The legend states that halisaurs are basically immortal. At least no dwarf has ever seen one dead. They can be captured, imprisoned, or tethered, but they are virtually impervious to physical injury, a trait loathed by the Drabens, who find them perpetually unruly.
They are incapable of inflicting harm on other halisaurs or dwarves themselves. In fact, very few cases of exceptionally bad luck have ever been reported so long as the halisaur is accompanied by its dwarf. Distancing one's self from their halisaur or otherwise compelling them to congregate are really the only factors that contribute to any harm associated with them. Furthermore, it is specifically the incidental misfortune associated with the conditions of abandoned halisaurs, and not the halisaurs or dwarves themselves, that is said to cause the undefinable mystical curse. Still, some dwarves choose to take that risk and sell them for profit. The halisaur has no choice in the matter.
Perhaps it is the mysterious and unpredictable behavior of the halisaur that compels many dwarves to discount their magical properties and dismiss their importance. After all, such things would be very difficult to prove to a dwarf who hasn't experienced the evidence first-hand.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Dwarvia - Sari and the Rogue Halisaur
Sometime after the Drabens occupied most halisaurs but before the darkness.
Sari was a young dwarf who lived on the outskirts of town with her three younger sisters, Sali, Sadi, and Sami; triplets only two years old. The four of them and their four halisaurs lived rather happily in their small dirt hut. The three small halisaurs would sleep most of the time as Sari's great uncle Fred, who was pushing 150, would help take care of the toddlers. During the day Sari worked the fields, and each day there was just enough cereal to go with their milk.
Then one day as Sari rested in one of her fields she noticed some rustling among the stalks of wheat. She stood to watch as the agitated kernels approach from the distance. Was it a rabbit, snake, dunder dog? Whatever it was it seemed to be headed directly towards her. She grasped her hoe ready to defend herself as it drew near. Then, a tiny creature jumped out of the wall of stalks and onto the grass in front of her. It was a tiny halisaur.
She had never seen one so small. It scurried over to Sari's halisaur, who was always by her side, and jumped on its back. So, there they were. Sari's full grown reptilian companion with the minuscule creature on its back. And there it stayed the rest of the day as Sari worked the field. This was rather unexpected.
That evening she walked into the tiny hut and sat in her chair adjacent to Fred's. They both looked at Sari's halisaurs, the tiny one clung inseparably to the larger one, who sat on the floor casually and obliviously in front of them. Fred lit his pipe and reclined. They both knew the tiny halisaur would not be able to live with them. As much as she desired to keep it the consequences would be disastrous. No tiny halisaur arrived without the inevitable consequences, and in this case there simply weren't resources to accommodate them. She knew it was her decision alone. She knew she must resolve this.
Of course, in all the rest of Dwarvia a rogue halisaur was an unheard of fortune. Seldom if ever did one arrive without the availability of a larger one. The small ones are apparently drawn to the bright green anterior scales common to the halisaurs who happen to be owned by female dwarves. Anyway, this thought made her decision very, very difficult, as a luck dragon of any size is a precious commodity and not to be dismissed lightly.
Sari knew that sometimes rogue halisaurs would simply vanish, wanted or not. Well, not really vanish, but go away nonetheless. Well, not really just go away either. A peculiar and well-known trait of the halisaur is its capacity to cannibalize smaller ones. Yes, in a flash they will suddenly turn their heads, snap at the poor critter, swallow them whole, lick their chops, and continue with their daily business. No one knows why this is, but sometimes it happens, and without apparent reason.
In any case, all halisaurs are identical with one exception. Each has a special reflex that can only be triggered by the halisaur's owner, and only if she is female. If, for whatever reason, a rogue halisaur appears, its owner can find the pressure point beneath the tail to trigger this reflex. The halisaur will immediately turn its head and devour the little one, swallowing it whole. No one knows why this reflex exists, but since it does, Dunder Village has no choice but to allow its female dwarves to use it as they see fit. Of course, the village depends on the restraint of this practice, as there can be no new dwarves without new halisaurs, but that has never been an issue - and nothing could be done about it anyway short of complete authoritarian control of all female dwarves.
