In the Christian Bible, Jesus said we are to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and take care of our fellow humans. He also said it’s not our business why they have no food or clothes. His instruction is to help alleviate the suffering of others, without passing judgment on the person needing help.
Now, I'm not Christian, nor do I belong to any religious organization. That being said, I've read the Bible cover to cover several times. I've cross-references several issues within its text. I've seen the contradictions within the text as well as in people's attitudes and actions. And I've seen the mistranslations, some accidental, others seeming intentional, as with, for example, the Old Testament passage that "men should not suffer a witch to live". As a result, I do not and cannot believe the Bible is infallible.
Based on my own study and learning, I've discovered that the Christ teachings within it (seen best in the red-letter editions) come the closest to my natural inclinations. They are humane almost to a fault, like the passage I paraphrased from the portion of the Sermon on the Mount called the Beatitudes. These are the first 12 verses of the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5.
Conservatives, by and large, often tell me that yes, those are good ideals to live by, but they are the choice of the individual, and that they were never meant to be implemented or enforced by government. They tell me that when governments do these things, it's theft from the people who earned the money (taxation) given to lazy people (redistribution). As has been noted elsewhere in passing during this discussion, they also believe and say that charitable giving should cover the needs of the poor and down-trodden.
Taking the last view first, as many people as there are who need assistance, relying solely on charitable contributions is problematic at best, simply because charities are unable to cover very much of the real need. I've hear conservatives say that if they didn't have to pay so much in taxes, they would be able to give more to charities.
But there are two major problems I see with that. One is that giving to charities is a choice, not only in how much to give, but also in which charities to give to. And two, such a solution is really not viable, because it still would not be enough to cover the needs of the people who would be forced to rely on those charities.
Then there is the fact that many wealthy people, as well as corporations, give to charities for no other reason than to get a tax deduction. In reality, they couldn't care less whether people in need got help or not.
Now here's the crux of the matter.
Governments are and should be a reflection of the highest aspirations of the people of a nation. If assisting those in need is a matter for individuals, as conservatives correctly state, then it should also be a matter for governments as representatives of those highest ideals of the people. Therefore, the ideals of the Beatitudes, regardless of ones' religion or lack thereof, should be considered within the bounds of government actions, and a necessary and perhaps over-riding part of governmental operations.
To insist that government not be involved in expressing our highest ideals is tantamount to admitting our own hypocrisy.
© 2017 by Don Rice Jr.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Allow me to explain. Everyone who follows me or has friended me here, especially those who know me in real life, knows that I don't follow any particular political party. This gives me the freedom to call out BS when and where I see it. It doesn't matter to me if it's Democrats or Republicans, I call it out. I've even written blogs and other posts critical of the Libertarian Party; they're not a major player, but they're trying to be. And perhaps they had a hand too, a small one, in getting Trump elected.
Now on to the matter at hand. I've been posting a variety of things in the so-called "No BS Forum", covering corruption of both major parties and individuals within those parties. A few weeks ago, the owner of the group, one Gary Gambino, stated in comments that he did not want an echo chamber. Another member, a hard-core supporter of Hillary Clinton named John Fotia, responded that there was something to be said for echo chambers.
Fotia, Victoria Cash, and others have refused repeatedly to engage in civil discussion. They call my posts fake news, even when shown proof from other sources that it's not fake. Fotia even called Alternet, a mainstay of the left, a questionable source. Why? Because the article he was responding to detailed the corruption of the DNC, specifically Clinton and Shultz. He's done the same with other progressive sources, ones that are rated highest on the media bias checking website, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ , for the same reason.
Perhaps a week after that, I was booted from the group. A day later, through the intervention of a good friend, Kris Haynes, I was reinstated.
Today I was attempting to be civil and engage in discussion, as I usually am, but the people there don't want discussion, especially if it's about Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wassermann-Shultz or Donna Brazile, the ringleaders of the corruption within the Democratic Party. Instead, they attacked me and my posts with ad hominems and deflections to things that are totally irrelevant to the topic of the post. And out of nowhere, I'm banned again. Not only that, Gary, the group owner, blocked me from PM'ing him to ask why.
But I'd lay odds that not one of those actually engaging in these attacks has been treated the same, or even given a warning.
So. I'm posting this blog in the two other groups Gary owns. I fully expect it to be deleted and for me to be booted from those groups as well. And that's okay. Because now I know that Gambino has no interest in open debate of issues. He wants echo chambers all around. He's proven it by kicking me out of the so-called "No BS Forum". Twice. And he's not even man enough to take a PM asking for an explanation of his actions.
Here's a kick in the pants for anyone who is able to think for themselves. My posts, as I've said, have been called fake news, bogus sources, and other things along those lines, in spite of the verifiable facts and truth they contain. However, I live and write by a single axiom. It's been stated clearly in three distinct ways.
First, by Mohandas Gandhi: "The friend you must cultivate is that part of your enemy that knows the truth."
Second, by Malcolm X: "I am for Truth, no matter who speaks it."
And third, by my Teacher, Dr. David M. Berry: "Truth is Truth, even out of a liar's mouth."
No, I'm not mad. I'm actually happy. I learned a valuable lesson that I should have learned long ago. Something about casting pearls. It's in the Christian Bible, if you want to look it up. But I'm through with this nonsense.
I hope Gary Gambino and the other residents of his total BS echo chamber have a nice life as the Democratic Party self-destructs by staying with corporate sycophants as their chosen candidates instead of real progressives.
I am, and I shall remain, a proud independent, thinking for myself rather than letting the Establishment do it for me.
© 2017 by Don Rice Jr.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
So here's the declassified summary of the "report" released by DHS in January:
Let's break it down, shall we?
Items 1 - 6 are so much "he said, she said" statements with no evidence to back them up:
1. Officials *believed* hackers were associated with Russian intel agencies.
2. A hacking group *possibly* linked to the agency...
3. Investigators *believe* that the G.R.U., or a hacking group known as Fancy Bear or A.P.T. 28...
4. A self-proclaimed hacker that investigators *say* was a “persona” created by the G.R.U.
5. Investigators *say* it is a front for the Russian hackers...
6. The report released on Jan. 6 *said* that intelligence officials “assess with high confidence..."
Now, from item 7 onward, we have a lot of actions being taken and discussed based on the above "he said, she said" statements:
7. Dozens of newspapers, television stations, bloggers and radio stations around the United States... pursued reporting based on the hacked material, significantly increasing the effects of the cyberattack.
8. Note the disclaimer on the DHS website "report":
"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) *does not provide any warranties of any kind* regarding any information sontained within."
9 - 11: Minimal detail about the effects on the election, with no reference to the veracity or lack thereof of the emails leaked. Those ieffects included the forced resignation of DWS.
Conclusion based on available facts, without the innuendoes and suppositions inherent in this kind of bogus reporting:
If the emails are not so bad, like the Establishment actors and supporters claim, then release the original emails to point out where the analysts are wrong. But they haven't done that, and I predict they won't do that. Why? Because the emails have electronic validation markers added by email software that verify authenticity. Those markers, I would wager, would also verify that those who are critical of the DNC are right to be so.
Further, there would have been no reason for Shultz to resign.
Critical reading and thinking, combined with knowledge of words and language, are wonderful tools only if one bothers to use them.
© 2017 by Don Rice Jr.