing for or against any particular file format, but instead arguing against the attitudes of some individuals who favorably view these different file formats over others.
The attitude of some MP3ers who are partial to the MP3 format can be described having disdain towards those who may not favor the MP3 format for whatever reason, and visa versa. Focusing on my point further is that within the MP3 crowd there is even more of disdain towards those who may have a favor towards a higher compression ratio, i.e., smaller file sizes.
I should now define what is meant by the variable compressions of MP3 file formats. I will try to stay away from technical abstracts. To create MP3 files computer programs interpret, or “record,” CDA track digital values then compress, or subtract redundant digital values based upon a listening (hearing) model.
As a side bar, digital images use the same concept in file compression, i.e., JPEGs. Movie files with an extension of MPG also uses compression schemes. Dish Network broadcasts their signal in the MPG2 compression scheme, the unit that sends the signal to your TV set interprets the MPG2 scheme from the dish receiver.
The “subtraction,” or the compression ratio, is partially the fidelity information of the CDA track. When players decode MP3 formatted files back into the CDA, or specifically WAV, original to be played, and because of the subtraction process, the resulting decode is not exactly like the original CDA. Therefore, MP3s are known as “near” CD quality.
Next, MP3 coding by computer programs have the ability to vary the compression ratio, either manually choosing one of various choices, or the program will vary the compression ratio automatically. The recording process incorporates what is known as sampling and recording frequency. The higher the recording frequency and the sampling rate the better the playback fidelity, or moves closer to CD quality. What is sacrificed in the coding process is file size. The higher the frequency and sampling the bigger the file size. Sampling rates start from 16 bits and ranges to 320,000 (320k) bits per second. It is said that 160k or 192k bit sampling rate is equivalent to CD quality. The higher rates qualify at studio quality.
The FLAC crowd, then, has the argument that if a bigger file size is needed for saving fidelity, then keep the fidelity yet compress the file size, and in the process why keep MP3 formats.
To reiterate, I am not arguing for or against a particular coding format. What I am arguing against is the attitude of some individuals who look down upon those that prefer the smaller file size of MP3s due to storage constraints. Yes, some MP3ers disdain other MP3ers who favor smaller file size for better storage ability. Why? It is the fidelity issue of recording, or ripping, of a CD that irritates some against others when recording at smaller sampling rates and then share them in the Usenet. Again, why? When “sharing” MP3 with others using the Usenet, some individuals will tag (replying to a post) with “WARNING, DO NOT DOWNLOAD… 128s” in the re: subject line. Somehow they get the satisfaction of warning their fellow Usenet mates that certain files for downloading are "inferior" in quality.
“128” is referring to the sampling rate of the MP3 coding process. When I mentioned that MP3s are known as “near” CD quality, most MP3s are recorded at 128kbps for the file size attraction. In other words there are those who claim they can determine/hear the difference between a file that has been recorded at a sampling rate of 128kbps and a file that has been sampled at higher rates. My argument, again, isn’t towards any one file size or format, I am arguing that those who prefer the higher sampling rate of MP3 recordings need to keep their hands off postings of files that are recorded at the lower rate. Specifically, I am saying that it isn't any of their business what files are of any specific sampling rate. If files are found to have "inferior" quality sampling rates then don't down load them, plain and simple.
Let me put my argument in another term. (Knowing there are international members, please forgive me if you do not know the geographical region of the US).
If I drove from Orange County, Ca. to Adams County, Co., it can be said without distortion of facts that I drove from L.A., Ca. to Denver, Co. Those that favor higher sampling rates will disagree with the human hearing differences between a MP3 file of 128k sampling and a file with a 192k sampling. I am arguing the point that there is not enough differences between the two to harbor the kind of disdain attitude. This attitude is not normal and need to steer away in a different direction.
Continuing, my contention is that any posting is property, a free flea market, if you will. These posted files have ownership. This argument cannot be ignored or waved off as unimportant. A poster is sharing THEIR files, it is THEIR property, with whoever wants to download them. The disdain of some that feel they have the right to “mark” posts as unfavorable is essentially “spray painting” posters property. Instead of having a favorable liking of files that have a higher sampling rate, they are instead criminal “taggers.”
