(God) is ―present‖ in all things although (God) does not exist ―in‖ all things. God is the Creator of all things ―infinite.‖ As an Infinite Being, however, God cannot be the cause of His own creation, which is Infinite; that is to say, God is not the cause of His own Existence but exists, rather, ―within‖ His own Infinite, self-contained Self. God cannot exist apart from His own Existence although He exists ―apart‖ from created ―things.‖ Therefore, God does not exist ―in‖ created things.
• • •
A nation that is unwilling to preserve the inviolability of its (own) language and customs or the foundations of its cultural and social traditions and, having renounced its national character and historical mandate, is not properly positioned to defend its (own) borders!
• • •
Institutionalized Thinking, Conditioned Mindsets and Reflexive Responses define the NEA and its anachronistic leadership, whose inflexible designs continue to view creative planning and progressive ideas as a threat to the status quo.
• • •
Question: Should public servants be permitted to own stock in companies that routinely seek political favors within their immediate sphere of influence?
• • •
It may be reasonably argued that the Private Sector traditionally attracted (more) talented individuals (less) averse to risk taking in exchange for the prospect of potential advancement while other individuals possessing less capacity (perhaps) or who, lacking the requisite skills demanded by most companies, generally opted for quasi-guaranteed job security provided by the Public Sector. This is likely to change, however, as higher paying positions and job security in the Private Sector are becoming less certain while the alternative prospects for longer term employment in the Public Sector coupled with generous employee benefits, equal or higher salaries and lucrative retirement packages are gradually attracting a broader cross section of recent college graduates including those counted among the ―better‖ educated.
• • •
A ―hate crime‖ is a political surcharge levied by pandering politicians seeking to shore up their (political) capital among (politically) 96influential disaffected groups.
• • •
Now that the Caribou deception has been properly exposed, (I am happy to inform the reader that its self-contained population has been thriving quite nicely in recent years despite troubling reports presaging its pending extinction), other (anti-exploratory) efforts are presently under way propagating falsely conceived (cost/benefit) assumptions to support ―economic‖ arguments against drilling for oil in ANWR.
• • •
A prizefighter does not begin training seriously for an important bout the day before the fight. Neither does a sovereign nation properly prepare itself for battle once the ―contingent‖ threat of war is imminent.
• • •
President Bush is a Principled Conservative (however) not a Principled Conservative Politician!
• • •
The expression ―Bull Shit Artist‖ has acquired new meaning within the Art Community in recent years. (The reader need only refer to the tasteless exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in order to catch my ―whiff!‖)
• • •
On Core Beliefs: Scientists and Materialists who perceive Humankind as the (ultimate) unitary measure are likely to invest (material) confidence exclusively on the practical merits or ―wisdom‖ of empirical studies and certifiable assumptions (or rules of measurements) ―properly‖ perceived by the senses whereas intuitive reasoning is likelier to repose confidence in (spiritual) designs requiring a broader range of creative powers and intelligence embracing Faith.
• • •
A society whose ―scale of values‖ are in a precipitous state of (moral) decline is not understood as much by that society‘s reflexive willingness to accept the moral and ethical transgressions of its political leaders and other ―notable‖ figures who continue to flaunt and profit by their notoriety, (after all, a generous people is always prepared to forgive the repentant sinner), but in the manner that society receives vicarious pleasure of it (own) from otherwise unbecoming and morally offensive behavior.
• • •
Addendum to the above: Question: Which is the greater of two evils; moral indifference or immoral complicity?
• • •
Young People, enjoy the treasured companionship of your elderly loved ones while time allows!
• • •
A society is defined by its formal as well as its informal social and cultural institutions. The former is properly understood in the (traditional) manner as comprising that society‘s political and legal bodies (its parliaments and courts, for example); the latter, by its community organizations gathered together for some specific purpose or function including its churches and schools (along with their established customs and practices). The former stand out in full view while the latter are less comprehensive by force of (accustomed) habit. A society in the throes of a Cultural War (or a War of Ideas), whose socially transmitted customs are under assault, is never quite apparent to the uninitiated, (unlike the attendant violence of civil wars, for example, whose apparent destruction of person and property, not to mention its deleterious effect on the economy, are much easier to assess), and whose consequential impact on that society‘s traditions (usually) take longer for an non-engaging or morally indifferent society to absorb. A Cultural War waged by determined ideas is a much more subtle, deceptive and formidable form of warfare inasmuch as it craftily conceals its (unstated) purpose; a social and cultural conversion cutting at the (very) heart of a society‘s traditional belief system; a gradual, however determined process that oftentimes goes unchecked until an awakening society (roused from its slumbers) suddenly finds itself in the midst of altered customs and norms no longer consonant with that society‘s accustomed practices. Attacks on a society‘s culture engender far-reaching ramifications whose transformations, having taken on a (systematic) life of its own, are oftentimes difficult to perceive or reverse, for that matter, unlike the destruction of that society‘s formal (or physical) institutions that are much easier to perceive. Machiavelli correctly argued that internal revolutions that seek to transform a society‘s social and political cultural must (necessarily) retain that society‘s material forms in order to convey a semblance of continuity without seemingly undermining their essential character, notwithstanding its altering of prevailing customs and practices that would otherwise promote resentment among its citizens.