Of course, there are no halisaurs in Dwarvia outside Dunder Village, so this technique is not available generally. The Draben ranch always encourages their arrival and requires maturation of rogue halisaurs for their valuable milk regardless of the circumstances. But, since the owner of each halisaur at the Draben ranch isn't even on the same continent, the reflex method isn't an option anyway. So, the Drabens are thankful for the vast separation of the two entities.
Incidentally, when a dwarf is killed, its corresponding halisaur also perishes, so it is always in the best interest of the Drabens to encourage at least the bare survival of every halisaour's corresponding dwarf. But unfortunate is the dwarf who has neither met his own halisaur nor even had the option to voluntarily sell it. Certainly such a terrifying condition is unheard of in Dundar Village. However, in greater Dwarvia, this is standard as parents usually sell any halisaur as soon as it arrives. The Draben's pay twice as much for the tiny rogue halisaurs who haven't met their dwarf - they tend to cause less trouble among the giant herds.
So anyway, when she had garnered enough will, Sari approached her halisaur, found the pressure point, and the critter was instantly devoured. Fred, Sari, and the triplets ate their meager dinner in somber silence. Such was the nature of her hut in Dunder Village those days.
Sari was a young dwarf who lived on the outskirts of town with her three younger sisters, Sali, Sadi, and Sami; triplets only two years old. The four of them and their four halisaurs lived rather happily in their small dirt hut. The three small halisaurs would sleep most of the time as Sari's great uncle Fred, who was pushing 150, would help take care of the toddlers. During the day Sari worked the fields, and each day there was just enough cereal to go with their milk.
Then one day as Sari rested in one of her fields she noticed some rustling among the stalks of wheat. She stood to watch as the agitated kernels approach from the distance. Was it a rabbit, snake, dunder dog? Whatever it was it seemed to be headed directly towards her. She grasped her hoe ready to defend herself as it drew near. Then, a tiny creature jumped out of the wall of stalks and onto the grass in front of her. It was a tiny halisaur.
She had never seen one so small. It scurried over to Sari's halisaur, who was always by her side, and jumped on its back. So, there they were. Sari's full grown reptilian companion with the minuscule creature on its back. And there it stayed the rest of the day as Sari worked the field. This was rather unexpected.
That evening she walked into the tiny hut and sat in her chair adjacent to Fred's. They both looked at Sari's halisaurs, the tiny one clung inseparably to the larger one, who sat on the floor casually and obliviously in front of them. Fred lit his pipe and reclined. They both knew the tiny halisaur would not be able to live with them. As much as she desired to keep it the consequences would be disastrous. No tiny halisaur arrived without the inevitable consequences, and in this case there simply weren't resources to accommodate them. She knew it was her decision alone. She knew she must resolve this.
Of course, in all the rest of Dwarvia a rogue halisaur was an unheard of fortune. Seldom if ever did one arrive without the availability of a larger one. The small ones are apparently drawn to the bright green anterior scales common to the halisaurs who happen to be owned by female dwarves. Anyway, this thought made her decision very, very difficult, as a luck dragon of any size is a precious commodity and not to be dismissed lightly.
Sari knew that sometimes rogue halisaurs would simply vanish, wanted or not. Well, not really vanish, but go away nonetheless. Well, not really just go away either. A peculiar and well-known trait of the halisaur is its capacity to cannibalize smaller ones. Yes, in a flash they will suddenly turn their heads, snap at the poor critter, swallow them whole, lick their chops, and continue with their daily business. No one knows why this is, but sometimes it happens, and without apparent reason.
