More and more today, there are postings on the internet describing events in the religious confines of Eretz Yisrael which go beyond simple uniformed challenges to the social norm of the era. There is violence and terror and it is going to either continue indefinately or else The Land of Israel must indeed put up a new citizenship examination that involves military and police and thus the forces of the orderly to subdue the elements of the rancid acidic hatred and disjointed Israelis who seek to find reform through the practice of thuggery and vandalism that orders itself today as the most concentrated expression of Jewish outrageous anger in the history of the Jewish People to the best of my beliefs.
http://www.vosizneias.com/95933/2011/11/29/mea-shearim-bookstore-accedes-to-charedi-vandalist-demands-2
Israel is clearly not America. America stands for trust and benevolence. Israel today begins a chapter of rage and acidic hatred. True that Israel is homeland to the nation of Jacob whose own blessing is the guidepost to human relations today, the fact is that Jacob never envisioned his own children eating out of the troughs of neglect and disorder. What has Israel come to that we no longer activate the powers of the voice and instead blow through town like the very same Nazis who destroyed all of our peoples lives in the holocaust?
Curses upon curses can not do justice to the inhumanity that walked the streets of Nazi Germany and today, and today the same indignified hatred and indoctrination of evil suffuses even Eretz Yisrael consuming a culture around its very core of existence.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Describing Modified Plenitude
Facts are that today there are people who are sailing on the oceans of everything while there are too many who are shipwrecked on the rocks of interest and fees as well as the whirlpool of poverty and inequality.
In fact, that these people continue among their losses and inopportunity while there are houses built upon foundations of overrealizing personal and private gain and surplus that surpasses all that perhaps is lost to the human beings that really do not have the future of a prosperous fortunate individual few.
Outcries of socialism sound in the light that someone wants to save the shipwrecks, as the old adage is that if you are shipwrecked, you can dig yourself out and nail your boat together and get on with your life by working and doing everything you can do as a productive and hard working American citizen who ascribes to prosperity and the American "way" of bringing home the bacon your own way and without the courtesy any any other man or womans hand lifted to give you a superficial edge on the poverty that sinks the boats of human endeavor and rights into the sinking abysses of unremarkable, loser, fool, imbecile, slob, louse, failure to plan and failure to save.
In fact, this has become so rampant that today, we have the anarchist movement of the "99%" running around the villages and streets of this entire North American Continent.
So what is the future and what is our nation as a station of justice and peace to pursue in the remedy that perhaps we can indeed suffuse trust and blessings back into our citizenship and economy.
I will suggest to you that the idea of socialism is a ruse. No true contributor to social justice can have a socialist way of life. This is simply impossible. True there are the socialists who bring about disorder and cravings for simple satisfaction from the masses of the well and healthy and righteous and rightminded and rightencompassed and rich. But in fact, there are other ways that winning societies can address save and protect their own futures and ensure that the future is prosperous for not just those who are sailing the high seas of human experiences, but also those who have smaller boats and may stay in the shallow section of the social and political and financial reaches of human existence.
Thus perhaps there will be fewer ship wrecks and simply a boat festival of all the good children who really deserved some sort of home of the values of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as that is in our view G-d given and proscribed through the blessings of all mankind.
So let us pursue the True American Way.
Thus I describe here that the idea of increasing taxation upon the upper tiers of the earning hierarchy would simply be a method of a Modified Plenitude.
Thus creating economy and wealth in places where the shipwrecked society is usually high and dry and deep in debt and deep in poverty.
This can be done and I am quite sure that with a Modified Plenitude there is still of course plenty and plenty and plenty for all who are in the city of making a higher living in America.
In fact, that these people continue among their losses and inopportunity while there are houses built upon foundations of overrealizing personal and private gain and surplus that surpasses all that perhaps is lost to the human beings that really do not have the future of a prosperous fortunate individual few.
Outcries of socialism sound in the light that someone wants to save the shipwrecks, as the old adage is that if you are shipwrecked, you can dig yourself out and nail your boat together and get on with your life by working and doing everything you can do as a productive and hard working American citizen who ascribes to prosperity and the American "way" of bringing home the bacon your own way and without the courtesy any any other man or womans hand lifted to give you a superficial edge on the poverty that sinks the boats of human endeavor and rights into the sinking abysses of unremarkable, loser, fool, imbecile, slob, louse, failure to plan and failure to save.
In fact, this has become so rampant that today, we have the anarchist movement of the "99%" running around the villages and streets of this entire North American Continent.
So what is the future and what is our nation as a station of justice and peace to pursue in the remedy that perhaps we can indeed suffuse trust and blessings back into our citizenship and economy.