• • •
Addendum to the above: Historically, (impressionable) fertile young minds, the conduits for social and cultural change, have been their traditional catalysts as many are generally (considered) more adaptable to revolutionary thinking.97
• • •
Eliminate national identity and thereby eliminate the characteristics and manners that properly define a Nation. Eliminate objective standards and rules of measurement and thereby eliminate inequality. Eliminate gender differences and thereby eliminate the particulars that distinguish the sexes. Eliminate religion and thereby eliminate Humankind‘s loftiest moral standing. Eliminate an intolerance for tolerance and thereby (promote) an overly simplistic view of (Human) Nature.
• • •
It is axiomatic that every individual who properly enjoys life, gives (reflective) pause to all that is meaningful and of certain value; held motionless by uncertain forms that have yet to take shape however aroused by such notions that (necessarily) compel he or she to probe deeper into their essential nature notwithstanding how they (may) oftentimes exceed the capacious limits of that individual‘s (private) understanding that nevertheless continues to intrigue inquiring minds cognizant of intuitive impressions part real / part imaginary yet real in the real sense of being One in All; (however separated) whose underlying presence, however, conveys a (higher) spiritual or moral standing…that the young, conditioned by the expectancies of youth united with the old seeking redemption for unfulfilled promises or missed opportunities; each converging toward the same starting/ending point, the one embarking on life and the other approaching its end, in some manner, however, occasioning a (new) beginning, a jubilee, an extension of life which becomes younger (while growing older), brought together, youth/age, childlike in all its manly/womanly innocence while the middle years patiently bide their appointed time.
• • •
There is a wide chasm that separates parents who try to provide certain advantages to their children from others who either pamper or (merely) indulge them. The former seek to provide an effective foundation (moral and spiritual as well as material), essential to their future well-being while the latter (unwittingly) engender a paralysis of will that stunts their children‘s emotional and intellectual development.
• • •
Suddenly awakening from a bad dream, at once startled however relieved; the gamut of one‘s emotions, a hairsbreadth (yet) seemingly lasting a lifetime. Thank heavens it was only a dream!
• • •
I believe that if an individual were given an opportunity to retrace his or her steps or revisit some critical crossroad; that is to say, given another opportunity to reconsider (decisions) made earlier in life, that after weighing a variety of options from the vantage point of hindsight or (experience) contrary to such (decisions) that were previously made, that he or she would in all probability make the (very) same decisions.
• • •
Addendum to the above: Experience and Memory is no match for Nature‘s Calling!
• • •
A ―probable‖ law is probable inasmuch as it remains subject to ―proof;‖ that is to say, until it is validated by common practices and/or legal interpretations by legal authorities consisting of nonelected men and women appointed to our nation‘s highest courts who remain unaccountable to the American People; subject to contingent legalities that directly affect them and whose ―definitive‖ arguments are (oftentimes) subject to change as the ideological alignment of the courts may vary thereby overriding legislative authority vested by the people to sanction laws by rendering elastic, interpretations of (uncertain) legal propositions and subsequent laws of the land, thereby setting themselves up in a uncertain manner as supreme arbiters of the law.
• • •
The United States of America, otherwise understood as the ―Grand Experiment,‖ is gradually losing its standing as the world‘s preeminent super power. Perhaps this unfortunate turn of events is inevitable in light of the continuous assault over the years by the International Community (read: Modern European Democracies) whose leaders widely regard sovereign authority (other than their own) and political prestige invested in great nations with suspicion and whose (own) precipitous decline as world power brokers foreshadowed America‘s diminution of (global) influence by a half century or more. The main difference separating America and Europe, however, is that centuries of War and unmanageable Welfare depleted the economic stamina of most European Nations unlike America; however it oftentimes appears confused over how to properly manage its ―manifest‖ calling historically pledged to support free and open societies. It would appear that America has, whether intentionally or not, (I will leave such questions for others to argue), hastened its own decline by reasons of ―guilt,‖ ―shame‖ and (national) complacency or perhaps a combination of all three or simply because egalitarian attitudes no longer make it feasible for America to shoulder such (lofty) burdens. Whatever the reason(s), America, in the short-term at least, remains the final line of defense of world freedom.