Here is the rub of the issue. Some, maybe allot, do not have high speed (DSL and cable modem) Internet provider. Therefore, those, the "taggers," who do not have high speed internet, also who disdain 128s, are irritated over those who post them and don't inform potential downloaders, in the subject line or with a NFO file, what sampling rates the MP3s are in. So, when one downloads and finds out it is "inferior" there is hell to pay for them spending time downloading "crap." They rationalize "tagging" for their wasted time in downloading.
It is too bad that they feel, or think, that way. An arguer once told me in the signature part of his post that those who think of themselves as normal are in fact delusional. In other words, if normal why change. I say they see themselves as normal, which applies to them, also.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
People of a Different Mentality
I have spent a lot of time downloading close to a terabyte of mp3 new age music via the internet's Usenet. I observe what others post, and interpret the “general rules for posting,” uploading, for when I plan on “sharing” my collection. I have found, during this time, that there are artists and titles I have in my collection that were not posted, and feel confident that I will not post duplicates.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people, and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumbling, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection (see Christianity, Cain, and Government). Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how others have terrible characters, and need fixing. I draw the line when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and want to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be who they think they are. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy themselves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, believe they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how others are to behave. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect. To them it is others that need fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this idea with those of that other kind they become offended to the suggestion that those alike, and I, want to be left alone in our imperfection. I have been told that I must think I am better than they because of their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy, and not individual human islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Since I am sensitive to the political side of people, and their relationships accordingly, I still find myself stumbling, face first, into being irritated by some, who either think or feel, they are human-kind’s savior to perfection (see Christianity, Cain, and Government). Mind you, I couldn’t care less if they preach all they want into how others have terrible characters, and need fixing. I draw the line when they actually use any kind of power to accomplish their goal.
This brings me to the title of this installment. There are two kinds of people, those that view others as goofs and need to be perfected, and those that don’t care if they are not perfect and want to be left alone. I am in the second group of people. I’ll go even further to state that I will go out of my way to let others be who they think they are. I cannot fathom the desire of the other kind to actually busy themselves into planning governmental policies to carry out their goal to perfect society into their sense of divine social behavior.
They may not know it, but some actually do, believe they actually sit in God’s chair and order human behavior according to how they understand how others are to behave. They will deny it, but they view themselves as being perfect. To them it is others that need fixing. You may even say to yourself, at this point, I am being like them wanting to fix them. Not entirely true, although I do understand where that thought comes from. What is different is that all I want is to be left alone in my imperfection. What I want fixing is the apparatus, the kind of government our found fathers built, which they have contaminated, to infect me, and the like, with their brand of perfection.
When discussing this idea with those of that other kind they become offended to the suggestion that those alike, and I, want to be left alone in our imperfection. I have been told that I must think I am better than they because of their rhetoric in response communicates that “we” are in this together, and that this is a democracy, and not individual human islands. Of course they haven’t the foggiest idea that this country isn’t a democracy, but instead a republic. Hence, there are arenas, or areas, of this free society that are off limits, and they are numerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Principles of Society
The liberal left has attacked the premise that the Constitution of the U.S. does not allow for the acknowledgement of any religion within the operational confines of this country’s government. Of course this notion is completely false, and the liberal left knows this to be true. So, the question then is what is the unspoken agenda that the liberal left harbors to its collective chest. The conservative opposition to this idea can only be speculated upon and leave the defense to the liberal left. What they do not verbalize within their obnoxious rhetoric is that they do not want the religious Christians and Christian politicians to enter in governmental debates. In other words what they contend silently is that they are the only philosophical apparatus to formulate government laws and policies. The pathology of the notion that government laws and policies should be deliberated without involving religion is preposterous.
Society in general, and especially a free U.S. society, operates on principles that philosophers, economists and, heaven forbid, politicians confer and deliberate with each other to establish laws and policies. Then government power upholds and initiates these laws and policies for citizens to conform to and modify their behavior accordingly, with consequences installed. The end result of all this quagmire is the intention that a free society will morph into a better social atmosphere for all humans to enjoy their lives.
What I just wrote has been hashed out before and is obviously not new to any intelligent reader. What I think is new is that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be eliminated from the governmental sphere. Citizens, within the confines and principles of human relationships, practice religion, whether they know it or not, since the time man became aware of himself and his surroundings. Our founding fathers saw this social religious principle and found that it could be applied in a different way from all the other societies which used it in human history. These other societies always have established religion as a part of government, and of course excluded all others. The liberal left is doing the very same thing, only excluding Christian social philosophy.
