Friday, March 31, 2006

I Saw a Black Man Once

I have two sons graduating from University next month. I am proud of their accomplishments and of the futures they will make for themselves. When they were little boys, four and three years old, we lived in Jackson Hole Wyoming. My third son was born while we lived there. Jackson is a great place to visit art galleries, but not extremely diverse racially. In fact, for the two years we lived there, two formative years of my son Lafe’s life, we saw no black people at all, with one notable exception. My boys were big fans of the A Team T.V. show. And their great hero – right up there with He Man, was Mr. T.

Our two year tour in Jackson ended and we headed for Logan and classes at USU. Not long after arriving in the “big city” Lafe and I were standing in line in the Safeway when a big black man pushed his cart up behind us. “Mr. T! Mr. T! squealed Lafe in delight. We all had a good laugh; I think our new friend was a little flattered. I explained to my precocious child that, “there are many kinds of people in the world, some,” I explained, “are black, some are white, but they are all people.” Winter passed, student teaching was completed, a job teaching American history to eighth graders procured, and the family was off for our traditional summer at Scout Camp. We were headed for Camp Bartlett above Liberty, Idaho. The camp director the year before had been less than diligent in putting away the facility. He had not drained the water lines in either the Lodge or the family living quarters. When we charged the lines we discovered broken pipes everywhere.

In those days (as in these) our council was blessed with a truly great man as its “Director of Camping”; the man over all the camps, and the one who always shows up when there is an emergency. His name was Jed Stringham, and he had been my boss or my bosses boss for most of my years in scout camp. When Jed was younger he had had cancer in one ear and the ear had been removed. He had a “glue on” prosthesis which looked fairly close to the real thing, and if you over looked the great scar on to which it was pasted, his head looked quit natural once he got “put together”.

That day Jed and I were under our little cabin cutting breaks and soldering patches into copper pipes. In the cold, wet mud of the crawl space Jed’s ear fell off. He stuffed it in his pocket and we kept right on working; yelling up to wife and kids through the back bedroom window for aid in testing the lines. When everything was water tight we crawled out from under the cabin, Jed stood up directly in front and only inches away from the bedroom window out of which my three beautiful blond boys were leaning. Lafe looked in wonder at Jed’s head and exclaimed, “Grandpa Jed, you have a hole in your head, Grandpa Jed, you only have one ear.” Then with a a profound look on his handsome face he opined philosophically, “Some people have two ears, some people have one. I saw a black man once.”

Lafe had learned this important lesson of his youth very well. All people are people and physical differences just don’t count. There are plenty of hysterical folks right here in the USA who could take a lesson from my wise son. American is a multiethnic state. Our unique nationalism is not based on race, or religion, or customs, or favorite thing to eat. It is based on the acceptance of universal truths that are common to all men. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is this all inclusive creed that binds all Americans together. The truth is that all people in the world are joined by these same Natural Laws. Discord among peoples is generated by the unjust abrogation of any of these tenants of human living.

I am amazed that there are Americans, who, living under the shield of Freedom, and bound to their fellow Americans by these universal precepts, cannot see their universal application. There are those to left and right who seek to exclude and to divide rather than to include and unite. Some examples:

1. Types like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton who benefit from churning up racial separation and hate. Whose wealth and power are based on convincing people that the bigotries of the past entitle them to victim status today.

2. Many anti-war types who believe that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are American aspirations, shunned by Middle Easterners who prefer living in slavery, repression and fear.

3. “America for Americans” types who cherish the blessing of America for themselves but refuse to share this land of opportunity with those who aspire to the same hope that brought their ancestors across seas and mountains to partake of the miracle that is a land of prosperity, justice, liberty and peace.

4. Those who cannot tell the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islam. Who talk about war with Iraq, or fighting Afghans, when what we are really doing is liberating and bringing the Universal Opportunities enjoyed in America to the courageous people of Iraq and Afghanistan who are our closest allies in the defense of those very values. Selfish political interests that attack Dubai in order to drum up votes, who pray on racist misconceptions of the ignorant to procure power.