• • •
Whatever conditions or incites (human) emotions, such expressions are triggered within the (core) of an individual‘s (basic) nature whose (essential) ingredients seldom vary.98
• • •
Material Apathy and Intellectual Humility are consonant with Spiritual Repose, the lack of which properly explains the nominalization of religious and spiritual attitudes common among the more affluent societies.
• • •
Evil has its own inestimable manner of penetrating the hearts and minds of individuals who, although not evil themselves, unwittingly serve as conduits for a variety of sordid practices and assorted mischief.
• • •
Whether the United States should suspend its forty-three (43) year embargo against Cuba and resume normal trade relations with that country‘s communistic regime is one of the overriding questions presently being debated by our nation‘s political leaders. Fidel Castro‘s supporters on the American Left have historically argued that 1) most embargoes are ineffective in subverting autocratic governments (note these are the same people who summarily called for embargoes against Iraq as a viable alternative to war), and 2) that such restrictions promote unnecessary hardship to its citizens and should therefore be lifted if not for humanitarian reasons, alone.What such arguments conveniently side-step, however, are the valiant efforts of individuals who have dedicated their lives to the cause of freedom, many of whom continue rotting away in Cuban prisons, and America‘s obligation to lend moral and practical support to these brave men and women who continue to put up the good fight despite the many hardships that they too have had to endure as a (heavy) price for freedom.
• • •
Addendum to the above: What might have been avoided if not for the Kennedy Administration‘s unconscionable betrayal of Cuban freedom fighters during the Bay of Pigs invasion that not only failed to liberate the island at a most opportune time in history but subsequently engendered a domino effect of neighboring Marxist Dictatorships in our own hemisphere!
• • •
On ex-President James Earl Carter: The expression ―useful idiot‖ oftentimes comes to mind as it relates to Mr. Carter‘s endlessly quixotic ―peacekeeping‖ overtures to autocratic regimes throughout the Third World in a transparent attempt at redeeming his failed presidency; this is not to imply, however, that our ex-president does not (otherwise) share a certain sympathy with such leaders as evidenced by his fawning indifference to human and civil rights abuses routinely evident in many of those countries. Mr. Carter‘s consistent pandering to South/Central American, Caribbean and African Marxists and Middle Eastern Potentates, is understood in part as the product of a tormented ―conscience‖ that, for political reasons, conveniently embraces a Christian/Marxism mindset that combines the religious instincts of his youth with Mr. Carter‘s ―transformation‖ as a latter day, self-serving populist supporter of―oppressed‖ peoples of color that would ultimately redefine his political ambitions.
• • •
On ex-President Ronald Reagan: The expression The Reagan/Bush (Economic) Recovery does a grave disservice to President Ronald Reagan‘s economic legacy. It should not be shared with a man (Bush) opposed in principle to Mr. Reagan‘s supply-side initiatives who sought to distance himself from these policies after he (Bush) assumed the office of the presidency and that arguably cost him a second term in office. Mr. Bush is among a long line of Moderate/Liberal Republicans; a list that includes former presidents Nixon and Ford and (would) have arguably included former Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole had he too been elected president, who simply failed to grasp the fundamental importance of lower taxes and increased productivity as the primary drivers that promote economic prosperity.
• • •
On Ex-President Clinton: I am not entirely convinced that Mr. Clinton was/is a closet Marxist as some on the Hard Right would have us believe, although, as a child of the sixties, he may very well have favored a softened version consistent with ―third way‖ ideas. I prefer to believe, however, that he simply lacked principled core values and that his pursuit of power was/is simply a political end game common among people of his generation, especially those situated on the left side of the political equation.
• • •
What follows is a brief summary of President Bush‘s ―Conservative‖ Credentials: 1) signed into law an education bill that even Ted Kennedy couldn‘t seriously challenge (so much for school vouchers and accountability), 2) proposed an immigration reform bill granting unconditional amnesty to illegal immigrants (so much for controlling our nation‘s borders), 3) signed into law a campaign finance reform bill considered by most constitutional scholars, unconstitutional (so much for Freedom of Speech), 4) signed into law a $190 billion farm subsidy bill (so much for pork), 5) imposed import tariffs on steel (so much for Free Trade), 6) hasn‘t vetoed a single (spending) bill after two years in office (so much for fiscal restraint), 7) effectively restricted Israeli efforts to combat our mutual enemies (so much for the War on Terror), 8) unable to rein in renegade Senate Republicans opposed to oil exploration in ANWR (so much for independence on foreign oil). So much for Conservative Principles period! I suppose an Al Gore presidency could have fared a whole lot worse for Conservatives.