In any case, all halisaurs are identical with one exception. Each has a special reflex that can only be triggered by the halisaur's owner, and only if she is female. If, for whatever reason, a rogue halisaur appears, its owner can find the pressure point beneath the tail to trigger this reflex. The halisaur will immediately turn its head and devour the little one, swallowing it whole. No one knows why this reflex exists, but since it does, Dunder Village has no choice but to allow its female dwarves to use it as they see fit. Of course, the village depends on the restraint of this practice, as there can be no new dwarves without new halisaurs, but that has never been an issue - and nothing could be done about it anyway short of complete authoritarian control of all female dwarves.
Of course, there are no halisaurs in Dwarvia outside Dunder Village, so this technique is not available generally. The Draben ranch always encourages their arrival and requires maturation of rogue halisaurs for their valuable milk regardless of the circumstances. But, since the owner of each halisaur at the Draben ranch isn't even on the same continent, the reflex method isn't an option anyway. So, the Drabens are thankful for the vast separation of the two entities.
Incidentally, when a dwarf is killed, its corresponding halisaur also perishes, so it is always in the best interest of the Drabens to encourage at least the bare survival of every halisaour's corresponding dwarf. But unfortunate is the dwarf who has neither met his own halisaur nor even had the option to voluntarily sell it. Certainly such a terrifying condition is unheard of in Dundar Village. However, in greater Dwarvia, this is standard as parents usually sell any halisaur as soon as it arrives. The Draben's pay twice as much for the tiny rogue halisaurs who haven't met their dwarf - they tend to cause less trouble among the giant herds.
So anyway, when she had garnered enough will, Sari approached her halisaur, found the pressure point, and the critter was instantly devoured. Fred, Sari, and the triplets ate their meager dinner in somber silence. Such was the nature of her hut in Dunder Village those days.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Flop Flip
In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion. -James RestonPerhaps common sense first depends on contempt for the influences that attempt to silence it. More specifically, virtually all earthly experiences. But once we identify the things that drive people into canyons of self-reciprocating dedication to error we can at least attempt to avoid them ourselves. It pretty much goes without saying that folks regularly make up for ignorance with ego, pride, flamboyance, consistency, or some cocktail thereof. Then, we perpetuate such barriers to thought by calling someone who changes their mind a "flip-flopper." As if one's worth is permanently tied to their dedication to the incorrect until their death. On the other hand, we associate the acceptability of our own thoughts to their popular appeal rather than their integrity. We do this to protect our pride and ego because we know that essentially we are ignorant - perhaps not of the principles of an issue, but certainly the minutia. Or, maybe we are familiar with the minutia and ignorant of the principles. They are interdependent, and one is meaningless without the other, but everyone leans one way or the other.
On a political level, it is always easier to be perceived as intelligent and viable if you are familiar with the properties of the minutia - it fosters the assumption that you identify with one or even several different or even contrasting principles. More importantly, the details that are popular and simple to understand can be cherry picked to appease the largest constituency even if the actual effect is contrary to the detail's associated principle(s). Alternatively, a candidate dependent on principle is restricted to the details that fall in line precisely with those principles without any contradiction. With an electorate interested in viability over principal, the most accurate candidate who chooses the most popular facts and presents them in the most attractive way will win. With an electorate interested in principal over viability, the most viable/minutia-oriented candidate will still win because the electorate underestimates each other's ability to identify the subtle contradictions. So, yes, we are all guilty. Might as well just admit it. Words will move around ideas by the very nature of the beast. We are just as much flip-floppers for maintaining our association to one migrating group or another as we are to changing our own positions.