This argument then is the reason for this blog edition.
The mere fact that humans are aware of themselves and others makes all humans religious. Humans cannot eliminate religion from their existence; it is innate. There are some that would argue that since they are atheists they have no religion. Bunk. Atheism is a religion. Notice the word “belief.”
For those that have a Christian background, but not limited to them only, have asked the question what is man’s purpose on earth. Before man’s spiritual fall, humans were to live their life that God gave them. The purpose of one’s life then was to proclaim, through behavior, the character of God within man towards other humans, which had the same goal.
For God’s character to be proclaimed within the behavior of man towards other humans, negotiations ought to be conducted between men to develop a compromise. That compromise then proclaimed the character of God. Adam and Eve destroyed completely, in all humans, the capacity to behave God-like. The first result of the fall was for Cain to murder Able, so much for human negotiations and compromises ending in the culmination of the character of God. The rest of human history is man’s wrestling with other humans dictating human behavior using the power of government. Now the liberal left insists Judeo-Christian religion is to be eliminated from this process. For them to say that it will improve society?
Society in general, and especially a free U.S. society, operates on principles that philosophers, economists and, heaven forbid, politicians confer and deliberate with each other to establish laws and policies. Then government power upholds and initiates these laws and policies for citizens to conform to and modify their behavior accordingly, with consequences installed. The end result of all this quagmire is the intention that a free society will morph into a better social atmosphere for all humans to enjoy their lives.
What I just wrote has been hashed out before and is obviously not new to any intelligent reader. What I think is new is that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be eliminated from the governmental sphere. Citizens, within the confines and principles of human relationships, practice religion, whether they know it or not, since the time man became aware of himself and his surroundings. Our founding fathers saw this social religious principle and found that it could be applied in a different way from all the other societies which used it in human history. These other societies always have established religion as a part of government, and of course excluded all others. The liberal left is doing the very same thing, only excluding Christian social philosophy.
This argument then is the reason for this blog edition.
The mere fact that humans are aware of themselves and others makes all humans religious. Humans cannot eliminate religion from their existence; it is innate. There are some that would argue that since they are atheists they have no religion. Bunk. Atheism is a religion. Notice the word “belief.”
- Hindus believe in reincarnation.
- Muslims believe in Allah.
- Jews believe in man’s creator, the one God.
- Christians believe in God, who illuminated Himself throughout human history in three personalities, Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), humanly understood as in one God.
- Atheists believe no God.
For those that have a Christian background, but not limited to them only, have asked the question what is man’s purpose on earth. Before man’s spiritual fall, humans were to live their life that God gave them. The purpose of one’s life then was to proclaim, through behavior, the character of God within man towards other humans, which had the same goal.
For God’s character to be proclaimed within the behavior of man towards other humans, negotiations ought to be conducted between men to develop a compromise. That compromise then proclaimed the character of God. Adam and Eve destroyed completely, in all humans, the capacity to behave God-like. The first result of the fall was for Cain to murder Able, so much for human negotiations and compromises ending in the culmination of the character of God. The rest of human history is man’s wrestling with other humans dictating human behavior using the power of government. Now the liberal left insists Judeo-Christian religion is to be eliminated from this process. For them to say that it will improve society?
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Freedom and Oppression
The word “freedom” conjures the soul of images of social grandeur. It also is used to paint both political and religious abstract pictures. The liberal left uses the word to describe a Utopian social dream, while the conservative right conjures a social reality.
From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.
Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”
Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.
What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.
From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”
Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.
Post script:
As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.
From the political arena freedom denotes the absentee of oppression, while in religious terms it also denotes the lack of oppression. When talking and discussing the attributes of freedom one also cannot keep from discussing oppression. In simple terms the antonym of “oppression” can be construed with freedom. Strictly speaking the antonym of freedom is confinement and imprisonment. So, when discussing what freedom really means it must be applied correctly within the confines of the subject matter.
Both the liberal left and the conservative right use the word freedom within their own confines of demarcation, and both wants the use of the word to describe what either desires from the other. The liberal left wants freedom from the oppression of the conservative, really they mean the religious, right. Yet the conservative right wants freedom of the confines of taxation, for example, that the liberal left would like to impose on the so-called “rich.”