I will suggest to you that the idea of socialism is a ruse. No true contributor to social justice can have a socialist way of life. This is simply impossible. True there are the socialists who bring about disorder and cravings for simple satisfaction from the masses of the well and healthy and righteous and rightminded and rightencompassed and rich. But in fact, there are other ways that winning societies can address save and protect their own futures and ensure that the future is prosperous for not just those who are sailing the high seas of human experiences, but also those who have smaller boats and may stay in the shallow section of the social and political and financial reaches of human existence.
Thus perhaps there will be fewer ship wrecks and simply a boat festival of all the good children who really deserved some sort of home of the values of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as that is in our view G-d given and proscribed through the blessings of all mankind.
So let us pursue the True American Way.
Thus I describe here that the idea of increasing taxation upon the upper tiers of the earning hierarchy would simply be a method of a Modified Plenitude.
Thus creating economy and wealth in places where the shipwrecked society is usually high and dry and deep in debt and deep in poverty.
This can be done and I am quite sure that with a Modified Plenitude there is still of course plenty and plenty and plenty for all who are in the city of making a higher living in America.
Revoluton of the mind and knob of a hand in the sky
The fact is simple, Twitter is the absolute indefinate and newly placed grassroots movement that supplants all grassroots movements that ever were and ever will be.
The new adage was one "I think therefore I am".
Modified today, It is now "I twitter therefore I belong".
The new adage was one "I think therefore I am".
Modified today, It is now "I twitter therefore I belong".
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The war against honor
True to the fact, America has a war waged by a faithless sort that is waged against a simple concept of humanity that we extol in all of our venues, namely Honor.
True we are attacking the honor of humanity today.
The News Station on Fox Television is the leader of heresy and foolish total insincere inhumane dissertation that is bent upon yielding the form and wanting preferences of the ultimately well off Americans from being tempted by a sinister named true honorable way of life, that of a liberal minded thinker whose existence is to allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is fleeting and foolish.
True you may not politically be aligned with those who are liberally minded on all of the issues today, but in fact, the facts are that liberalism once acheived does not in any way want to be dismantled.
Do we go back to slavery?
Do we disallow women to vote?
Do we recourse back to times where we have a monarch over the days of American Colonists?
Clearly we do not. The constitution is a liberal acheivement and if you want to attack the way of life for the liberally minded aptitudes of today, that is your perogative.
But to wage war and stigmatize liberalism and stigmatize "liberals", you have basically signed your own death warrant from a G-d that believes that Honor is dignified and that pride is wholesome.
G-d is true and so too is the force of liberalism in the development of human ideals.
Conservatism is good too. It is not the ying and yang of the liberal conservative array of human accomplishent.
The fact is that conservative values endure as well and making the world a better place is when you can decide between what is a true conservative value and what is really just antiliberal bias and inhumane indiscretion.
Conservatism is championed in things like energy conservation,
Conservatism is championed in things like buiding a better steel industry.
Conservatism is championed in the documentation of works and interests so that we do not spin into a spiral of forgotten leadership and knowledge and go about rebuilding the bridges that we already have in place.
But of course, conservatism is not the true value of the codifying of a system of regular stations of human existence that is to be challenged in terms of its true right to exist or its inherent merit.
Conservatism builds bridges.
Conservatism builds bonds.
Conservatism does not argue with our G-d as to if the idea of abortion is in G-ds plan, I assert that it is indeed a stay of human discretion and human strengthening and if you want to argue whether that is G-ds true plan or not, be wise and speak your debate. But to disavow the liberal advances, you are going to instill a dread in human intellect that there are going to be those who stigmatize and castigate the intelligent and sophisticated leaders of today and the future.
And stigmatization is not a conservative axiom, it is a heretics wand of joy and impropriety.
True we are attacking the honor of humanity today.
The News Station on Fox Television is the leader of heresy and foolish total insincere inhumane dissertation that is bent upon yielding the form and wanting preferences of the ultimately well off Americans from being tempted by a sinister named true honorable way of life, that of a liberal minded thinker whose existence is to allow for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is fleeting and foolish.
True you may not politically be aligned with those who are liberally minded on all of the issues today, but in fact, the facts are that liberalism once acheived does not in any way want to be dismantled.
Do we go back to slavery?
Do we disallow women to vote?
Do we recourse back to times where we have a monarch over the days of American Colonists?
Clearly we do not. The constitution is a liberal acheivement and if you want to attack the way of life for the liberally minded aptitudes of today, that is your perogative.
But to wage war and stigmatize liberalism and stigmatize "liberals", you have basically signed your own death warrant from a G-d that believes that Honor is dignified and that pride is wholesome.
G-d is true and so too is the force of liberalism in the development of human ideals.
