You are here: Home
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." ~ Thomas Jefferson
When having a discussion with someone about a topic that may be considered to be controversial, it would be helpful to begin the discussion by developing an understanding of the fundamental belief system of each person. This can be done by simply asking, "What do you believe...?"
By inserting a high-level view of the topic as part of the question, and then having each person respond to that high-level question, it is possible to establish a framework for further discussion that may reduce tensions about a controversial issue.
One example of how that might be used would be a discussion between two people about their political beliefs. The question to ask might be, "What do you believe should be the role of government in society? Should society be based on the sovereignty of the individual over the state, or should society be based on the sovereignty of the state over the individual?" Such a question provides the foundation for a discussion about liberty vs. tyranny, conservatism vs. progressivism, or other topics.
If you like this idea, then join The Westlake 9/12 Project as we explore the idea of developing "What do you believe" cards to help initiate civil discussions about contentious issues.
Several recent events have resulted in cries for more laws to prevent those events from happening. The Parkland FL shooting is an excellent example. Would more laws prevent future school shootings? We do not believe so. There is already a law against killing someone. There is already a law against trying to kill someone. There is already a law against taking a gun into a school. In fact, the shooter has already been charged with a total 34 different violations of laws.
The reality is that criminal laws and punishments are deterrents, not preventatives. If someone decides to act criminally, then the deterrents of laws are ineffective, no matter how many of them there are. More laws would not result in better behavior.
Are you and your information safe and secure in the digital age? Come to learn about the risks we face on a daily basis, and what you can do to protect yourself, your informaiton, and your digital equipment. . Click here to view a PDF version of the presentation.
On October 1, 2017, a man whose name I will hot honor through mention, acted by shooting upon a crowd of innocent people who were attending a Country Music concert. He indiscriminately shot into the crowd, killing over 50 people and wounding over 500 more. This unspeakable atrocity is the greatest loss of life of its kind that this nation has seen. This should be a time of sadness, mourning, empathy, and support for the families of the wounded and deceased. Our condolences and our prayers go out to those families.
As follows any tragedy of this type, families will mourn their loss, people of faith will offer up their prayers and their assistance, and politicians will grandstand on the graves of the victims to push their agendas and to gain talking points. The amorality and insensitivity of those politicians should incite outrage among their constituents and lead to the end of their terms of service; but sadly it won't.
This article by James Summers appeared in The Morning Journal, p. A4, June 26 2017 (Lorain, Ohio)
Dr. Summers is a scientist and engineer with 55 years experience in the generation and analysis of data in the plastics industry. He used the same scientific techniques to analyze environmental data provided by others.
With the United States exiting the Paris agreement, there is much political discussion on global climate. Because scientific information is complex politicians and reporters seldom dig deeply. I will attempt here to explain the complex facts in a way to be understood by nearly all readers.
When President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, the response from the Left was predictable. Never mind that the accord was non-binding, had no enforcement mechanisms, and would actually have little to no effect on climate. Here are a few "unhinged" examples from the climate change fanatics:
"If Donald Trump pulls the United States out of the Paris Agreement he will be committing a traitorous act of war against the American people." —billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.
"If this is true he will have the death of whole nations on his hands. People will be looking to the USA for retribution for what they loose [sic]." —actor Mark Ruffalo on Trump's Paris decision
"Despicable. Praying this is another twisted trial balloon to see if enough people are willing to kill the planet for profit." —actor Morgan Freeman on Trump's Paris decision
Campus Leftists Target Professor Who Objected to Demands That White People Leave Campus
Guy Benson: May 30, 2017 10:25 AM Source link
The left-wing denizens of the Pacific Northwest have outdone themselves again, evidently determined to steal Northern California's crown as the least tolerant region in America. Fresh off of violent threats from "anti-fascists" in Oregon that forced the cancellation of an annual rose festival parade (because local Republicans were planning to participate in the tradition), here we have a college professor being driven away from his classroom in Washington state -- under the recommendation of campus police -- because he objected to a ridiculous left-wing scheme of racial division and segregation.
What is more important; what you think or how you think?
When you ask someone, "What do you think about (enter subject)?", you will always get an answer. You may or may not like the answer that you get, but you will always get some kind of answer. In almost all cases, the answer that you will receive is based upon the most recent information that the respondent has received that is in agreement with his underlying philosophical biases. An interesting experiment for you to conduct is to rather ask someone, "How do you think about (enter subject)?" You will probably have to explain what you mean by the question, but it may produce some interesting responses.
There have been several articles published recently that approach the important question of which is more important; what you think or how you think. It would be wise for you to consider the question in regard to your own positions on the important issues of today, as well as how you approach discussions with others that may not believe as you do about those same issues.
Judicial activism in Trump travel suspension case is dangerous: The federal judiciary has become a swamp, particularly the Ninth Circus.
By James Shott · Feb. 14, 2017
The recent hullabaloo over President Donald Trump’s temporary suspension of travel from seven Middle Eastern countries with ties to Islamic terrorism has dominated the early days of his administration. Trump’s action suspends entry to the country as his administration seeks better methods of vetting potential visitors to the U.S. for national security reasons. This incident has brought to the fore once again the high degree of activism in the federal judiciary.
Judicial activism involves interpreting the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s laws to achieve some non-legal, socially desirable leftist end favored by judges. Politics trumps the law.
Obamacare is a proven policy failure. Congress and the Trump Administration must completely repeal the law, beginning by seizing the opportunity to accomplish as much of repeal as possible through the reconciliation process. Congress must focus on the fundamentals: equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance; restoring commonsense regulation of health insurance; and addressing the serious need for reform in Medicare and Medicaid by adopting policies that give individuals control over their health care. High quality health care means all Americans should be free to choose a health care plan that meets their needs and reflects their values. Congress must act now to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a new set of options that empower Americans, not government.
The full report can be read here.
The Washington establishment was stunned.
A political outsider with few connections in the nation’s capital, but wide national celebrity among the American people, was going to be the next president of the United States.
Washington, D.C., residents were unprepared for the wild scene that was about to unfold when the new president’s advocates—and a few detractors—poured into the city. Some compared this enormous mass of people to an invading barbarian horde pillaging Rome.
This scene may sound familiar in 2017, but it describes Andrew Jackson’s inaugural celebration in 1829. At the time, such large-scale fanfare at an inauguration was unprecedented.