The bottom line is...when a system becomes too complicated for anyone with the standard measure of common sense to adequately align principle to the matrix of interdependent contingencies (clusterfuck), we are left with the potential for mass-abuse of those sound principles. It's low hanging fruit for the least savory of people, and anyone who recognizes this should be tempted to join them. Who among us will stop grinding puppies alive and feeding them to the animal rights activists? And who will be so bold as to take the precious meat grinder away?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Hello (hello, hello) is there anybody in there
I have often questioned the seemingly short-sighted, altruistic, and naive attitude of my liberal tree-hugging friends; often strict Democrats or even all out socialists. They sometimes have simplistic conclusions, and an inability to identify the manipulative demagogues who swindle their votes with ruthless deception. Yes Shawn (other Shawn), they do ask you to help save the puppies, slaughter them, and secretly feed them to you. And yes, you think the puppies are tasty. And yes, you continue to vote for more slaughtered puppies. I know you're not a willing participant in the carnage...you just overestimate the candidates and elected officials. But you are open minded in values and spirit, even if the real meat isn't getting through.
I have seen there is something much worse than the above. Ever walk back into your elementary school in amazement..like everything is a miniature model of what you remember? That is how I felt tonight - like looking at the giant bubble in which I have always lived. I had always assumed the bubble was much larger than it is. I maybe never realized the degree someone can depend on tradition, consistency, and public opinion rather than thought. As if the word "conservative" or "Republican" is the constant, its ideas are permanently sound, and one can bury his head in the sand and permanently trust those words and all that is associated with them with little subsequent concern for thought or reason. As if the Democrats are evil and must be beaten no matter what, regardless of the candidate, the method. That all they need to do is find the one most "popular" and promote him regardless of record, ideas, or mental stability. And that it is appropriate to apply means contrary to your principles in order to perpetuate them. As a newly discovered independent I had the opportunity to observe something once familiar from the outside and now realize with greater precision the difficulty of the true battle that must be fought.
I guess that is why I decided to ditch the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party and become an Independent. If I believe such organizations are perpetuating the type of behavior that violates the thought incentive, I am part of the problem by identifying with them. Should such superficial tags continue to be depended upon after their core principles have changed or become a retrograde of their origins? Is it possible that when this happens people don't notice because they have come to trust and become very attached to their particular group? Is it possible some didn't really understand the principles in the first place...benefited from the party's platform regardless of the principles? Had to choose between supporting a self-benefiting part of the platform while violating one of its principles?
I have seen there is something much worse than the above. Ever walk back into your elementary school in amazement..like everything is a miniature model of what you remember? That is how I felt tonight - like looking at the giant bubble in which I have always lived. I had always assumed the bubble was much larger than it is. I maybe never realized the degree someone can depend on tradition, consistency, and public opinion rather than thought. As if the word "conservative" or "Republican" is the constant, its ideas are permanently sound, and one can bury his head in the sand and permanently trust those words and all that is associated with them with little subsequent concern for thought or reason. As if the Democrats are evil and must be beaten no matter what, regardless of the candidate, the method. That all they need to do is find the one most "popular" and promote him regardless of record, ideas, or mental stability. And that it is appropriate to apply means contrary to your principles in order to perpetuate them. As a newly discovered independent I had the opportunity to observe something once familiar from the outside and now realize with greater precision the difficulty of the true battle that must be fought.
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. -John Stuart MillI think John may be right, but I think his particular environment shielded him from many ugly realities of life. He was home schooled and had hardly any experience with the exclusive and brutal nature of the popularity contest. Being correct is very often a disadvantage to free thought, especially in an environment of insecurity, fear, and unfamiliarity (elementary school). In many of these these cases, being nonthreatening and blindly cooperative is advantageous. And then when a group develops you have the choice to join them or be mocked by them. This persists pretty much throughout life. It is a strong incentive to keep your mouth shut - behavior practiced by plenty of individuals who are far from stupid.
I guess that is why I decided to ditch the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party and become an Independent. If I believe such organizations are perpetuating the type of behavior that violates the thought incentive, I am part of the problem by identifying with them. Should such superficial tags continue to be depended upon after their core principles have changed or become a retrograde of their origins? Is it possible that when this happens people don't notice because they have come to trust and become very attached to their particular group? Is it possible some didn't really understand the principles in the first place...benefited from the party's platform regardless of the principles? Had to choose between supporting a self-benefiting part of the platform while violating one of its principles?