• • •
99Ideas are the foundation of all our designs.
• • •
By its very ―nature‖ artificial intelligence lacks the (natural) predicates that otherwise promote independent or self-contained thinking.At best, planned intelligence may imitate the various forms or likeness however not the sameness of human intelligence that cultivates its own rational manners by inherent rather than exterior designs. Such arguments extend to manufactured ―emotions,‖ as well.
Although ―correct‖ intellectual and emotional responses may be properly programmed, these ―attributes‖ (inevitably) lack spontaneity of purpose or meaning or the (essential) qualities otherwise produced by nature.
• • •
On Baby Boomers: Television Sitcoms featuring dim-witted, out of touch parents made to appear foolish in contrast with their more enlightened, ratty off springs seems to be a by-product of deeply affected (adolescent) grievances common among aging ―boomers‖seeking vicarious payback or therapeutic relief from an Authoritarian Parent Syndrome whose symptoms many are seemingly unable to overcome.
• • •
Addendum to the above: The children of the Great Depression foreshadowed a coming generation of men and women destined for eternal adolescence. How could they have properly imagined how things would subsequently play out? Such was/is the inevitable outcome whenever parents, lacking proper perspective; that is to say, an appropriate level of giving (that oftentimes exceeds their means), subsequently choose the ―safer‖ path of least resistance by giving more rather than less. They could be forgiven, I suppose, in wanting to give what they themselves had never properly enjoyed.
• • •
Addendum to the above: Happy as many parents were to provide a higher standard of living for their children (motivated in part by parading affluence), these ―selfless‖ acts seldom elicited an appropriate level of gratitude or appreciation for their self-sacrificing efforts. The constant giving with no strings attached provoked childlike expectations among an overindulged generation of children whose detachment and immaturity caused many to incorrectly estimate or value the sacrifices made by their parents. Pampered and spoiled beyond their parent‘s willingness to control or muster the required checks that separate rights from privileges (inevitably) gave rise to increasingly selfish attitudes common among a growing generation of young men and women accustomed to having their own way. These parents (unwittingly) sought to love their children the only way they knew how, by buying their children‘s affection. Now their children‘s children are the ones paying a heavy price for it!
• • •
Addendum to the above: Every generation is influenced in part by the prevailing customs of its time; challenging the formal assumptions of preceding generations. Baby Boomers were unique in the manner many were drawn to a sociopolitical ideology governed by faulty premises, unformed impressions and partial truths that artificially manufactured hybrid forms of reality further obfuscated by uncertain, abstract realisms or shadows (of truth) that gave way to a fictionalized account of reality that (eventually) assumed a life of its own.
• • •
There is a movement under way in a number of school districts across the nation seeking to abolish ―contact‖ sports during recess that are considered ―aggressive‖ including dodge ball, tag, and, incredible as it may seem, musical chairs, to mention a few, since such―rough housing‖ supposedly favors bigger, stronger, more athletic types at the expense (chagrin) of other children who, lacking the necessary corporeal endowments or, as they relate to musical chairs, quick feet and agility, (often) find themselves unable to compete at a higher level. For these ―reasons‖ school administrators are gradually phasing out games considered intimidating or harmful to the self-esteem of ―underachieving‖ children. This sporting pogrom is another transparent attempt engineered by Feminists (men and women alike) who are hoping to advance a unisexual agenda aimed at feminizing robust young boys and transforming them into docile she-men. I do not speak in jest! I am of the opinion that nothing less than the utter annihilation of the male ego will satisfy the morbid designs of its dourest members. What many of these women and their proselytized (male) cohorts fail to recognize, howe ver, is that manly qualities are determined by nature and that although the underlying characteristics(s) that typically define (most) males may be artificially modified, nature‘s tenacious capacity to overcome such efforts is demonstrated in the remarkable manner it is able to recover itself.
• • •
Addendum to the above: Such typifies the feminist agenda that seeks to invalidate the (societal) benefits of socialization, character, leadership, sportsmanship and imagination while staying the course of emasculating young boys by making them more amenable to its distorted worldview.
• • •
Dear Arthur-(Arthur Traynor)June 21st 2002100
Heed the warning of unholy alliances between Christians committed to genuine reform and Secularists seeking the Church‘s destruction! You, as well as other well-informed Christians, are properly aware of the questionable character of men passing themselves off as priests. The recent scandals (Pedophilia) that have rocked the Church have properly upset you as well they should.
