Our current problem

I think that there is a continuim of human natures - some human needs are more immediate than others.

I optimistically think that the primary feature of human nature is to use our wits to succeed in spite of enviromental difficulties. We are animals, but don't have the specialized fur, claws, fangs, speed, strength that have made other species successful. Our only advantage is our ability to think through and solve immediate survival problems. I think this is the most rewarding thing that we can naturally do (nicotine, cannabis, opium, ethanol came much later...then cocaine and ultimately crack - but I digress).

We're naturally set-up to be problem-solvers. Greed, envy, lust for power only come after basic survival, and are relatively trivial when important - and interesting - survival problems are at hand.

In my estimation, it hasn't been until after WWII that a majority of the populace haven't had to regularly deal with real survival problems: Whether it was a hole in the roof, a drought threatening crops, livestock in trouble, machinery breaking down, there were always survival-critical problems to deal with.

Over the last three generations, these types of regular life challenges have almost disappeared. People have become used to conveniences to the point that they depend on them. We have shifted from an independent, rural population, to a dependent urban one.

We, as citizens, people, and maybe more importantly, animals are becomeing increasingly less concerned with immediate issues of survival. Inconveniences that would have been trivial to our grandparents, now seem insufferable - insufferable to the point that now a majority of us are willing to submit to subjugation to avoid them.

If the government will promise to make our lives convenient, a majority of us will now relinquish our responsiblily to survive on our own.

The problem with this is that successful and regular problem solving is what gives us as humans satisfaction, and makes our lives meaningful. Without real problems and consequences, real satisfaction is gone.

As dissatisfied humans, we start looking backward for meaning. We still don't need fur, claws, and fangs. Government has taken away our need for problem-solving. What do we do next?

The answer is obvious and displayed every day in our Capitol and other major cities.

The geniuses that established our country saw all of this coming. Our only hope as a nation (that has been interpreted as clinging to guns and religion) is to maintain freedom and responsibility for ourselves and families (and to keep alive the tradition of doing things by and for ourselves).

The one bright spot I see is that all of this is protected in our nation's Constitution.

We need to protect the direct application of our Constitution at all costs.

Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Is Obama trying to end armed airline pilot program?

Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Is Obama trying to end armed airline pilot program?

Posted using ShareThis

My local paper is anti-gun

Increasingly more opinion in the Reflector has been about guns and the “unsettling” fascination many have with them. I suggest that the fascination isn’t really about guns, it’s about tools and the way in which tools allow us to control our environment. Our ability to manufacture and use tools is one of a few characteristics that separate us from lower species. We understand their significance in a manner similar to the way we appreciate the meaning of a smile or frown without ever having had to have been taught. Weapons, over the course of human events, have been a particularly important class of tool. They have been both blessing and curse, but they are as necessary today as they ever were – perhaps even more. As long as evil exists we’ll need weapons: they’re tools that allow us to resist evil. Humans innately recognize the value and empowerment that weapons bring, thus the fascination. Weapons are in one sense different than other tools in that they require upmost responsibility and good judgment on the part of those using them. A nation that allows its citizens to be armed is a nation that must trust the citizenry. Perhaps this is where those who are made nervous by the armed among them are having a problem. They realize that they are in a position where they must trust their fellow citizen. I suggest that, rather than encouraging the disarmament of your fellow citizens, that you should take responsibility for your own defense and join them. The key to avoiding another mass murder (such as the one that occurred at nearby Virginia Tech) is to eliminate areas wherein weapons are not permitted. “Gun-free zones” artificially create concentrations of defenseless potential victims – which, as we’ve seen too often, is a playground for evil.

Who is responsible for the conflict in Gaza?

A six month cease-fire between the terrorist organization, Hamas, and Israel recently ended with Hamas increasing the number of unguided missiles that it lobbed into Israel to about 70 a day.

Seventy chances a day to kill innocent Israelis: fortunately most of these "dumb missile" attacks are not lethal - but tragically four Israelis have recently been murdered by them.

Israel tolerated constant low-level attacks against its civilian population during the recent cease-fire, and is now appropriately responding to escalating terrorist attacks from within Gaza.

One of the most important responsibilities of a government is the protection of it’s citizens. Israel has no moral choice other than to do whatever it can to end Hamas' indiscriminant terrorist attacks.

The people of Gaza unfortunately participated in electing Hamas, a terrorist organization, into power within the Palestinian National Authority. This has weakened the more moderate and Israel-tolerant Fatah party.

Since gaining de facto power in Gaza, Hamas has constantly provoked Israel. The ordinary people of Gaza who have politically supported this group are now paying a terrible price, especially given the willingness of Hamas to shield military targets by locating them within civilian areas.