5. Old fashioned nation states who define their self interest as more important than the betterment of the world as a whole, whose shortsightedness leads them to take bribes from terrorists and to stand as obstacles to world peace in order to court the favor of terrorists or escape their wrath. Red China, Russia, France, Spain, and a host of other third world nations who are governed by powers engendered by hate for America and hate Bush propaganda. I am encouraged that I have been able to remove Canada and Germany from the list above. It is encouraging that in both of these nations the Pro-Bush, Pro-American parties have come to power.

It will take some real education to prepare a generation of Americans wise enough to see that people are people and to engender and defend the common human values that bring the world toward the day when we can all be one world, under god, with liberty and justice for all.


Reach Upward said...

My father immigrated (legally) to the U.S. at age 25. A couple of years ago my parents returned from an extended tour doing volunteer work in my father's native country. When we arrived at their house from the airport, my dad sat on his couch and said, "It's good to be back home in America." I replied that I thought he had just spent a year and a half back 'home.' He chuckled and said that although he was born and raised elsewhere, he is an American.

My father started his career in the U.S. as a blue collar worker. Through work and study he eventually broke into professional ranks. He still enjoys doing hands-on things. But he has that kind of freedom.

That's what I want for others. I want them to be Americans in their hearts and to be proud to fly the American flag. I want them to be able to raise their children in this land of opportunity. I want them to progress into the ranks of the middle class or above if they choose.

We have created an extremely difficult situation by years of mixed messages with regard to immigration. The idea that we can deport 11.5 million people is simply preposterous. It would be the largest forced migration in the history of the world. Could we really do this in good conscience? Are we going to have an army of brown shirts out there executing this cleansing?

We need avenues for immigrants to become true Americans. What is the best way to do this? I'm not sure. But kicking people out of the country en masse is not at all feasible. Let's at least discuss options that could actually work and that would achieve the goals of protecting sovereignity and providing opportunity. This is not as cut and dried as some make it out to be.

Rumpole said...


We have often conversed about men like Jed. I was fortunate to grow up in an area where there were a few other “Jeds”. No, I didn’t grow up in a neighborhood of one-eared men; rather I grew up in a neighborhood that had men that I will refer to as “characters”.

I use that term with great reverence. “Characters” like Jed have a different perspective than the rest of us. I don’t know where it comes from, but I recognize it and am drawn to it when I see it. It is disciplined, refreshing, full of wisdom, and at times quite comical.

I remember Jed running through the mess hall in the morning, screaming at all of us in complete sincerity, “Where’s my ear glue?!!!” I remember his wife, the accordion player (her name escapes me), leading us in sing-a-longs. I still feel a twinge of guilt when I think back to that last sing-a-long. It was the last one because you had forced us to go and we crushed Mrs. Jed by making a mockery of her songs. It was the only way we could see an end to the torture.

And after the demise of Mrs. Jed I remember you pulling us all together for a real scolding; not about Adam Smith’s “pure capitalism”, but rather about courtesy, teamwork, and pulling together for a common cause.

Reach described his vision of America. Jed and Mrs. Jed are a reflection of mine. We suffered through the ear glue and the accordion to unite for a common cause. We rallied together to see a shared vision become a reality.

People throughout the world come to America to share that “vision”. Legal immigration is the life-blood of this great nation. We must never lose sight of that fact, nor allow other seekers of the dream to fear “the borders are closed”.

Reach Upward said...

Rumpole, I too appreciate people of character as well as people who are characters. (My middle son is one of the latter.) I too remember Jed's accordian-playing wife teaching the Loll Staff to sing Schnitzelbank and Jacob's Ladder. I too remember Lysis teaching us about respect. I remember visiting Jed in the hospital after seriously breaking his leg while working on a council van at Camp Kiesel. We visited him because we had learend to respect him.

