 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / November 2006A Little Inspiration
I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it. Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about it again. ________________________________________ Robert A. Heinlein wrote this item in 1952. His wife, Virginia Heinlein, chose to read it when she accepted NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal on October 6, 1988, on the Grand Master's behalf (it was a posthumous award). Mrs. Heinlein received a standing ovation. This I Believe by Robert A. Heinlein I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious that it has gone out of style to mention them. I believe in my neighbors. I know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults. "Take Father Michael down our road a piece. I'm not of his creed, but I know that goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. I believe in Father Mike. If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him." My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee--no prospect of a fee--I believe in Doc. I believe in my townspeople. You can know on any door in our town saying, 'I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception. I've found the same ready charity everywhere. But for the one who says, 'To heck with you - I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand who will say, "Sure, pal, sit down." I know that despite all warnings against hitchhikers I can step up to the highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop and someone will say, 'Climb in Mac - how far you going?' I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force stronger than crime. I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land. I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones. I believe that almost all politicians are honest. . .there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies. I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River. I believe in -- I am proud to belong to -- the United States. Despite shortcomings from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history. And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble essential decency. This I believe with all my heart. >I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it. >Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This I Believe by Robert A. Heinlein snip "feel good" propaganda Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? > Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? That is what he is generally known for, but even within it, he did share a lot of wisdom, sometimes in the shortest of prose. For example: "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." [Robert Heinlein, 1973, Time enough for love] IIRC, a common Heinlein theme was that military service was purely voluntary, but it was also the only way to earn the right to vote. Not sure to the degree that this was functionally inspired by the likes of Switzerland. -hh > That is what he is generally known for, but even within it, he did > share a lot of wisdom, sometimes in the shortest of prose. For > example: > > "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." > [Robert Heinlein, 1973, Time enough for love] He's also one source of the idea that an armed society is a polite society and that one of the first signs of deterioration in a given society is the decline of personal courtesy. Lee > Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? Among other things. Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too? >>Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? > > Among other things. > > Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too? Post-fact-fiction ? ;-) Matthias >> Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too? > Post-fact-fiction ? ;-) Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with. Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the kid that defended his mother, but more often, it's any distortion and misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's an occupational hazard. Lee >>> Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's an > occupational hazard. Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this country is going to sh.t. What's our crime rate doing? Our budget? Our unemployment? Our health care? Our education? But at least we have the right to resist cops with armed violence when they come to take away our guns. We are the NRA. That's no fiction. >> Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with. >> Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the >> kid that defended his mother, but more often, it's any distortion and >> misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's >> an occupational hazard. > Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this > country is going to sh.t. What's our crime rate doing? Our budget? Our > unemployment? Our health care? Our education? Thanks for the excellent example of what I said. By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that violate the law. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion of the attorneys in the country do deal with crimes, specifically defending those that have comitted them. Between the attorneys and the judges, who are also attorneys, they manage to get a substantial number of those arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement either acquitted or plea bargained and back out on the streets to commit the next crime. After all, the criminals have to get the money to support their attorneys from somewhere and they can't make nearly enough while in prison. Our budget is formulated and implemented by elected officials, not government employees. Many of those same offciials are, you guessed it, attorneys. Others with a significant impact on the budget are lobbiests, many of whom are also attorneys. Unemployment relates to employers and employees. The government is doing its part. Attorneys are not. Law firms hire relatively few people who are not attorneys. On top of that, they regularly promote the interests of illegal immigrant workers over citizens and legal residents of the United States. The government is not responsible for health care. That's in the hands of the citizens, doctors and insurance companies. To a limited extent, it is the responsibility of lawyers, the ones that represent the insurance companies when they resist meeting their obligations under insurance contracts. The federal government is not responsible for education. That's one of the state's rights, often delegated to the municipal level. If that's what Greg was referring to, he may have a point. > But at least we have the right to resist cops with armed violence when > they come to take away our guns. We are the NRA. > That's no fiction. Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you meant? Lee > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding > citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you > meant? They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal. For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be unconstitutional? > > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer > > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be > unconstitutional? It would be worth it to save the airliners. >> Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you >> refer to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law >> abiding citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that >> what you meant? > They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal. Which government? As you well know, there are multiple levels of government and checks and balances to go with them. What a lower level says may not, in fact, change what is legal or not legal and, except for matters of interpretation, what any of them have to say may not, in fact, change what is constitutional or not. > For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for > individuals to possess, then went around confiscating > them, would this be unconstitutional? Based on Congress's recent confirmation that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, I think it probably is. I choose not to try to do anything about it. Lee > Which government? As you well know, there are multiple levels of > government and checks and balances to go with them. What a lower level > says may not, in fact, change what is legal or not legal and, except for > matters of interpretation, what any of them have to say may not, in fact, > change what is constitutional or not. If "government" says they're illegal, they can confiscate them. That's exactly what happened in New Orleans. You may take a stand against government, but don't be surprised if you're imprisoned or killed in the process. The ultimate arbiter is, of course, the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court allows the law making them illegal to remain in force, the law is deemed constitutional. >> For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal >> for individuals to possess, then went around confiscating >> them, would this be unconstitutional? > > Based on Congress's recent confirmation that the right to keep and bear > arms is an individual right, I think it probably is. Congress can say and do all it wants, temporarily. Plenty of things Congress says and does are later deemed unconstitutional. Or, as in this case, we'll simply undo it in another week. The Democrat congress will declare guns to be a militia right, not an individual one, and that will settle the matter, right? When the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as protecting an individual (and unlimited) right, then I'll take your word for it. Until then, there is no such individual right. > If "government" says they're illegal, they can confiscate them. That's > exactly what happened in New Orleans. You may take a stand against > government, but don't be surprised if you're imprisoned or killed in the > process. If I say it's legal, I can shoot you. That does not mean it really is legal. > The ultimate arbiter is, of course, the Supreme Court. If the Supreme > Court allows the law making them illegal to remain in force, the law is > deemed constitutional. The ultimate arbiter is the people of the United States. When actions of the government, including the Supreme Court, are sufficiently onerous, we are expected, and authorized to, correct the problem by whatever means may be necessary. Until that point, the Supreme Court has the delegated authority to make the decision. >> Based on Congress's recent confirmation that the right to keep and bear >> arms is an individual right, I think it probably is. > Congress can say and do all it wants, temporarily. Plenty of things > Congress says and does are later deemed unconstitutional. You mean like infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, right? > Or, as in this case, we'll simply undo it in another week. The Democrat > congress will declare guns to be a militia right, not an individual one, > and that will settle the matter, right? The precident has been established. The language is clear and has been tested by the courts. It ain't all that easy. > When the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as protecting an > individual (and unlimited) right, then I'll take your word > for it. Until then, there is no such individual right. When the Supreme Court says it's not an individual right, then you may have a leg to stand on. Until then, it stands as the Constitution is written. Lee >> If "government" says they're illegal, they can confiscate them. That's >> exactly what happened in New Orleans. You may take a stand against [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I say it's legal, I can shoot you. That does not mean it really is > legal. Sure it does. For instance, it says you can shoot me if I'm a felon fleeing the scene of a crime or if I'm about to shoot someone else or if I'm escaping prison. Take the latter. What if I'm imprisoned illegally and try to escape. Then you can "legally" shoot me, right? What's the difference? > The ultimate arbiter is the people of the United States. When actions of > the government, including the Supreme Court, are sufficiently onerous, we > are expected, and authorized to, correct the problem by whatever means may > be necessary. Until that point, the Supreme Court has the delegated > authority to make the decision. Good luck with your authorized "correction". How do you know when the authorization takes effect? If I think that today's government is sufficiently onerous, can I take over the governor's mansion and kick Arnold's a.s without repercussion? >> Congress can say and do all it wants, temporarily. Plenty of things >> Congress says and does are later deemed unconstitutional. > > You mean like infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, right? Not that one. It's been tested and the Supreme Court has denied that there's an individual right. If you don't like