Israel clearly has no interest in harming Palestinian civilians (given it’s development and use of expensive smart weapons designed to reduce exposure of civilians and non-military structures and equipment). Unfortunately, despite these efforts, unintentional collateral damage has not been entirely avoided, and will certainly continue.

I hope that civilians in proximity to military targets will flee, while doing what they can to convince their government that they these targets should be moved.

I also hope that Israel will quickly and decisively eliminate Hamas and its ability to threaten innocent Israelis. Only with the end of terrorist control (that has consistently been committed to the destruction of Israel) will ordinary Palestinians (or common Gazans) be freed from violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0CzM_Frvc

Middle Class Responsibility

There's been a lot of political talk about how the middle class needs help, and about where that help should come from.

The Left seems to believe that money should be taken in the form of taxes from corporations and the rich (defined as those earning $250K/year or more) and given to the less fortunate middle class (in the form of a tax cut).

As a member of the middle class, its hard not to be at least a bit enthusiastic about the prospect of such a proposed arrangement. Afterall, what do those greedy bastards need all that money for?

If we're going to adopt this sort of reasoning, its only fair to evaluate what we middle classers need that money for too.

It might be nice to have a new car, but I don't really need it. It might be nice to plan to send kids to a private university, but I learned plenty at relatively low-cost state institutions. I'm a bit overweight and so, if anything it might actually be good for me to eat out less. It might be nice to have a less run-down house, but moving would be a major pain and we have way more than adequate shelter already. If I were one of the idiots that bought a house I couldn't afford, it might be nice to not have to move, but that kind-of takes the incentive out of not being an idiot - is this something that we as a nation can afford?

On the topic of incentive, what message would redistribution send to greedy corporations and the rich bastards? If I were rich or the greedy leader of an amoral corporation, I'd be thinking about where I could go and keep more of what is mine or my organization's. Redistribution would tend to drive the successful (and all that ill-gotten money) out of the country. We, the middle class would be left, and our nation, on average would become poorer.

Maybe this increased poverty would result in the middle class being viewed as relatively rich. And then the redistribution cycle could turn again, only the next time the not-so-poor would become the target of the really impoverished.

This idiotic idea that wealth can be "redistributed" without degrading the nation as a whole is so superficial that I cannot imagine how half a nation of relatively well-educated citizens can't immediately see right through it. Any leader promiting this type of plan must be either stupid, or dishonest. I'm leaning toward dishonest. Dishonesty in this case is irresponsible (and down right dangerous).

Growing up isn't easy for anyone...

Let's see if I understand the Left's position...

Criticism of a President that molests a 20 year-old intern in the Oval Office with a cigar, and costs taxpayers millions in the resulting investigation - is inappropriate because "it was just lying about sex".

But it is somehow reasonable to critisize the parents of a 17 year-old daughter that gets in trouble with her boyfriend and keeps the baby?

The only way that I can see that it might be reasonable to hold both of these positions simultaneously is if the person in question is a teenager, or has the emotional and behavioral maturity of a teenager.

Adults can AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO control their behavior. Those of us who were once teenagers know that it was virtually impossible to avoid risky behavior during that awkward period of development. No one survives the teenage years unscathed. Some of us are forced to grow up faster than others. Those that find themselves in that position deserve our compassion and support. It could have happened to any of us.

To those who are critical of the mistakes of a teenager - have a good look in the mirror, and try to leave your adolescence behind.

Disneyland and the problem of “a culture of fantasy”

Americans love Disneyland. It’s the "happiest place on Earth". It’s the place where “all your dreams come true”. The problem is that the happiness is not real, and dreams are only temporarily fulfilled.

These seemingly positive effects only last as long as visiting families’ bank accounts allow (and with $5 hotdogs and $300 hotel rooms, this isn’t long for most Americans). On the trip home the reality of squandered savings and rapid resumption of day-to-day life can only seem more depressing. And so the urge to return to false happiness is almost immediate.

This type of fantasy is a drug. It circumvents our normal feelings of happiness and content that are there to reward us for working on our lives and in our communities to improve them. Instead of enjoying the satisfaction of working hard to make real improvements at home, fantasy vacations (Disneyland, Las Vegas, cruises to nowhere) only provide opportunities to flee real problems and avoid opportunities for improved living.

Americans have a cultural background of seeking opportunities for a better life. Fantasy vacations take advantage of this tendency and misappropriate resources and energy that should be devoted to real accomplishment.

Real improvement in our lives is the only thing that should make us happy.