Here, I would like to dwell on the correct meaning of the word freedom. From the Christian perspective (correctly) God declared the “truth will set you free.” So, to get at the meaning of freedom one ought to know the “truth.” As this blog centers on, correct ideas vs. incorrect ideas, the idea of “truth” is paramount to knowing freedom.
What is the meaning of “truth,” or what is truth? This question was asked of God when he was standing in front of Pilate. In summation of the New Testament Jesus, alone, is the embodiment of truth. He, alone, represents what truth is in its purity. So, when the statement is said that the truth will set you free, knowing what truth is will set one free of falsehood. In other words God means truth, and “man” means falsehood. Relying on the truth of God is setting oneself free from the falsehood of man.
From this perspective, then, when assessing which political attraction those applying the real meaning of the word freedom the conservative right is closer to being correct. The liberal left is using “man” as the giver of freedom by politically abolishing what the conservative right wants to imposes on society. If those that know the truth, that man’s heart is evil, then imposing “reality checks” on the liberal left is closer to the correct usage of the word “freedom” than what the liberal left does by imposing “dream world theory” upon society and calling it “freedom.”
Finally, and in clarification, the meaning of the word “freedom” is the application of self-government by “knowing” the truth of oneself. “Knowing the truth,” that the individual human is evil, will apply self-government to be free from the liberal left’s imposition of falsehood. Furthermore, knowing the truth that everyone is not completely knowledgeable of the correct meaning of the word freedom, government impositions through democratically creations by the conservative right is more correctly applying the word freedom than the liberal left falsehood by desiring the utilizing of power of government to impose oppression and then calling it freedom.
Post script:
As Lord Acton correctly applies, “Liberty (freedom) is not the power of doing what we like, but the right (the gift of God, not of man) of being able to do what we ought.” – Lord Acton, parenthesis mine. It isn't freedom that is of want expression by unknowledgeable left liberals, more correctly it is the application of self-government by knowledgeable religious conservatives that obtains freedom.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Truth and Consequences
While listening to the Dennis Prager radio program today (Feb 22) I had to journal what was going through my mind. The subject matter pertained to the liberal left and conservatism. Specifically, his thesis stated that young people, particularly those older than 18, tend to lean more to the liberal left side of social issues, while older individuals lean more towards being conservative.
His thesis then moved on further to state, generally speaking, or to ask the question, why are there conservatives in the first place? If liberalism is the ideal social issue position for the young to harbor, then it goes to say liberalism should still be held in older individuals as well. What makes older individuals abandon the utopian liberal left ideals for conservative ideals?
Obviously, from the younger liberal left point of view the conservatives are stupid, or more accurate, less wise (given the attitude of the major printed news media). This begs the question, then why do individual humans evolve from young, wise, and having a liberal left state of mind to a lesser and more stupid state of mind?
The correct ideas are as follows.
An example can clarify the above. The liberal left theorizes that humans are basically good and it is the social climate that causes humans to become evil, or commit evil acts. Today’s news (Feb 22) Bill Bennett’s Morning in America) radio program presented that individual male students were charged with rape. These individuals were attending a prestigious school (tuition for attending listed as $32,000 per year). The social climate for these male students was cosseted, yet their act was evil.
The theoretical application of social change (progressive social engineering) comes from feelings rather than intellectual abstract thinking. It is a feel good rhetoric for the liberal left to vocalize the need for income distribution (from those accordingly to those of need), but by applying intellectual abstract thinking money distribution will not fix social problems in the poor rural areas of metropolitans.
His thesis then moved on further to state, generally speaking, or to ask the question, why are there conservatives in the first place? If liberalism is the ideal social issue position for the young to harbor, then it goes to say liberalism should still be held in older individuals as well. What makes older individuals abandon the utopian liberal left ideals for conservative ideals?
Obviously, from the younger liberal left point of view the conservatives are stupid, or more accurate, less wise (given the attitude of the major printed news media). This begs the question, then why do individual humans evolve from young, wise, and having a liberal left state of mind to a lesser and more stupid state of mind?
The correct ideas are as follows.
- The liberal left wallows in the theoretical, while the conservative acknowledges the reality of life. The two cannot mingle.
- The liberal left feels while the conservative observes.
- The liberal left peers through rose colored lenses while the conservative cannot afford wear them.