it, you're authorized to start an armed insurrection. I'll watch for you on CNN. >> Or, as in this case, we'll simply undo it in another week. The Democrat >> congress will declare guns to be a militia right, not an individual one, >> and that will settle the matter, right? > > The precident has been established. The language is clear and has been > tested by the courts. It ain't all that easy. Huh? What courts? As far as I know, only one circuit court has found there to be an individual right. The other 7 or 8 circuit courts that have weighed in have reached the opposite conclusion. The only Supreme Court decisions touching on the matter imply that there is no individual right. What "established clear and tested precedent" have you been smoking? >> When the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as protecting an >> individual (and unlimited) right, then I'll take your word [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have a leg to stand on. Until then, it stands as the Constitution is > written. Established, clear, and tested precedent: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Unless there's a reasonable relationship between the firearm bearing and the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, there's no right to the weapon. And since the National Guard stands in as the militia today, there's no right to weapons outside of the National Guard. Don't you think that, if the Second Amendment were any constitutional barrier, that any gun control laws might be stricken as unconstitutional? Certainly the largest lobbyist in the world, the NRA, can afford the attorneys to bring the challenges. Where are the Supreme Court cases upholding your version of the Second Amendment and overturning the strict gun control laws of California and New York? Cite? >> If I say it's legal, I can shoot you. That does not mean it really is >> legal. > Sure it does. If you say so, Greg. > For instance, it says you can shoot me if I'm a felon fleeing the scene of > a crime . . . No > or if I'm about to shoot someone else . . . Yes > or if I'm escaping prison. No > Take the latter. What if I'm imprisoned illegally and try to escape. > Then you can "legally" shoot me, right? No >> The ultimate arbiter is the people of the United States. When actions of >> the government, including the Supreme Court, are sufficiently onerous, we >> are expected, and authorized to, correct the problem by whatever means >> may be necessary. Until that point, the Supreme Court has the delegated >> authority to make the decision. > Good luck with your authorized "correction". How do you know when the > authorization takes effect? You pays your nickle and you take your chances. > If I think that today's government is sufficiently onerous, can I take > over the governor's mansion and kick Arnold's a.s without > repercussion? I don't think you can kick Arnold's a.s in the first place. Did you see somewhere in any of this where anyone said there were no repercussions? Hell, we've said from the beginning, that freedom isn't free. There is always a price to pay. >>> Congress can say and do all it wants, temporarily. Plenty of things >>> Congress says and does are later deemed unconstitutional. >> >> You mean like infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, right? > Not that one. It's been tested and the Supreme Court has denied that > there's an individual right. I guess Congress is just a bunch of fools. I presume the Supreme Court will be telling Louisiana to be taking all those weapons back any day now, right? Don't hold your breath. Lee >> Which government? As you well know, there are multiple levels of >> government and checks and balances to go with them. What a lower level [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >government, but don't be surprised if you're imprisoned or killed in the >process. If by "government" you mean a single unelected official, then, why yes, they have the right to take whatever they please, including your life. >The ultimate arbiter is, of course, the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court >allows the law making them illegal to remain in force, the law is deemed >constitutional. What law? >>> For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal >>> for individuals to possess, then went around confiscating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >declare guns to be a militia right, not an individual one, and that will >settle the matter, right? I guess that the Minutemen (the originals, not the current ones) operated illegally, since they didn't constitute any officially sanctioned organization. Or were you talking about something else? >When the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as protecting an >individual (and unlimited) right, then I'll take your word for it. Until >then, there is no such individual right. One could argue that any right protected to "the People" applies only to the whole and not to any subdivision of it, such as you as an individual.  Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer > > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding > > citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you > > meant? > > They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal. Its not enough for them to say that they're not legal. They do have to follow "due process". Not only is there a second amendment regarding the right to keep and bear arms, there's also the matter of the fourth. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."? Dennis > Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the > persons or things to be seized."? Do we still need that after the Patriot Act? If not, we'll simply amend the Patriot Act. "All those possessing firearms are deemed to be terrorists." There, that should do it. Now we can legally lock them up in Guantanamo as enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not the search was legal will never be litigated. > > Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the > > persons or things to be seized."? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not > the search was legal will never be litigated. > > Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the > > persons or things to be seized."? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not > the search was legal will never be litigated. Yes, you still do, IIRC. Dennis >> Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the >> persons or things to be seized."? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not >the search was legal will never be litigated. You won't catch me arguing for the legitimacy of the PATRIOT Act. So, what's your defense? Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. > > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer > > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be > unconstitutional? Following a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Yes. Realistically, nobody is going to fight it so the law will *probably* never be determined to be unconstitutional by the courts. > Following a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Yes. > Realistically, nobody is going to > fight it so the law will *probably* never be determined to be > unconstitutional by the courts. Bullshit. There are plenty of gun nuts who would fight the issue if there were a chance in hell they might win. They know it's a losing battle and they don't want to lose the battle so explicitly. >>> Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with. >>> Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement > either acquitted You mean the innocent ones or are you suggesting that arrest by the government is proof of guilt? snip >> By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with >> criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement >> either acquitted > You mean the innocent ones or are you suggesting that arrest by the > government is proof of guilt? I mean those that are guilty, but get off on technicalities. I mean those that are guilty but buy their way our of convictions. I mean those that are guilty, but have the funds to hire top quality attorneys who, knowing their guilty, get them off anyway. I mean those that are guilty, but get off because prosecuting attorneys don't always do their job well. I mean those that are guilty, but either get off or get a lesser sentence because some attorney arranged a plea bargain. I mean those that, because they are not adequately dealt with the first time, are free to commit crimes a second, and third time. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It does not make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality. Lee >>> By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with >>> criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It > does not make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality. I agree with you but how do sort the ones you mentioned out from the truly innocent. The judicial system here in Australia is not perfect either seemingly "guilty" people get off and innocent people do get convicted ( probably why I am against the death sentence as it is kind of permanent when you find you have made a mistake ) but it is probably the best we have. >> Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a >> court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It >> does not make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality. > I agree with you but how do sort the ones you mentioned out from the truly > innocent. If there were a way to know for sure, there would be no need for a judicial system. We'd just shoot the guilty ones and be done with it. You do several things: 1. You start with a job evaluation system focused on the quality of the job done and not the number of arrests or convictions obtained. 2. You hire people based on characteristics most likely to lead to that result. 3. You train people to work towards knowledge of whether a crime has been committed and of who knew they were committing one at the time. 4. Whenever a crime was committed, but it's not apparent that it was deliberate, you work toward reversing the effects rather than punishing those unintentionally responsible. 5. When you know the crime was deliberate, you apply the penalties established for the crime without exception and without mercy so that others will think twice before making you investigate another crime of the same type. You pray . . . a lot. Lee >>> Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a >>> court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 1. You start with a job evaluation system focused on the quality of the > job done and not the number of arrests or convictions obtained. so we never have politicians or the community involved as they want results > 2. You hire people based on characteristics most likely to lead to that > result. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You pray . . . a lot. all sound very good but we know that in practice it won't work. and praying a lot doesn't help the poor bloke you have just hung when the mistake happens >> You do several things: >> 1. You start with a job evaluation system focused on the quality of the >> job done and not the number of arrests or convictions obtained. > so we never have politicians or the community involved as they want > results Do you think all they want results or do you think, perhaps, they want the right results? > all sound very good but we know that in practice it won't work. No, "we" don't knot that it won't work. One of us is employing the method successfully right now. The other, apparently, is more interested in telling himself that it's a hopless task than in finding a better way. Become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Lee >>> You do several things: >>> 1. You start with a job evaluation system focused on the quality of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you think all they want results or do you think, perhaps, they want the > right results? political and community pressure does not lead to the right results. IMHO more often than not they do just want a result ust someone/ anyone to blame >> all sound very good but we know that in practice it won't work. > > No, "we" don't knot that it won't work. One of us is employing the method > successfully right now. cool and who would that be and where is the method being implemented > The other, apparently, is more interested in telling himself that it's a > hopless task than in finding a better way. > > Become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. perhaps one of us doesn't undderstand the real world > Lee >> No, "we" don't knot that it won't work. One of us is employing the >> method successfully right now. > > cool and who would that be and where is the method being implemented That would be me, and I just finished describing the method. I'm a fraud expert working for my government. > perhaps one of us doesn't undderstand the real world Perhaps. The