I too desire an immigration system that engenders respect going both ways, including respect for laws and for people. We don't have that today. And it won't be easy to create a system like that from our current situation. The iron-fist approach won't work.

We need a multi-pronged approach that addresses feasible and appropriate laws, respect for those laws, a desire to help others achieve their greatest potential, and encouraging a culture of respect by foreign countries. Even if we can cobble such a system together it will take a generation to implement. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't start now.

Lysis said...

As we consider the universal nature of Justice, the fact that what is Just in Boston is also Just in Baghdad, or Baja; these words of Henry Thoreau from *Civil Disobedience* are worth considering.

1. After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.”

2. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? – in which majorities decide only those question to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a monument, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislature? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we sould be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”

truth to power said...

I wanted to say a little about Lysis's example #5 of those who can't see the universal application of the laws of human freedom:

"Old fashioned nation states who define their self interest as more important than the betterment of the world as a whole".

You talked only about how this applies to international support for terrorism. But there's obviously much more to it.

I've posted recently on despots of varying degrees who encourage their undesirables to invade the US illegally. This burdens us and helps relieve any pressure on the corrupt leaders to reform.

As far as I know, every nation in the world still has some sort of foreign trade restrictions, tariffs, prices supports, subsidies, etc. Free trade is held up as an ideal, but no one dares to try unilateral change. Of course, some countries are much worse than others in this regard.

We've heard a great deal about the suppression of dissent in China, particularly online (although they let spammers run rampant!). This is an egregious example, but freedom of speech is still a novel idea for many governments--and a terrifying one, at that.

Even less widely recognized is freedom of religion. The most totalitarian systems obviously fear a citizenry with allegiance to something higher than the state and who believe in divinely-granted rights the state must not dare to abridge. Places like Turkey and (as we have recently seen) Afghanistan feel growing pains in separating from their theocratic past. But even many nations that have made great strides in civil liberties still have difficulty in this area. How many of the enlightened, broad-minded countries of Europe still have an established or state-supported church? Our founding fathers really did something unusual in incorporating freedom of religion into the basis of our government, and the world has yet to catch up.

I agree that it will be difficult to educate Americans to lead the way in bringing freedom to the world, but it has to start with us. We know freedom better than anyone. We just need to learn that it's for everyone.

Reach Upward said...

Rich Lowery sounds positively anti-immigration here where he cites studies showing that immigration of low-wage workers does have a negative economic impact on the U.S. He says that immigration advocates should acknowledge their humanitarian purpose rather than disingenuously arguing that current immigration trends have positive economic effects.

John Derbyshire asks here why so many countries in this world have such bad governments, and ergo, bad economies. He notes that only six of the 152 countries listed in his 1911 encyclopedia survive today with laws and systems of government intact, "without having suffered revolution, civil war, major dismemberment, or foreign occupation." He thinks we lack the wisdom and knowledge necessary to impose good government on the rest of the world, and argues that we need to see to our own problems.

I actually find myself torn on the immigration issue on both the micro and macro levels. Would it not be better for prospective immigrants to stay home and work to fix their own countries? It sounds good, but is internal improvement likely? Why or why not? Even if immigrants come at a net cost, what is the liklihood that their children and grandchildren would fail to more than recompense our economy as occurred with past generations of immigrants? Do we not have a duty to lift others, both on a personal and a national level?

Anonymous said...

Divine Lysis:
First there was Divine Jupiter, followed by Divine Nature, followed by Divine Reason, Divine Law, Divine Truth, Divine Right, and Divine Mind!!!!

Divine Lysis "non-explains" that in this conjectured Pantheon ALL are contemporary and co-eternal, existing BEFORE Jehovah and are precepts that exist co-eternally and need not be apprehended or written down to exist.

Lysis then scoffs, "How does one write something in one's heart; is that invasive surgery?"

I would suggest that if God finds it necessary to use a "finger to WRITE the LAW, then He can transribe equally onto Old Testament Rock, or onto the New Testament "heart" of fleshly clay.. . . BUT WRITTEN IT MUST BE!(Which part of Divine Jupiter accounts for the Holly Ghost?)