The crisis facing the Catholic Church (today) was foreshadowed by the Second Vatican Council that sought to ―integrate modern human experience with Christian Dogma‖ in an effort to promote a better understanding of the Scriptures. Such designs, in my opinion, produced the opposite effect by undermining its traditional teachings. Among its many reforms included an oath of celibacy taken by avowed homosexuals. We shouldn‘t be surprised by its inevitable outcome. Homosexuality, and not Pedophilia, is the real issue here. Although some cases of ―pedophilia‖ may in fact exist, I am certain that the rate of such occurrences fall well short of the (social) norm. Nevertheless, doesn‘t it strike you as odd that the overwhelming number of reported cases involving sexual transgressions oftentimes involved adolescent boys (girls, with few exceptions, are seldom mentioned) between the ages of nine and fourteen when most were likely to serve as altar boys? I wouldn‘t expect accurate reporting from the media and other members of the liberal community unlikely to risk a political fallout over the question of ―gay‖ (that sacred cow) priests although most people on the other hand would generally agree that Pedophilia is abominable and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I am of the opinion that the media is purposely blowing everything out of proportion. I‘m not implying that these transgressions did not in fact occur (and still do for that matter). I agree that these predators should be summarily rooted out, defrocked and thrown in the can for good measure. What I‘m suggesting, however, is that men sexually orientated in that manner should never have been ordained to begin with. (There, I‘ve said it!) Isn‘t it peculiar how many young boys (now grown men) traumatized some thirty to forty years ago seem to be popping out of the woodwork with such alacrity; the suppression of (such) painful matters buried for years suddenly provoking a reawakening of Conscience or whatever else you may choose to call it? Could it be that the promise of financial gain may be a (chief) motivating factor in their decision to tell all? I believe that a number of these accusations have been trumped-up or are simply the product of overactive or ―extended‖ imaginations that have seemingly lost their perspective over time. Perhaps I‘m being somewhat cynical or perhaps I‘m unwilling to accept what is happening to our Church. Whatever the reason, this issue certainly needs to be addressed in a timely, impartial manner. My biggest concern, however, is that these horrific events, that have recently come to light, are likely to recall arguments about married and, heaven forbid, women priests! That the feminization of the pulpit would likely follow should be reason enough to raise serious doubts among traditional practicing Catholics. (I understand that you and I differ on the question of married and women priests so I won‘t press the issue ). I don‘t believe, however, that the Church needs to reinvent itself in order to accommodate modern ―requirements.‖ However I digress. What was it that President Nixon once said: ―We are all Protestants now‖ or soon will be?
Best Regards
Al
• • •
It‘s not how you start off but how you finish that ultimately matters the most!
• • •
The unwillingness to forgive a perceived wrong is Pride‘s greatest Accomplishment!
• • •
A representative of the people should uphold the duties and (sacred) trust of public office by making informed decisions based upon the legitimate concerns of his or her constituents by promoting, whenever possible, majority interests without compromising the immediate demands of the nation. He or she should never pursue, however, his or her own immediate interests or the parochial interests of ―popular‖ opinion that each may otherwise feel indebted.
• • •
Alexander Hamilton remarked in the Federalist Papers that ―Power is neither too great nor too small; however ―limited or proportionate to its intended purpose and that it is only excessive where its authority exceeds the limits delegated to some predetermined end.‖ In pursuing this line of reasoning, Power, is not absolute but a variation, rather, of proportionate means and ends.Nevertheless, Power, however limited in scope or whatever its assigned role or whatever its form(s) or for whatever purpose (end) it is channeled, should be considered absolute or complete (or excessive) in the manner that it (Power) seeks to promote a desired end, and that however ―restricted‖ by definition remains absolute in its intended design. I believe the confusion lies between Absolute Power and the (excessive) Abuse of Power (which need not be absolute in order to be abusive).
• • •
Addendum to the above: I have taken the liberty of defining Absolute Power as excessive since Power as an arbitrary construct, does not (naturally) lend itself to self-imposed limits neither does it readily yield to ulterior designs that would otherwise seek to curb its influence or abbreviate its prestige.
• • •
Once the brevity of human existence has been properly explored and the passage into the unknown of imminent concern, does the plausible expectancy of eternal life provide some measure of comfort? Such are the overpowering anxieties of Despair searching for the Light of Truth.101
• • •
Reason, however compelling, is oftentimes no match against pre-programmed or ―talking point‖ summations, biased opinions or ignorance in general.
• • •
Prozac has become the prescription drug of choice among feminist activists seeking to sedate the (traditional) male ego.