question is, which one. Following your approach, there's nothing to be done. It's a hopeless situation that can not get better and almost certainly will get worse. Following mine, things might get better. You're free to choose whichever one you like. I already have. Lee >>> No, "we" don't knot that it won't work. One of us is employing the >>> method successfully right now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> perhaps one of us doesn't undderstand the real world on a personal level that is great that you are doing it and I wish everybody would. However when you look around your collegues and collegues in other agencies is your 4 step plan being e,ployed by them > Perhaps. The question is, which one. Following your approach, there's > nothing to be done. It's a hopeless situation that can not get better and > almost certainly will get worse. Following mine, things might get better. > > You're free to choose whichever one you like. I already have. That is great that YOU have made that choice but looking at thee bigger picture not everybody has that corrupts the system. I would love your values to become the norm BUT call me cynical or whatever I cannot see it happening in this life > Lee > On a personal level that is great that you are doing it and I wish > everybody would. However when you look around your collegues and collegues > in other agencies is your 4 step plan being employed by them. I don't know. I can only control what I do and recommend it to others. > That is great that YOU have made that choice but looking at thee bigger > picture not everybody has that corrupts the system. Each person chooses as he or she does, including you. If you were to choose to be a positive influence instead of a negative one, that would make one more positive influence in the world. A nation of positive people is made up of a lot of those individual, personal, positive decisions. > I would love your values to become the norm BUT call me cynical or > whatever I cannot see it happening in this life My word for your approach is negative. I'm cynical. I don't think everyone will chose a positive approach. I know that there will be plenty around that don't. Some will choose very differently and some may even make it work. Many will not choose at all, but, instead, sit back and carp about how the choices of others isn't turning out the way they prefer. We both know what group you're in today. I wonder which group you'll be in tomorrow. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Just don't stand in the way of those who choose to make a personal, individual, positive difference. Lee >> On a personal level that is great that you are doing it and I wish >> everybody would. However when you look around your collegues and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of those > individual, personal, positive decisions. I agree with you and hope that your light spreads through the world >> I would love your values to become the norm BUT call me cynical or >> whatever I cannot see it happening in this life > > My word for your approach is negative. It is not my approach it is my beleif > I'm cynical. I don't think everyone will chose a positive approach. I > know that there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We both know what group you're in today. I wonder which group you'll be > in tomorrow. Do you know what group I'm in? I doubt it very much > Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Just don't stand in the way of those > who choose to > make a personal, individual, positive difference. I am standing in anyones way how? > Lee > >>> Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this > country is going to sh.t. > What's our crime rate doing? According to this, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm, it seems to be declining (violent crime at least). > Our budget? It's "skyrocketing". However, I heard a report recently that said that the increase in our budget (as a percentage of GDP) is extremely low in comparison to other times when we've been at war. Take that for what it's worth (to me, it's not much). > Our unemployment? Apparently, since around 2003 or so, it's been dropping. Also, if you apply a linear average to the unemployment data since 1948, you'll see that it hasn't been above that trendline since 1993. A logarithmic trnedline shows the same thing. > Our health care? It's been getting more and more expensive. The government could help bring down the costs, but in so doing they would probably lower the quality as well. > Our education? Considering that we're currently teaching more material to more students than ever before, I'd say it's doing just fine. I can definitely see room for improvement, but I think that the teachers are doing a fabulous job with what they're required to do and who they're required to do it for. > But at least we have the right to resist cops with armed violence when they > come to take away our guns. We are the NRA. That's no fiction. There's always that. <snip> > Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this > country is going to sh.t. What's our crime rate doing? ... Our > unemployment? ... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15543862/?GT1=8717 >>I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it. >>Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? And a damned fine one. Among his many attributes. He was also a social critic. Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. >>Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction? > And a damned fine one. Among his many attributes. He was also a > social critic. And a damned fine one. If you're interested in some his works, email me privately. Lee > If you're interested in some his works, email me privately. > > Lee Whatcha got? Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ >I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it. >Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >on October 6, 1988, on the Grand Master's behalf (it was a posthumous >award). Mrs. Heinlein received a standing ovation. I believe this is from a radio series that ran in the 50s and early 60s entitled "This I Believe". It's made a reappearance on NPR and they've actually had some quite good ones. Some by "personalities" and some by a plain old Joe/Jane off the street. >This I Believe by Robert A. Heinlein >I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >This I believe with all my heart. > Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.