Lysis seems to argue that written law is not eternal law -- I will counter that God's writing down is what MAKES LAW ETERNAL. I think ALL Lysis' eternalities and divinities are 1. "Weasle Words" that have no meaning without context. And 2. Vague and deceptive rhetorical posturings used to justify Lysis' OWN "divinesque" SELF-serving conclusions. (If Lysis' arguments seem to deflate from escaping flatulence he then "pumps them up" with "Divine Airs". . . I don't mean oxygen!!!!

This strategy is the "worst argument in the world" because it claims that "(the mind) is deluded to think it can and does conceive of bodies existing unthought of, or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by, or exist in, "itself". This claim proceeds from the tautology that nothing can be thought of without its being thought of, to the conclusion that someTHINGS can exist without their being thought of. The argument is not even a syllogism --not even an argument at all, more like a TESTIMONIAL than an argument.

This co-opting of Christian liturgy by Lysis' making "Divine Jupiter" equivalent to the Christian/Hebrew Jehovah is not only ridiculous but offensive!!!!

Beef Jerky said...

Then don't read it.

Lysis said...


Amidst all your questions, you missed the most important one, does divine flatulence stink? I know mine doesn’t.

The simple solution to your quandary about how God writes on the heart is that He does it through DIVINE REASON; that part of His divinity he shares with us all; see Holy Ghost.

To make the nature of eternal truth clear to you, truth needs no mind to comprehend it to be true. But I believe that God, what ever name one wishes to apply to Him, is co-eternal with truth and therefore has always comprehended it.

Lysis said...

Truth to Power: I agree that there is a need for peoples and nations to mature. I think it is very dangerous to be one of the few “adult” nations in a world full of dangerous adolescent states and senile geezer nations. Having accepted that, I still maintain that throughout time and space, all men recognize basic truths that generate just governments. This is what makes American efforts to provide these opportunities to all nations not only wise but possible.

Here are some more quotes from various thinkers of the past that indicate that man's search for and recognition of Justice and Freedom are universal.

Ancient Sources of Modern Thought: On the Universal Human Nature of Right and Wrong; a Common Link for all humanity.

Homer’s Iliad:

Achilles: “From me alone, Achilles of all Achaeans, he seizes, he keeps the wife I love . . . Well let him bed her now – enjoy her to the hilt!
Why must we battle Trojans, men of Argos? Why did he muster an army, lead us her, that son of Atreus? Why, why in the world if not for Helen with her loose and lustrous hair? Are they the only men alive who love their wives, those sons of Atreus? Never! An decent man, a man with sense, loves his own, cares for his own as deeply as I, I loved that woman with all my heart, though I won her like a trophy with my spear . . . But now that he’s torn my honor from my hands, robbed me ,,,lied to me – don’t let him try me now. I know Him too well – we’ll never win me over!
Aeschylus’ Eumenides:

Athena: “. . . you have come to my temple as a suppliant, a broken-down wanderer, purified and incapable of causing harm by your converse: so that (though originally guilty) I receive you to my acropolis as if free from balm, On their parts, these Furies have a duty to perform which makes it hard to dismiss them: and if they should fail to gain their cause in this suit, here after poison falling on the ground in consequence of their anger will be a lasting disease causing barrenness to the land . . . I will appoint judges of murder, bound y oaths, to be an institution for all time: and do you, Furies, call on testimonies and evidences, the depositions of oath for forwarding the cause of justice.”

From Herodotus’ The Persian Wars:

Otanes: “A tyrant disturbs ancient laws, violates women, kills men with out trial. But a people ruling – first, the very name of it is so beautiful; and secondly, a people does none of these things.”

Greek Prisoners to the Persian official: “You know perfectly what it is to be a slave, freedom you have never tried, to know how sweet it is. If you had you would urge us to fight for it not with our spears only, but even with hatchets.”