Two scenarios - pick only 1
Scenario #1: Human nature tends toward the barbaric and destructive.
If this is the case, are those in government immune to these tendencies? I would think on the contrary...if this is the case the success of anyone would be dependent on crushing others for personal advancement using deception, manipulation, and any effective tactic. If this is the case, those who have risen to the top of the political ladder have been most effective, the most manipulative and deceptive of all. Furthermore, they are congregated together to collaborate with similar characters - a seething pool of power-hungry would-be rulers if not for pesky laws and checks and balances. If this is the case, is it not our responsibility to hold them accountable to the rule of law? Should such a group be allowed to start wars or to act according to their own unsavory personal interests at the expense of others? If this is the case, it seems to me humanity must be restrained from the tendency to consolidate power into the hands of the few - the power must be distributed as evenly as possible to withhold the destructive beast in all of us.
Scenario #2: Human nature tends toward the civilized and constructive.
If this is the case, the success of individuals depends on their ability to cooperate through voluntary contract in a mutually beneficial way. If this is the case, even the most brainwashed terrorist is in some way cognizant of the ingredients necessary for civilization - loyalty, virtue, love, honor, compassion. If this is the case, humanity doesn't need a powerful group of even the most bright and high-minded people to govern us...we simply need them to get out of the way so we can continue our virtuous work. They are only required to legitimize contracts, and keep us safe enough to mind our own business. If this is the case, all we need is the ability to exercise our rights to engage in mutually beneficial behavior to the greatest degree possible.
Unifying principle.
In the worst case, a powerful government seizes control of our liberty for its own destructive self preservation. In the best case, it is hardly necessary at all.
It is impossible to tag any political party to either of these as both are represented in virtually any organization. People's intentions are irrelevant and so is their zealousness so much as:
Conclusion
If we believe the second scenario happens to be true, as civilized individuals we are required to act accordingly, depending on the intellect of others to identify our ideals, validate them by evaluating our behavior compared to them, and emulate them accordingly. The minority of ruthless barbarians will drift away, becoming increasingly unpopular. This scenario requires more bravery than the former. But we should recognize that if the first is true we are doomed already.
If this is the case, are those in government immune to these tendencies? I would think on the contrary...if this is the case the success of anyone would be dependent on crushing others for personal advancement using deception, manipulation, and any effective tactic. If this is the case, those who have risen to the top of the political ladder have been most effective, the most manipulative and deceptive of all. Furthermore, they are congregated together to collaborate with similar characters - a seething pool of power-hungry would-be rulers if not for pesky laws and checks and balances. If this is the case, is it not our responsibility to hold them accountable to the rule of law? Should such a group be allowed to start wars or to act according to their own unsavory personal interests at the expense of others? If this is the case, it seems to me humanity must be restrained from the tendency to consolidate power into the hands of the few - the power must be distributed as evenly as possible to withhold the destructive beast in all of us.
Scenario #2: Human nature tends toward the civilized and constructive.
If this is the case, the success of individuals depends on their ability to cooperate through voluntary contract in a mutually beneficial way. If this is the case, even the most brainwashed terrorist is in some way cognizant of the ingredients necessary for civilization - loyalty, virtue, love, honor, compassion. If this is the case, humanity doesn't need a powerful group of even the most bright and high-minded people to govern us...we simply need them to get out of the way so we can continue our virtuous work. They are only required to legitimize contracts, and keep us safe enough to mind our own business. If this is the case, all we need is the ability to exercise our rights to engage in mutually beneficial behavior to the greatest degree possible.
Unifying principle.
In the worst case, a powerful government seizes control of our liberty for its own destructive self preservation. In the best case, it is hardly necessary at all.