- The liberal left wishes while the conservative is concrete.
An example can clarify the above. The liberal left theorizes that humans are basically good and it is the social climate that causes humans to become evil, or commit evil acts. Today’s news (Feb 22) Bill Bennett’s Morning in America) radio program presented that individual male students were charged with rape. These individuals were attending a prestigious school (tuition for attending listed as $32,000 per year). The social climate for these male students was cosseted, yet their act was evil.
The theoretical application of social change (progressive social engineering) comes from feelings rather than intellectual abstract thinking. It is a feel good rhetoric for the liberal left to vocalize the need for income distribution (from those accordingly to those of need), but by applying intellectual abstract thinking money distribution will not fix social problems in the poor rural areas of metropolitans.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Christianity vs. Christianity
Christianity is a religion and philosophy to some, and a whole other aspect to others. Besides being one of the oldest religions, Judaism being one of them, Christianity is well known to those that hold it personal and a mystery to those that don’t.
This blog being only a periodical diary of mine for others to read, I will not dive into theology at the deepest levels. I will only try to attempt at explaining the title Christianity vs. Christianity on the simplest terms I can muster.
Christianity to those that truly hold in their hearts that Jesus is the God of the Bible is fundamentally different than Christianity to those that call themselves Christians, yet do not hold Jesus as the God of the Bible. I am NOT talking about Christian Christianity vs. secular Christianity. I am talking about Christians proclaiming themselves Christians of Jesus and Christians proclaiming themselves as Christians, but have a different Jesus at the core of their belief system. See Christian Research Institute for a further clarification.
One such person that I am talking about is Jim Wallis of the Sojourners. One way to judge if a group of people, or a person, are Christians is to read their statement of belief. In these statements one can determine if they are Christians of Jesus, or not.
In an article written by Jim Wallis, Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clue, in the third paragraph he states:
It is true that poverty and abortion are two, of many, moral issues that concern Christians. The question that needs to be applied here is “how” these issues are addressed, and then solved. The Christians of Jesus will address these issues amongst themselves in their churches, locally, and churches amongst themselves in a broader scale. From this facet of argument the theory is that the secular portion of the believer will attempt the influence of their respective government representative to alter future laws and policies and/or enforce existing laws and policies.
Jim Wallis takes these moral issues to the plain of employing government power. What Jim fails to realize concerning government is that government is pure power, or force, through its policies and laws. The local police and the military is a concrete definition of force. The subject matter of government power is subjective, not objective. How government addresses social issues is by applying government power, or force, to social policies. If Jim were a Christian of Jesus, government force would be the last apparatus he would want to utilize for social change.
In the Sojourners statement of belief few are listed bellow.
It is true for the commitment to God, but commitment to someone else should not be applied on the same level and degree. The NT communicates that believers ought to love God with all their heart and all their mind. This principle should not be applied, and therefore dangerous, in the same manner to other humans.
In the many years of applying government enforced social policies, the American society as risen to a level that social “structures” and “assumptions” have been literally abolished in the public spectrum. What cannot be eradicated of “structures” and “assumptions” is on a personal level. There will always be those that hold prejudices of some form. To apply a government policy that affects personal belief is treading in the wrong direction, and therefore harboring a wrong idea.
This statement is not that of Christianity of Jesus due to the word “our.” The sharing of bread and resources is strictly individualistic and personal at a Christian level, not publicly applied and forcefully applied by government policies. Simply put, the bread and resources is an individual's given by God, not “ours” by distribution enforced through government policies. Sojourners falsely assume that the "bread and resources" is a public item to subjectively distributed by applying government enforced policies.
Again:
In other words, the Sojourners believe Utopia is not just a dream, but ought to be a reality, when applied by government force. Utopia cannot be realized through cooperation individually (Utopia by nature is one big human machine, there are no individuals, but human parts of a whole), but only forced upon by government power. This is not Christianity of those whom they believe in Jesus of the Bible.
Jim Wallis’ Christianity is not of Jesus of the Bible, even though he says it is in the statement of faith. He must come to understand he has the wrong Jesus.
