1. It’s nice to know where he stands but i don’t think his message will change a single thing Trump does or the supremacists/neo-confederates views one iota. I can only hope it might give succour and encouragement to the middle ground of America to become more active and not violently opposed to the trouble-makers.


    Liked by 1 person

      • Curious choice of words there – ‘our’ own pols… Arnie WAS Governor of California for seven years, as i recall. πŸ™‚

        Did you mean current? If you want embarrassing pols look no further than Australia (which is, i grant you half a world away from yours). We have half a dozen politicians currently (and counting!), some of whom have been serving for several years in government/opposition, when they were ineligible to even stand for election under a section of our Constitution! That’s not embarrassing so much as it is a joke, except i’m not joking! 😦



  2. Let’s just agree to disagree because I think we are arguing about phrasing, not meaning. I think everyone needs to do what they perceive as right and that knowledge of right vs. wrong are inherent. I don’t think murdering Nazis actually thought they were doing something good.

    Basically, we “get” right. Can any government FORCE us to do it? While our laws are certainly based on what we generally believe is righteous behavior, law isn’t a moral authority. I’m not talking about an external i.e. government or equivalent force, but rather an internal human understanding and recognition of evil when it stares you in the face.

    Laws based on “moral righteousness” don’t work. I never suggested we should or could force anyone to have a conscience. If THAT were true, would we have this government? If having a conscience were a prerequisite to running for office — here or anywhere — could anyone run? And how do you examine a conscience? A fundamental understanding of good and evil, right and wrong doesn’t cover the fine points of human behavior. That IS what laws are about. Supposedly.


    • I second that motion, to disagree. Ain’t it nice we are allowed? But I’m not on about semantics.

      As for the Nazis, I think you’d be surprised how many Nazis ( or Germans) thought they were doing the right thing — for their society. Their herd. That is my point though, they did NOT think. They rationalized it away with misunderstood phrases. Like Hitler said, even lies told over and over to the masses will become their truth. Or something like that. I have a copy of his garbage stuffed in one of my dusty bookcases. (Know thine enemy.)

      I’m sure that many of the Germans, who were not Nazis, the ones who knew that something was wrong, but couldn’t put their finger on it or were too afraid to go against their “society,” didn’t feel so good inside when they dragged American pilots from their downed planes and hung them.


      • It’s why I believe with all my heart in KNOWLEDGE. In learning. In knowing the difference between a slogan and the truth. We have a crappy educational system these days and it isn’t teaching kids to THINK, just to recite statistics, numbers, and names to pass tests. They don’t know anything.

        The good news about the horrors of Trumps administration? I think many more people know how the government works — and doesn’t work — than they did a year ago. This has been a terrifying way to learn basic civics, but better late than never.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’m in total agreement with that comment Marilyn! The first part is happening here in Australia too, teaching kids meaningless stuff like passing national tests on numeracy and literacy and not teaching them about their brains and how they work and how we could really USE them for our and everyone’s benefit and how also to improve our memory, which i believe is essential to gaining lifelong knowledge and retaining it.



  3. It makes me very sad – and resigned and cynical – that Jack Shorebird doesn’t get the concept of moral responsibility. Or, apparently, the concept of society. It’s that sort of thinking, in my opinion, that’s brought us to where we are today – a collection of selfish, intolerant individuals too self-centred to realise that co-operation is the only way to survive, and common ethical standards (if you don’t like the word ‘moral’) are the key to co-operation.
    He’s right that no one can order you to be moral (or ethical), but he is wrong that taking your share of responsibility for the common good is a form of servitude. A long time ago when I was young, when the world was declaring that ‘it must never happen again’, people realised that unless we all took responsibility, each of us in our own lives and our own communities, for the triumph of good over evil – pompous as that might sound – it COULD happen again. And we were right. Once ‘I want’ became more important than ‘we need’, we were on a slippery slope that couldn’t lead anywhere good for humanity as a whole.
    Jack Shorebird is obviously an intelligent man. I hope he wakes up and realises that his ‘choice’ doesn’t happen in isolation. Ever. That what he chooses affects the sum total of humanity whether he likes it or not.


    • I am assuming he really does understand and this discussion is academic rather than personal. If I thought otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      But I agree with you as do most people our age — which may be, for all I know, symbolic of our age and times. I think everyone, everywhere has a moral imperative to make the world better, not worse. We shouldn’t need an authority, a government, a legal system to enforce it. Knowing the difference between good and evil is normal for anyone who isn’t a sociopath or actually personally evil.

      There has been too much talking about greed and me and “I deserve.” Not nearly enough of generosity, caring, compassion, and “we ALL need.” I hope righteousness makes a return visit to humanity. Soon, I hope.


  4. I think you’ll find the Constitution declares citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not property (Property is theft according to P-J Proudon). I also think those ‘rights’ are completely meaningless – just try and sue anyone to get them back when any one or all 3 have been taken from you (wishing you Real good luck with the first one!) ;-). The government itself will happily take the limited amount of the you ever get of the second one from you ( and also the first one in a few cases) and the ‘right to pursue happiness, just what does that truly mean anyway?

    It seems the ‘inalienable’ rights are quite easily given up by many if not most citizens.

    If we have rights who ‘gives’ them to us or how do we ‘earn’ them? Are they God-given?, Constitutionally supplied? Earned through some form of moral or good works/thought/deed? Inherited upon or by birth? What qualifies someone as having ‘given’ up their rights and who gets to or who should adjudicate on that and what recourse do we have to appeal?

    I’d agree with you that we have no other rights but i don’t think we truly have any at all – other than what we might fight to TRY and keep for ourselves.

    If we did actually have any, i’d say the right to choose for ourselves (to live/die, where on earth to live, to live alone or in a group, what if any religion etc, to chose) would be the Prime Right and then all other rights are up for your own preference if you live in isolation or by shared agreement if you live with others in a societal grouping of any size, up to and including the world’s population, with everyone getting an equal say (meaning the Chinese would have the biggest say as a sub-grouping, followed by India’s population).


    Liked by 1 person

Talk to me!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s