From Confucius’ Analects:

“Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage.”

"If what he says is good and no one hoes against hi, good. But if what he says is not good and no one goes against him, then is this not almost a case of leading the state to ruin?”

Livy’s The History of Early Rome:

Brutus: “By this girl’s blood – non more chaste till at a tyrant wronged her – and by the gods, I swear that with sword an fire, and whatever else can lend strength to my arm, I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius the Proud, his wicked wife, and all his children, and never again will I let them or any other man be king in Rome”

truth to power said...

Simply "recognizing basic truths"
doesn't "generate just governments." That's the big problem. The "old fashioned nation states who define their self interest as more important than the betterment of the world as a whole" know that what they're doing is selfish, and ultimately immoral. The same is true of individuals. The thief, the rapist, and the murderer know in their hearts their actions are evil. But one powerful ability all mankind shares is the ability to rationalize our selfish and immoral actions, to give ourselves permission to continue them.

I'm not claiming the situation is hopeless, just difficult. It took thousands of years to achieve the freedom we enjoy. The Classical philosophers you quote never saw anything like it, no matter what eternal truths they recognized. Who knows how long it may take to convert the world?

Lysis said...

Truth to Power:

I agree with you entirely that “It will not be easy!” I also understand that the “old fashioned nation states” are standing against this very growth. Yet, since we do enjoy this wonderful freedom, and we do have the means and the ability to share it with others, it would be neither in our interest nor just to hold back such aid.

a quiet listener said...

today as i opened the school "paper" i immediately saw a huge political comic of a woman holding a dead fish which had written on it "bush's approval rating: 37%"
as the day went on i heard classmates churning over this latest news.... one asked "what i can't understand is how one in three people still approve of what that moron's doing!!" they went on to discuss how much they hate him and the current administration and how terrible everything is and will be. (with not a single word of solution mind you)

it got me thinking... what do approval ratings mean anyway? can a leader be a good leader even if the general public doesn't think they're right? of course. many highly admired presidents were hated while in office due to those out of power blinded in hatred.

probably the best example was Christ himself. Jesus was the best leader the jews could have ever hoped for. when he taught easy to hear pleasing doctrines they listened to him eagerly. when he physically fed them they would follow him wherever he would go. when the time came that he taught them difficult doctrines of sacrifice, self control, and obedience they murmured and even his own apostles murmured saying that the words were "hard to hear." Christ asked in reply if what he'd taught offended them and whether they too would "go away" and leave him like the multitude that had only followed him during the good times. Peter then demonstrated his loyalty and perseverance saying "Lord, to whom shall we go? thous hast the words of eternal life. and we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

the situation only worsened for Christ. the people he healed, fed, led, instructed and served turned on him for a quick and easy solution to their problems. they lost sight of their goals and turned their opinion to the latest wind of political thought. if you wanna talk about low approval ratings you'll have to include the Son of God himself. the fountain of all light and truth was himself "despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not"

my purpose is not to compare bush to Christ but to point out that history repeats. can we not learn a valuable lesson here? sometimes to clean a wound you need soap and water, even if it hurts. when bush stood before the nation and denounced our addiction to oil he did not do so to bolster his ratings but to point out valid points as the legitimate, elected leader of this country. when it comes to the Dubais ports deal, immigration and several other points he has even upset mainstream conservatives but in following the prototypical perfect leader he stood for what he deemed correct.

Lysis said...

Quiet Listener:

I appreciate the insight of your post. I have often thought that Herodotus’s advice to compare small things to great is an excellent way of grasping the reality of situations. Not that “Bush is a small thing”, only by comparison to the Savior of the Universe. But, here is a small thing.