In summation, as I have mentioned in the beginning, Christianity is not a religion by definition. Religions of the world state bulleted items for its members to follow; in other words rules and regulations. If these set rules and regulations are followed to the letter, then the follower is granted acceptance into heaven. Christianity plainly communicates that these rules and regulations are set by God of the Bible, and they cannot be followed by human application. Therefore humans are doomed to hell. Jesus came to fulfill the precepts of Judaism; in other words He is the only human that followed these rules and regulation. If a human cannot follow God’s law by his own power, then by default the argument says Jesus wasn’t just human, but God. He was fully human (born), and fully God (spirit).
This blog being only a periodical diary of mine for others to read, I will not dive into theology at the deepest levels. I will only try to attempt at explaining the title Christianity vs. Christianity on the simplest terms I can muster.
Christianity to those that truly hold in their hearts that Jesus is the God of the Bible is fundamentally different than Christianity to those that call themselves Christians, yet do not hold Jesus as the God of the Bible. I am NOT talking about Christian Christianity vs. secular Christianity. I am talking about Christians proclaiming themselves Christians of Jesus and Christians proclaiming themselves as Christians, but have a different Jesus at the core of their belief system. See Christian Research Institute for a further clarification.
One such person that I am talking about is Jim Wallis of the Sojourners. One way to judge if a group of people, or a person, are Christians is to read their statement of belief. In these statements one can determine if they are Christians of Jesus, or not.
In an article written by Jim Wallis, Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a clue, in the third paragraph he states:
Thousands of verses in the Bible make poverty a moral and religious issue. The environment — protecting God's creation — is a religious matter and moral concern. Important issues of war and peace are deeply theological and just as much a “life issue” as is abortion. And human rights are rooted in the religious concept of the image of God in every person.
It is true that poverty and abortion are two, of many, moral issues that concern Christians. The question that needs to be applied here is “how” these issues are addressed, and then solved. The Christians of Jesus will address these issues amongst themselves in their churches, locally, and churches amongst themselves in a broader scale. From this facet of argument the theory is that the secular portion of the believer will attempt the influence of their respective government representative to alter future laws and policies and/or enforce existing laws and policies.
Jim Wallis takes these moral issues to the plain of employing government power. What Jim fails to realize concerning government is that government is pure power, or force, through its policies and laws. The local police and the military is a concrete definition of force. The subject matter of government power is subjective, not objective. How government addresses social issues is by applying government power, or force, to social policies. If Jim were a Christian of Jesus, government force would be the last apparatus he would want to utilize for social change.
In the Sojourners statement of belief few are listed bellow.
We believe commitment to be centrally important - to God, to one another, to our sisters and brothers on this planet, and to the Earth itself.
It is true for the commitment to God, but commitment to someone else should not be applied on the same level and degree. The NT communicates that believers ought to love God with all their heart and all their mind. This principle should not be applied, and therefore dangerous, in the same manner to other humans.
We refuse to accept structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class.
In the many years of applying government enforced social policies, the American society as risen to a level that social “structures” and “assumptions” have been literally abolished in the public spectrum. What cannot be eradicated of “structures” and “assumptions” is on a personal level. There will always be those that hold prejudices of some form. To apply a government policy that affects personal belief is treading in the wrong direction, and therefore harboring a wrong idea.
We believe that gospel faith transforms our economics, gives us the power to share our bread and resources, welcomes all to the table of God's provision, and provides a vision for social revolution.
This statement is not that of Christianity of Jesus due to the word “our.” The sharing of bread and resources is strictly individualistic and personal at a Christian level, not publicly applied and forcefully applied by government policies. Simply put, the bread and resources is an individual's given by God, not “ours” by distribution enforced through government policies. Sojourners falsely assume that the "bread and resources" is a public item to subjectively distributed by applying government enforced policies.
Again:
We believe that Jesus' way of nonviolent transformation and peacemaking is not a Utopian dream but a necessary path.
In other words, the Sojourners believe Utopia is not just a dream, but ought to be a reality, when applied by government force. Utopia cannot be realized through cooperation individually (Utopia by nature is one big human machine, there are no individuals, but human parts of a whole), but only forced upon by government power. This is not Christianity of those whom they believe in Jesus of the Bible.
Jim Wallis’ Christianity is not of Jesus of the Bible, even though he says it is in the statement of faith. He must come to understand he has the wrong Jesus.