Conservatism is good too. It is not the ying and yang of the liberal conservative array of human accomplishent.
The fact is that conservative values endure as well and making the world a better place is when you can decide between what is a true conservative value and what is really just antiliberal bias and inhumane indiscretion.
Conservatism is championed in things like energy conservation,
Conservatism is championed in things like buiding a better steel industry.
Conservatism is championed in the documentation of works and interests so that we do not spin into a spiral of forgotten leadership and knowledge and go about rebuilding the bridges that we already have in place.
But of course, conservatism is not the true value of the codifying of a system of regular stations of human existence that is to be challenged in terms of its true right to exist or its inherent merit.
Conservatism builds bridges.
Conservatism builds bonds.
Conservatism does not argue with our G-d as to if the idea of abortion is in G-ds plan, I assert that it is indeed a stay of human discretion and human strengthening and if you want to argue whether that is G-ds true plan or not, be wise and speak your debate. But to disavow the liberal advances, you are going to instill a dread in human intellect that there are going to be those who stigmatize and castigate the intelligent and sophisticated leaders of today and the future.
And stigmatization is not a conservative axiom, it is a heretics wand of joy and impropriety.
Discussing liberal and conservative minded beings
I must remark that the fact is very simple that a liberal is not a designation for a human being. The fact is that they are liberal minded and not a liberal anything. They are not liberals in the same sense that you are not a screwer of light bulbs. You are a person who may screw in a light bulb.
So if I can detract from the ingrained heresy of the especially radical right of our towns and vicinity, the real way to talk about liberalism is to denote that someone is liberal minded rather than a liberal.
And the same goes for the conservative minded Americans. You can be quaint and say they are conservatives, but in truth they are conservative minded.
So if you want to give to the radical destructive minds on the right, keep calling people liberals. You will not be a proper spoken person and you will simply be in fact endorsing a system which does in fact offer itself to a radical way of patronizing the established proper order of mankind by segregating it into one group or another. In effect, we all can be both conservative and liberal minded in many of the situations we encounter and one modality does not in fact negate or trump the other.
So if I can detract from the ingrained heresy of the especially radical right of our towns and vicinity, the real way to talk about liberalism is to denote that someone is liberal minded rather than a liberal.
And the same goes for the conservative minded Americans. You can be quaint and say they are conservatives, but in truth they are conservative minded.
So if you want to give to the radical destructive minds on the right, keep calling people liberals. You will not be a proper spoken person and you will simply be in fact endorsing a system which does in fact offer itself to a radical way of patronizing the established proper order of mankind by segregating it into one group or another. In effect, we all can be both conservative and liberal minded in many of the situations we encounter and one modality does not in fact negate or trump the other.
Another reason to like Jon Huntsman
Calling all progressive Rock Fans, I hear that Mr. Huntsman is one of us!!!!!
Posted on twitter today, his favorite RUSH album is 2112. Great news!
Posted on twitter today, his favorite RUSH album is 2112. Great news!
Internet posting and anonymity
I read an article in the NY times dated 11/27/11 today that was discussing the idea of making all postings on the internet subject to an identification. Here is a blog entry from an ACLU lawyer addressing this comment:
http://catherinecrump.blogspot.com/2011/11/sunday-dialog-on-anonymity-and.html#comment-form
Posting on the internet is both a personal matter as well as a candid example of what you are able to acheive with some sense of alter ego anonymity. For political commentary, it is your voice rather than your pen that is important.
I enjoy blogging on many sites that have a political nature and by using a screenname, I enjoy that I can build a reputation and a consideration and yet no family identification or other personal matter is considered in my sharing of discussion and writing.
It is important that we do not assign a manditory identity on every thing that we do online. Of couse, I am absolutely sure that there will be no 1984 moment of big brother that takes over internet rights today. It would be very hard to change the direction that the Internet has existed since its inception as far as commentary in some venues is tasted.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-anonymity-and-incivility-on-the-internet.html?ref=opinion
Sunday Dialogue: Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet
The Letter
To the Editor:
Facebook has 800 million users who are required to use their real names (“Naming Names: Rushdie Wins Facebook Fight,” front page, Nov. 15), and, as a result, are identified with and accountable for what they post. It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.
People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful consequences, such as the suicides of cyberbullied young people. The abuse extends to hate-filled and inflammatory comments appended to the online versions of newspaper articles — comments that hijack legitimate discussions of current events and discourage people from participating.
Anonymity also facilitates the posting of anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic content across the Web.
To be sure, there is value in someone being able to use the Internet without being identified. Online privacy is a major issue today. And in the United States, we have had a great tradition of anonymous political speech. Elsewhere, dissidents in oppressive regimes have felt free to speak up precisely because they believe (perhaps erroneously) that they cannot be identified.