Years ago I observed that there are two kinds of teachers (I know there are many more than two – I just want to talk about two kinds). There are the ones who require hard work and accountability from their students, who push them beyond their comfort zones and often put them in situations were failure to work will equal failure on the report card. These teachers are often “disliked” and disparaged. The other sort of teacher requires nothing students, allows them to fill up space each period, never challenges them, and rewards their lack of effort with grades that provide false “success” to both teacher and student. These teachers are often sought after by students, referred to as “cool” and sometimes even held up as exemplary. These “good buddy” teachers are loved by students when the students are immature and seeking instant gratification in the immediate. The strict and demanding teachers are often “hated” and avoided by students, and considered old fashioned and out of touch by their colleagues and those who run the University Education programs. But students grow up and for many a transformation, perhaps a realization, occurs. When the demands of “higher” education, or the work place, or life in general begin to build on them they begin to remember with affection those who held them to high standards and encouraged them to grow rather than slide. Then the teachers students “loved” are recognized as having been responsible for an enormous waist of time. When the hard work demanded by a teacher proves the foundation for salvation, when the time wasted by a teacher becomes the bane of success, then hated “taskmasters” become the heroes of memory; those “loved” slackers are exposed for the hidden corrosives they were.

I honestly do not know if I am one of these teachers. Perhaps I am some times both, but I aspire to be the teacher that students “hate” when they are fools and come to love when they grow wise.

I am confident President Bush will be such a teacher and leader. He has done the hard thing for the good of the future; he has pushed our nation to the difficult, and the uncomfortable places where it needed to go. He has made the future possible. The wisdom of hind sight will be good to George Bush.

Reach Upward said...

Quiet Listener, you suggest that President Bush is driven by principle, and that his polling numbers suffer because his principled stances create messages that are "hard to hear." President Reagan also was driven by principle, perhaps more so than any recent chief executive. But he was able to consistently rally people behind him, even when he delivered "hard to hear" messages. I realize that Reagan was not tasked with fighting the same kind of war Bush has had to deal with, but I have to wonder what it is in the leadership styles of these two men that evoke such different responses.

What do polling numbers mean (with regard to U.S. politicians)? Ultimately nothing. The only polling numbers that actually matter are the ones that are generated inside voting booths on election day. Since our chief executive is elected by the people (via the Electoral College), we do not have the equivalent of a legilsative no confidence vote available in countries where the prime minister is elected by the legislature. Only the voice of the people matters. After being elected, our officials are free to govern according to their conscience within the parameters of our law. There is no requirement that their actions comply with the public will. The people get to render the final verdict on governance in the next election cycle.

Thus, we get the government we deserve. We get great leaders when we as a people demonstrate greatness ourselves. The reverse is also true.

Still, all effective executives realize that they can fully carry out their initiatives only by garnering adequate support for them--by achieving a certain level of popularity (at least on a micro level if not on a macro level). Again, I have to wonder why President Reagan's approach produced better results in this regard than President Bush's approach.

Lysis said...


I am afraid you have already started looking at Ronald Reagan through the “rose colored glasses” or the “clear light” of history. My point, the hate the “left” had for Ronald Reagan was just as palpable as the present animus against Bush. I might suggest that polls were less manipulated in those days, but the popular support of the President was equally as fickle. It was only after History PROVED Ragan to have been right that he came to be revered as the “Greatest American”.

Anonymous said...

Cicero says:

Thank you Lysis. Your remarks are a comfort and another lesson learned! One must have faith in what they are doing is right and for the best. Much like parenting. We make choices for our children that might be hard now, but will pay off in the furure when they have grown wise and mature!

Reach Upward said...

Lysis, you make some very good points. Although polling manipulation is nothing new, the polls used by the MSM may have been less tainted in the Reagan years.

But I personally remember the Reagan years. I know that Left loathed the President and pressed that loathing through their sympathizers in the MSM. But unlike our current situation, the Left was constantly frustrated by its inability to gain significant traction against the President. Reagan, on the other hand, was repeatedly able to garner support for his initiatives, even when Congress was controlled by Democrats.

President Bush's party controls both houses of Congress, yet he has been unable to gain much traction for his initiatives in the last two years other than the initiatives that already appeal to the Left. I believe it is acceptable to compare Bush and Reagan at a similar point in their presidencies, despite the fact that we do not yet have two decades of added perspective on the Bush presidency.