In summation, as I have mentioned in the beginning, Christianity is not a religion by definition. Religions of the world state bulleted items for its members to follow; in other words rules and regulations. If these set rules and regulations are followed to the letter, then the follower is granted acceptance into heaven. Christianity plainly communicates that these rules and regulations are set by God of the Bible, and they cannot be followed by human application. Therefore humans are doomed to hell. Jesus came to fulfill the precepts of Judaism; in other words He is the only human that followed these rules and regulation. If a human cannot follow God’s law by his own power, then by default the argument says Jesus wasn’t just human, but God. He was fully human (born), and fully God (spirit).
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Popular votes vs. the Electoral College
The liberal left rants about the prospects and reality of the popular vote of the U.S. President. What is an obvious omission on the part of the liberal left in this regard is that what they don't say is that the popular vote is meant for “their” candidate. They argue particularly that the presidential candidate should win the election primarily on what the popular vote tabulates. This notion has been raised by the liberal left due to the reality that they say Gore and Kerry won the popular vote, yet “G-dub-e-ya” won the votes of the Electoral College. They argue that this is unfair; to them.
An article, for reference, has been written to educate the liberal left for the reasons of our founding fathers having installed the Electoral College. Tara Ross wrote a fine article Hot Flash, and also authored a book entitled, Enlightened Democracy. In it she describes the error in logic the liberal left presents when arguing the point for dismantling the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote.”
Her primary argument for the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues, i.e., Gore, Kerry, and now H. Clinton, from obtaining the office of the U.S. Presidency by placating to just a few liberal states to win the popular vote. Because there is a totally higher populations on either coast (NY and CA) of the US than the population count in between, demagogues do not have to bother enticing the least populated states with their political rhetoric. In this sense the minority states, NY and CA, total popular vote could end up dictating who will be president to the majority of states.
When unpacking the liberal left’s rhetoric of the “popular vote” argument, the result presents itself as being elitist. Due to the liberal left’s tendency to regard the conservative’s point of view as being “behind the times” is the plain reason for having the Electoral College. The Electoral College acts as a stop gate to keep the liberal left demagogues from obtaining for themselves government power.
With the Electoral College system in place as it is now, it forces presidential candidates to attenuate to “all” the states, not just a particular few. This is demonstrated by the fact that H. Clinton is manicuring her political stance, i.e., having a more moderate rhetoric, to actually attenuate to the “whole” of the US states, not just pleasing just the liberal left of herself located in the coastal states.
An article, for reference, has been written to educate the liberal left for the reasons of our founding fathers having installed the Electoral College. Tara Ross wrote a fine article Hot Flash, and also authored a book entitled, Enlightened Democracy. In it she describes the error in logic the liberal left presents when arguing the point for dismantling the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote.”
Her primary argument for the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues, i.e., Gore, Kerry, and now H. Clinton, from obtaining the office of the U.S. Presidency by placating to just a few liberal states to win the popular vote. Because there is a totally higher populations on either coast (NY and CA) of the US than the population count in between, demagogues do not have to bother enticing the least populated states with their political rhetoric. In this sense the minority states, NY and CA, total popular vote could end up dictating who will be president to the majority of states.
When unpacking the liberal left’s rhetoric of the “popular vote” argument, the result presents itself as being elitist. Due to the liberal left’s tendency to regard the conservative’s point of view as being “behind the times” is the plain reason for having the Electoral College. The Electoral College acts as a stop gate to keep the liberal left demagogues from obtaining for themselves government power.
With the Electoral College system in place as it is now, it forces presidential candidates to attenuate to “all” the states, not just a particular few. This is demonstrated by the fact that H. Clinton is manicuring her political stance, i.e., having a more moderate rhetoric, to actually attenuate to the “whole” of the US states, not just pleasing just the liberal left of herself located in the coastal states.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Celebrities and the Values of Political Opinions
Celebrities who politically bloviate outside their chosen professional arena is a recent phenomenon of modern society. The status of celebrities in the lives of individuals and families have become over valued. The value of celebrities should only be realized with the talent they have developed, and that is creatively acting for some, and creatively promoting story telling. I only bring this up due to Johnny Carson’s death. Now, and in the last few decades, celebrities have moved into the realm of the political opinion.
Those that place undue value in the opinions of journalists and TV interviewer celebrities, and the Hollywood celebrities themselves, have contributed to the development of reinforcing a false idea that somehow the value of the opinions of those celebrities are inherently high.