It is impossible to tag any political party to either of these as both are represented in virtually any organization. People's intentions are irrelevant and so is their zealousness so much as:
- The power they are given comes from others. And:
- None has authority to prevent another from engaging in legal self-beneficial behavior.
Conclusion
If we believe the second scenario happens to be true, as civilized individuals we are required to act accordingly, depending on the intellect of others to identify our ideals, validate them by evaluating our behavior compared to them, and emulate them accordingly. The minority of ruthless barbarians will drift away, becoming increasingly unpopular. This scenario requires more bravery than the former. But we should recognize that if the first is true we are doomed already.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Last Call
I admit that I participated in a frenzy of self-indulgent behavior tonight - visiting Northrop Auditorium to listen to the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul. He said a few things differently, but most of all, he was very engaging and exiting to watch live. For some things he is talking way over a lot of people's heads, including mine at times, but he dumbs it down as much as he can. He's still asking more of his listeners' brains than any other candidate (no wonder he's less popular). To folks with their parachute closed he sounds disjunct and all over the map, but he knows he won't be able to reach those people anyway - among them are the folks who don't make up their minds until they're catching up with the herd.
Try explaining your job to someone in a few minutes. Now, pretend your job is 10 times more complicated and your audience doesn't really want to listen. I suggest people investigate Ron Paul's message thoroughly before discounting it. I'm getting tired of hearing things like he's "funding his campaign with corporate donations" and "he only appeals to the over 80 crowd" oh, and "he's a nut case." It's like trying to argue with someone who believes water isn't wet. When the satirists are coming up with stuff like this, believe me, you risk looking like a tard if you outright dismiss him for superficial reasons. His stuff is steeped in philosophy. Consider Ron Paul's stance on a foreign policy of non-intervention and then chew on this.
So, on the eve of Super Tuesday I will make an official appeal to join me in caucusing for Ron Paul. I pledge any honor I have on the principles he represents despite the few unsavory dunderheads who have associated themselves with him. Here's my case:
Long before there was a United States, there was the natural human right to life, liberty, and the will to follow our dreams as we see fit so long as they do not harm others. Then, governments were instituted to protect those rights - governments who's powers were derived by the consent of the governed. Now, we stand on the precipice of an economic collapse due to well-intentioned but destructive policies of a central bank. Our homes can be searched without warrant, and even the act of reporting the incident is a federal crime. Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and as of May 1st we will need to carry a National ID card to travel by plane or enter a federal building. Our government has indeed become destructive towards the very things it was instituted to protect. I did not consent to such actions, and I suspect many of you did not either.
If the principles of individual liberty are responsible for our greatness, I ask how can we expect to persevere as a great society when we disobey these principles? Once we have lost respect for the rule of law contained in our Constitution, what precise traditions are we deciding to choose instead? And, what are the consequences? How do they hold up to historical scrutiny? Most importantly, how can we justify spreading these ideals when we cannot stand as an example ourselves? What message are we sending the citizens of the world when we suspend the foundations of the very system we are encouraging? Our strength is in our principles, and their universal appeal to all civilized individuals.
Do the terrorists hate us because we are rich and free? How can we make such a claim? Would we be capable of murder suicide if another country were richer and freer than us? It's as ridiculous as assuming we can forcefully prevent a suicidal barbarian from harming others. Our principles require us to fight with weapons of the mind and appeal to the best in people. The terrorists appeal to the worst. We depend on individuals taking responsibility for themselves, and our power of influence is only as great as our power to lead by example.
I urge you to consider the consequences of continuing the interventionist foreign policy; the consequences of perpetuating the destructive policies of our monetary system; a nation that requires an ID card; a nation that starts wars. It is not our generation, but the generations of our children and grandchildren that will bear the burden of these policies. They were perhaps not started by us, but here, in 2008, we have one moment when we can make a genuine difference. Let us not say no one tried to reverse the trend of poor policy when we were handed the opportunity.