This is not a matter for government, given the strictures of the First Amendment. But it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.
There is no bright-line test, but Internet sites permitting user-generated postings can make a judgment that in some instances the use of real names benefits society.
CHRISTOPHER WOLF
Washington, Nov. 20, 2011
The writer is an Internet and privacy attorney and leads the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League.
Readers React
When striking down a law prohibiting anonymous distribution of leaflets, the Supreme Court wrote that anonymity serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”
It’s no secret that some people use anonymity to say vile things about others. But before urging the likes of Facebook and Google to banish such speech, think about the gay person who isn’t in a position to come out in the “real world,” but feels comfortable doing so online. Those who need help with personal problems. Those with political opinions they don’t want their bosses to hear.
Or think about your younger self, and whether you’d want everything you said as a teenager to be permanently linked to your real name.
Ugly insults are just one small part of all the free speech that anonymity makes possible, and it’s not worth closing the door on all that speech to make the world more polite.
CATHERINE CRUMP
New York, Nov. 23, 2011
The writer is a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Sunday Dialog on Anonymity and Incivility
The Times chose Anonymity and Incivility as the topic for one of its Sunday Dialog pieces, and included a letter from me as one of the responses.
If I'd had more space, I would also have pointed out that unless you are a computer whiz, there is no such thing as anonymous speech on the Internet. While you may choose to adopt the screen name Mark Twain, anyone with a court order can force the company that provides you with internet access to reveal that your real name is Samuel Gompers—and thereby hold you accountable for any libelous speech you may have uttered.
Moreover, the Internet is the greatest and most democratic medium for free expression available to us. The ability to use a pseudonym has been an American value since the Federalist Papers were penned under the name Publius. Much will be lost if the powerful companies that moderate most online discourse eradicate the ability to engage in anonymous speech.
Of the letters that were published, I found myself particularly moved by those from people who comment frequently online, and yet say they would not feel comfortable doing so if they were required to use their real names in all cases.
http://catherinecrump.blogspot.com/2011/11/sunday-dialog-on-anonymity-and.html#comment-form
Posting on the internet is both a personal matter as well as a candid example of what you are able to acheive with some sense of alter ego anonymity. For political commentary, it is your voice rather than your pen that is important.
I enjoy blogging on many sites that have a political nature and by using a screenname, I enjoy that I can build a reputation and a consideration and yet no family identification or other personal matter is considered in my sharing of discussion and writing.
It is important that we do not assign a manditory identity on every thing that we do online. Of couse, I am absolutely sure that there will be no 1984 moment of big brother that takes over internet rights today. It would be very hard to change the direction that the Internet has existed since its inception as far as commentary in some venues is tasted.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-anonymity-and-incivility-on-the-internet.html?ref=opinion
Sunday Dialogue: Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet
The Letter
To the Editor:
Facebook has 800 million users who are required to use their real names (“Naming Names: Rushdie Wins Facebook Fight,” front page, Nov. 15), and, as a result, are identified with and accountable for what they post. It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.
People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful consequences, such as the suicides of cyberbullied young people. The abuse extends to hate-filled and inflammatory comments appended to the online versions of newspaper articles — comments that hijack legitimate discussions of current events and discourage people from participating.
Anonymity also facilitates the posting of anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic content across the Web.
To be sure, there is value in someone being able to use the Internet without being identified. Online privacy is a major issue today. And in the United States, we have had a great tradition of anonymous political speech. Elsewhere, dissidents in oppressive regimes have felt free to speak up precisely because they believe (perhaps erroneously) that they cannot be identified.
This is not a matter for government, given the strictures of the First Amendment. But it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.
There is no bright-line test, but Internet sites permitting user-generated postings can make a judgment that in some instances the use of real names benefits society.
CHRISTOPHER WOLF
Washington, Nov. 20, 2011
The writer is an Internet and privacy attorney and leads the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League.
Readers React
When striking down a law prohibiting anonymous distribution of leaflets, the Supreme Court wrote that anonymity serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”
It’s no secret that some people use anonymity to say vile things about others. But before urging the likes of Facebook and Google to banish such speech, think about the gay person who isn’t in a position to come out in the “real world,” but feels comfortable doing so online. Those who need help with personal problems. Those with political opinions they don’t want their bosses to hear.
Or think about your younger self, and whether you’d want everything you said as a teenager to be permanently linked to your real name.
Ugly insults are just one small part of all the free speech that anonymity makes possible, and it’s not worth closing the door on all that speech to make the world more polite.
CATHERINE CRUMP
New York, Nov. 23, 2011
The writer is a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)