In comparison of celebrities that can be classified in the same category as Johnny Carson to other celebrities that have a high regard for their own opinions are definitely in a different category. The question is then why have those, that are like Johnny Carson, moot when it comes to political opinions, and those that fall into the other category bloviate about theirs? The answer is those celebrities that fall into the trap of providing political opinions are dissatisfied with their own career of acting. Johnny Carson was very stable with the career he made himself as an entertainer. Celebrity's narcissistic tendencies bloom when they opine politically. Notice Johnny Carson has no public label of being either Democrat or Republican. Because politics in his realm of public entertaining didn't matter.
What the Hollywood crowd needs to do is develop more of a character like Johnny Carson’s, and try to have a better sense of satisfaction with the career of acting.
Those that place undue value in the opinions of journalists and TV interviewer celebrities, and the Hollywood celebrities themselves, have contributed to the development of reinforcing a false idea that somehow the value of the opinions of those celebrities are inherently high.
In comparison of celebrities that can be classified in the same category as Johnny Carson to other celebrities that have a high regard for their own opinions are definitely in a different category. The question is then why have those, that are like Johnny Carson, moot when it comes to political opinions, and those that fall into the other category bloviate about theirs? The answer is those celebrities that fall into the trap of providing political opinions are dissatisfied with their own career of acting. Johnny Carson was very stable with the career he made himself as an entertainer. Celebrity's narcissistic tendencies bloom when they opine politically. Notice Johnny Carson has no public label of being either Democrat or Republican. Because politics in his realm of public entertaining didn't matter.
What the Hollywood crowd needs to do is develop more of a character like Johnny Carson’s, and try to have a better sense of satisfaction with the career of acting.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
The Invisible Hand vs. Chaos
The liberal left would like for “the people” to think there is power in numbers (the collective). The “power,” they claim, is for making changes in how society operates, or rather, a better term is what direction society travels (progressivism). In the liberal left’s misguided notion is a progressive direction in which society evolves, and that there will no longer be human inconveniences. The lack of retirement income for the elderly and social health care provisions to name just a few. A long list of liberal left concerns could fill this page.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Root of Christian Beliefs Attacks
What has bothered me intellectually for sometime now is what are the reasons for the liberal extreme left to attack the Christian belief system and the writings thereof. The evidence of the liberal left's barrage are in a number of legal cases throughout this country.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Questions and Answers to the Iraq Conflict
Being a patriotic American, to individualist ideals, that supports the military efforts in Iraq, I have relatively no questions concerning this topic. Although, those that do have questions present them in a number of different ways. Ranging from grotesque bloviation that reeks of unpatriotism towards American principles of individual freedom, as the Founding Father had envisioned, to intelligent objections which asks for intelligent answers.
On the Dennis Prager radio show, aired is on KNUS 710 AM radio in the Denver metropolitan area, from 10am to 1pm Monday through Friday, which stimulates listener’s intellectual curiosity. The reason I mention this is two-fold. One, I would like those that read this might want to tune to his program, in your area, to find that your own curiosity may be enticed. Two, he questions the intelligent objectors of the Iraq military conflict by submitting answers with intelligence to match.
At this point I want to lead those that are reading thus far to visit www.stratfor.com website. The founder of the organization, Dr. George Friedman, answers questions that were raised by Dennis Prager from the devil's advocate position. Dr. George Friedman wrote a book called “America's Secret War.” In it he answers many questions that the Bush administration doesn't seem to answer outright, although Dr. George Friedman is very patriotic to the principles of American individual freedom. I recommend this book to anyone.
On the Dennis Prager radio show, aired is on KNUS 710 AM radio in the Denver metropolitan area, from 10am to 1pm Monday through Friday, which stimulates listener’s intellectual curiosity. The reason I mention this is two-fold. One, I would like those that read this might want to tune to his program, in your area, to find that your own curiosity may be enticed. Two, he questions the intelligent objectors of the Iraq military conflict by submitting answers with intelligence to match.
At this point I want to lead those that are reading thus far to visit www.stratfor.com website. The founder of the organization, Dr. George Friedman, answers questions that were raised by Dennis Prager from the devil's advocate position. Dr. George Friedman wrote a book called “America's Secret War.” In it he answers many questions that the Bush administration doesn't seem to answer outright, although Dr. George Friedman is very patriotic to the principles of American individual freedom. I recommend this book to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
