“We are normally blind about our own
blindness. We are generally overconfident in our opinions . . . We exaggerate
how knowable the world is. . . people don’t think very carefully. They’re influenced by all sorts of
superficial thinking in their decision-making. . .”
Kahneman, author of Thinking Fast and Slow
Making an unqualified statement
about your decisions is as difficult as having dinner with your future in-laws.
Having an idea is so threatening to other people we must qualify it with an “I
think” disclaimer. It’s that or be labeled as not being nice – or worse,
Try saying, “I think the third quarter figures
indicate greater investment in marketing is needed.” You might as well say,
“The third quarter figures indicate greater investment in marketing is needed
but my Ichthyology degree from Thunder-Bolt Community College and Stock Car
Racing Track, doesn’t really give me much credibility on the subject.”
“I think.” in a sentence asks
permission to say something, as if you would modify it if no one agrees. Really,
would The Terminator have scared anyone by saying “I think I’ll be Baaak.”
We live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, and political groups. I ask in my writing ‘What is real?’ Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo realities manufactured by very sophisticated people use very sophisticated electronic mechanisms.
Phillip Dick, Philosopher
Writer, Novelist 
Using a Hegelian concept of “being” or “reality” our society is offering more and more opportunities to participate in activities that create an alternative reality. That is why the young person who handed your coffee and change this morning seemed not to connect with you at all. The place where you intersect with their world is not on that easily accessed, safe, electronic media. His reality does not include you. He does not belong to your reality. That can’t be good.
 Phillip K. Dick, Philosopher, Writer, Novelist who wrote Blade Runner, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Paycheck, Next, Screamers, The Adjustment Bureau
The history of Liberalism and Marxists is full of instances where the words and symbols they use to promote their causes are pirated and redefined. History is full of instances and none more glaring than that of the Statue of Liberty. It was never about immigration, it was about American Exceptionalism as exemplified by the Civil War.
It is easily researched that Bartholdi (sculptor) and Laboulaye (visionary financier) intended the Statue to be representative of America’s courage to fight a Civil War over the rule of law regarding slavery and the state’s right implications therein. It was about the abolition of slavery and the establishment of liberty. The evil of Jim Crow laws had not been completely realized when Laboulaye had the original vision or it might not have happened. Nowhere in its dedication were the words immigrant or “give us your tired” used at all.
Then, a few years later, “The New Colossus”poem was hung on the wall of the Visitor’s Center in 1903 during a dedication in memory of those raising funds for the statue’s pedestal. Notice that I did not say it was there to add or subtract to the meaning of the Statue of Liberty. Immigration idealists have ever since have been gradually obscuring the original message of the Statue of Liberty. They want to say it is about modern day immigration and always had been. A myth converted or pirated to their truth.
The idea that thousands of immigrants may have been inspired, brought to tears or given hope at the sight of Lady Liberty is not an argument that I make. The important point is that its original intent was to honor that honest brand of American exceptionalism that lead to the Civil War because of American courage. It also stands for the Rule of Law we are still trying to appropriately enforce over the idea of basic human individuality. Something, I might add, neither our government nor any other person can take from you in this country.
My comment is a direct response to those who say “The politicians should do something.” Politicians make laws. Cops like me respond after shooters DO something. Laws have no inherent power to stop DOING just like the white stripe in the road. Evidence shows so far this individual had an evil hatred in his heart against this church because his wife’s family attended there. He beat her, was incarcerated and dishonorably discharged. He had a grudge. It appears it was premeditated since he went to the church on a festival day to reconnoiter. He was mentally ill at some level. He could have driven his truck into the building, burned it, bombed it, flew a plane into it. We had laws against everything he did and it didn’t stop the hate in his heart. A man with love for his fellow man stopped him with his personal weapon.
The hard heart is the problem. What I suggest is that the sociological – one of three degrees I hold – or legal issues are not the problem. The problem is a culture that is so far from the principles that created this country that people fear each other. They collect firearms, bump-stocks, dream-catchers, dried food, astrologers, and other errata to protect themselves. We were supposed to be individuals who protected each other according to the Bible. I’m not preaching, its just history. I am not “suggesting” that we do nothing; I am saying that the law has no inherent power to stop violence. The white stripe does not disable your car, sent you a summons, or hinder in any way your ability to cross it. You decide by social contract and self interest to stay on “your side” to stay safe. It is a representation of a legal contract you got when you passed your driving test. We “agree” to always drive on the right side of the road. You, me, most people — can do that. Then the adolescent adults of the world say of laws they dislike “you are not the boss of me” then the police show up. If we would just stay on “our side” and only reach across when we are asked for help, or need help, the world would be a better place. The biggest problem we face is two arguing sides of the political spectrum who both “suggest” that they can create a Utopian safe place with laws. They suggest they can “Fight crime” and “Win the drug war” when it is impossible. They promise fair and equal when these are ideas that are not practically achievable. We as individuals fare best when we cling to our families, love our neighbor, love those that hate us, love ourselves without boasting, trying to do the right thing, and having compassion for others. It’s not a perfect way, but it is the better way.
This is the excerpt for a featured post.
This is a featured content post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post.