I'm asking what is at the root of the differences between these two presidents' accomplishments at five years into their presidencies. Does it boil down to communication strategies? Is it simply the war? Is it just personal style? Is it that domestic and world conditions are different today? Are there other factors?

I'm not saying that President Bush is not a great president, although; frothing-at-the-mouth Leftists scream that he is not. As you aptly note, history will have to be the judge of that. I'm merely drawing a comparison.

Lysis said...


To continue your thought; I don’t now how many times I have heard teenagers say, “I hate my parents!” but it has been many times. There are those who would jump to the conclusion that the parents must therefore be “bad”. What is actually true, in many cases, is that the children are too dumb to know what is good for them and what is not. It has long amazed me that the “teen code” makes it OK to despise and disparage the Vice Principal who works day in and day out to keep student safe and on line toward learning, while the same code requires teens to defend the secret actions of drug dealers who are praying on them for the dealers own profit. Odd isn’t it?

Lysis said...

To continue my thought; I note that this disrespect or at lest disregard for those who serve is now being molded in the House of Representatives, were a Congressman can strike the police officer detailed to protect her, while accusing him of being a raciest for attempting to do his job.

Anonymous said...

Divine Lysis' omnipotence extends to yet another "eye witness" account downloaded from "Oxy-contin king" misinformation blather or from the "Hannitized" loyalists.

Divine Jupiter should pay more attention to the insidious evils of "bearing false witness" and how harmful THAT is to the molding of young minds!!!!

Scooter Libby . . . Scooter Libby . . . Scooter Libby . . .

Abramoff . . . Abramoff . . . Abramoff

DeLay ... DeLay ... Delay ...

'nuff said about teaching from example!!!!

Lysis said...


I was hoping my comments on Devine flatulence, Divine Reason being a manifestation of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and God’s being co-eternal with the truth would get a rise out of you. It looks like we were both disappointed. I know your feeble show left me unimpressed.

As for your limp stand above; if Scooter Libby did bear false wittiness he should be punished, as for now he is only indicted, and not convicted, for answers he gave in a probe of a NON-CRIME. I believe Abramoff has already plead guilty to bribing Harry Reid. As for Tom DeLay, he’s yesterday’s news; what is your point? Your flaccid remarks don’t stand on their own; keep stretching. “Nuff said about teaching from example!!!

You have done nothing to challenge the basic premise of this post – that all people recognize universal truths, and that Iraqis, as well as Americans, are willing to fight for freedom, equality before the law, and the basic human and civil rights that all men hold in common. I will accept your flaccid flip flopping foolishness as acquiescence to the positions presented here.

Anonymous said...

Response from BrainMech-

Anonymous said...

Scooter Libby-Scooter Libby-Scooter Libby . . .
Well...OK...but if we are to charge Libby for 'outing' Valerie Plame then should we not charge her husband for outing her as well?

Your hate filled blue lensed glasses allows you to conveniently forget (or ignore) that Abramoff is PROVEN to have donated to virtually every democrat AS WELL AS every republican. Scandal indeed.

DeLay-DeLay-Delay ...
We shall see...even liberal legal scholars scoff at the charges and once aired it is almost a certainty that every prominent democrat in congress will be shown as committing the same acts as Delay is accused of.

But again, we shall see. IF a crime was committed he should certainly be convicted.

As a reformed libertarian it is a bit easier for me to poke at both sides, but if you (or in fact anyone here) have integrity then you should be honest enough to admit that both parties are filled with scandal.

My question is we have the guts to be honest and make REAL changes in congress, or will we simply continue to vote special interest and partisan and send the same people back time and time again?

Anon said-
'nuff said about teaching from example!!!!

Indeed. Do you have the integrity to put your money where your mouth is?

Anonymous said...

Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP » » »

Anonymous said...

What a great site »

Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. film editing schools

Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. » »