Try explaining your job to someone in a few minutes. Now, pretend your job is 10 times more complicated and your audience doesn't really want to listen. I suggest people investigate Ron Paul's message thoroughly before discounting it. I'm getting tired of hearing things like he's "funding his campaign with corporate donations" and "he only appeals to the over 80 crowd" oh, and "he's a nut case." It's like trying to argue with someone who believes water isn't wet. When the satirists are coming up with stuff like this, believe me, you risk looking like a tard if you outright dismiss him for superficial reasons. His stuff is steeped in philosophy. Consider Ron Paul's stance on a foreign policy of non-intervention and then chew on this.
Men regard it as their right to return evil for evil - and if they cannot, feel they have lost their liberty. -AristotleOkay, so that last one is a bit more general, but we need to learn why they hate us or we can't solve the problem. They hate us because we are there, and we know it. It's in the 911 report and spoken from Bin Laden's own lips (terrorist does not = liar). I suspect RP wants you to research his positions/underpinnings more than any other candidate wants you to investigate theirs. I think I've mentioned this quote before, but it's appropriate here:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin
Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain. -John F. Kennedy
You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on. -George W. BushDoes a candidate who is a fool have a chance if he concentrates on anyone else? If so, is the opposite true. Does the most intelligent candidate concentrate his/her efforts on the ones who are seldom fooled? I think so (even though there is little incentive for doing so these days - which is why politics is full of unseemly frantic fark wits). If politics is all about smoke and mirrors the guy who reveals the tricks does seem crazy at first. But, everyone really wants to know, and when they find out (whenever that is) the people will throw their collective flag. This is all about brush fires - right now we've got a torch and a large field of dry weeds.
So, on the eve of Super Tuesday I will make an official appeal to join me in caucusing for Ron Paul. I pledge any honor I have on the principles he represents despite the few unsavory dunderheads who have associated themselves with him. Here's my case:
Long before there was a United States, there was the natural human right to life, liberty, and the will to follow our dreams as we see fit so long as they do not harm others. Then, governments were instituted to protect those rights - governments who's powers were derived by the consent of the governed. Now, we stand on the precipice of an economic collapse due to well-intentioned but destructive policies of a central bank. Our homes can be searched without warrant, and even the act of reporting the incident is a federal crime. Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and as of May 1st we will need to carry a National ID card to travel by plane or enter a federal building. Our government has indeed become destructive towards the very things it was instituted to protect. I did not consent to such actions, and I suspect many of you did not either.
If the principles of individual liberty are responsible for our greatness, I ask how can we expect to persevere as a great society when we disobey these principles? Once we have lost respect for the rule of law contained in our Constitution, what precise traditions are we deciding to choose instead? And, what are the consequences? How do they hold up to historical scrutiny? Most importantly, how can we justify spreading these ideals when we cannot stand as an example ourselves? What message are we sending the citizens of the world when we suspend the foundations of the very system we are encouraging? Our strength is in our principles, and their universal appeal to all civilized individuals.
Do the terrorists hate us because we are rich and free? How can we make such a claim? Would we be capable of murder suicide if another country were richer and freer than us? It's as ridiculous as assuming we can forcefully prevent a suicidal barbarian from harming others. Our principles require us to fight with weapons of the mind and appeal to the best in people. The terrorists appeal to the worst. We depend on individuals taking responsibility for themselves, and our power of influence is only as great as our power to lead by example.
I urge you to consider the consequences of continuing the interventionist foreign policy; the consequences of perpetuating the destructive policies of our monetary system; a nation that requires an ID card; a nation that starts wars. It is not our generation, but the generations of our children and grandchildren that will bear the burden of these policies. They were perhaps not started by us, but here, in 2008, we have one moment when we can make a genuine difference. Let us not say no one tried to reverse the trend of poor policy when we were handed the opportunity.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Pro Choice
Malinda walked into the poll booth and cast her ballot. She voted as she always did - along party lines - all Democrat. Malinda was not only pro choice, the right to choose was really the only political issue that mattered to her. She didn't have much time to research the other candidates anyway. She had a very busy life.
She walked out of the community center, got in her 1983 Ford Escort, and drove to the Krow Bar where she worked as a waiter. She had worked the same job for five years and was a pro. The regulars all tipped her well, and even came to the Krow Bar instead of a neighboring restaurant because she was there. At the end of her shift she pulled off some of her tips to share with her busser, then drove to the grocery store.
Every week it was the same, Barney the cashier had assembled her bag for her already. It was always the same stuff too - ramen, flour, sugar, diapers, baby food...all generic. This week she pulled two packages of ramen noodles out of the bag and placed them on the counter. She counted out the exact change, a little less than usual, and handed it to Barney.
She stopped at the gas station and filled her car with 4.7 gallons. Then it was over to Fran's house to pick up the kids. Jack and Jan ran out to the car and jumped into the back seat as Malinda pulled off a couple twenties from her roll of cash.
The next morning she drove the kids to school on her way back to the Krow Bar. Malinda enrolled them in the public school across town rather than the one a block away. The drive was in the same direction as the Krow Bar, and after school the kids would be able to walk to Fran's house. It was a routine that worked well.
One cold February day she asked if she could leave early. It was a slow afternoon, so the bar owner said it was alright. Malinda picked up a folder full of papers and walked across the street to the library. She approached the front desk, talked to the librarian, and then sat down at one of the computers that sat in a long row against the back wall. After a few minutes she opened her folder and began entering the information into the fields on her screen. Mortgage interest, expenses, dependents, wages, tips. She noticed she was being taxed on her income from tips, and consequently her return was going to be smaller than she expected. It didn't seem that the government had a right to take extra money she had been given for her good service. She completed the forms, sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, walked out of the library, and drove to Fran's house.
That night she opened a package of ramen noodles, broke it in half, and put it in the bowl of water and placed it in the microwave. She could have chosen to eat the whole thing like she usually did, but tonight she chose not to.
ramen
She walked out of the community center, got in her 1983 Ford Escort, and drove to the Krow Bar where she worked as a waiter. She had worked the same job for five years and was a pro. The regulars all tipped her well, and even came to the Krow Bar instead of a neighboring restaurant because she was there. At the end of her shift she pulled off some of her tips to share with her busser, then drove to the grocery store.
Every week it was the same, Barney the cashier had assembled her bag for her already. It was always the same stuff too - ramen, flour, sugar, diapers, baby food...all generic. This week she pulled two packages of ramen noodles out of the bag and placed them on the counter. She counted out the exact change, a little less than usual, and handed it to Barney.
She stopped at the gas station and filled her car with 4.7 gallons. Then it was over to Fran's house to pick up the kids. Jack and Jan ran out to the car and jumped into the back seat as Malinda pulled off a couple twenties from her roll of cash.
The next morning she drove the kids to school on her way back to the Krow Bar. Malinda enrolled them in the public school across town rather than the one a block away. The drive was in the same direction as the Krow Bar, and after school the kids would be able to walk to Fran's house. It was a routine that worked well.
One cold February day she asked if she could leave early. It was a slow afternoon, so the bar owner said it was alright. Malinda picked up a folder full of papers and walked across the street to the library. She approached the front desk, talked to the librarian, and then sat down at one of the computers that sat in a long row against the back wall. After a few minutes she opened her folder and began entering the information into the fields on her screen. Mortgage interest, expenses, dependents, wages, tips. She noticed she was being taxed on her income from tips, and consequently her return was going to be smaller than she expected. It didn't seem that the government had a right to take extra money she had been given for her good service. She completed the forms, sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, walked out of the library, and drove to Fran's house.
That night she opened a package of ramen noodles, broke it in half, and put it in the bowl of water and placed it in the microwave. She could have chosen to eat the whole thing like she usually did, but tonight she chose not to.
ramen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
