text:
The enormous expense of Governments has provoked people to think, by making them feel; and when once the veil begins to rend, it admits not of repair. Ignorance is of a peculiar nature: and once dispelled, it is impossible to reestablish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant.
Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, 1791
Here is a simple question: what is a right? The question became important when I became involved in the formation of the American Conservative Party. As a gay conservative I was constantly dealing with individuals that 'knew' exactly what rights we had and it was often a rather short list. In discussions on the limits of government and the principles of liberty, rights were constantly being debated.
In May 2008 I was challenged during an online debate to state my system for determining what rights were 'correct' and which were no more than the ranting of a lunatic or the justification of a tyrant.
You are going to have to answer the question of where our rights originate before this discussion can go anywhere. Just saying that we have them isn't an explanation, but the absence of an explanation.
At the time I had given my positions some thought but the challenge galvanized me into spending time and considerably more effort on giving those positions substance. In the process certain aspects changed. Some will consider my journey to be one deeper into the rabbit hole. For myself, I am willing to go where the premises I set took me. I don't always like some conclusions, but if they are sound, my like or dislike is irrelevant.
What premises do I stand by? 1) The individual is sovereign. We are the masters of ourselves. 2) All rights are inherent in us. Rights exist because we exist. The foundation of rights can be found in each of us.
If I were going to honestly take up the challenge, I was going to have to find support for my premises AND where they led me.
It took a year to find my starting point. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were known to the Founding Fathers. Thomas Paine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were contemporaries. Many of the concepts of liberty and rights stated by these men influenced our founding principles. Our founding codified individual liberty and rights in ways that changed the world.
In Thomas Hobbes' (1588-1679) Leviathan (1651), Hobbes took his observations on the natural state of man…
"Nature hath made man so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind that another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable…"
…and considered the State necessary for human progress:
"…that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as has been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visable power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants…"
When John Locke (1632-1704) struck pen to paper, he made the same observation Hobbes declared as a natural state of man:
"Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man…"
He came to a similar conclusion – government was necessary
"…and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of Nature..."
Not just necessary and proper, but with authority forever over all…
"The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as society lasts, but will always remain in the community"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) published The Social Contract in 1762 seeking to:
"…examine whether, in the ordering of society, there can be any reliable and legitimate rule of administration, taking men as they are, and laws as they can be."
After much effort to establish man as the source of legitimate authority for "administration", he all but takes away man's freedom, subjugating it to the Society as controlled by the State, for their freedom and benefit, of course.
"In order therefore that the social pact should not be an empty formula, it contains an implicit obligation which alone can give force to the others, that if anyone refuses to obey the general will he will be compelled to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he will be forced to be free; for such is the condition which, giving each citizen to his country, guarantees that he will not depend on any person. This condition is the device that ensures the operation of the political machine."
Ordered liberty, or ordered existence? Edmund Burke (1729-1797):
"I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long."
Burke, a favorite of today's conservatives, was firm in his opinions on the French Revolution and the concept of a government by the people:
It is claimed that "…the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights, all which, with him, compose one system, and lie together in one short sentence; namely, that we have acquired a right
"To choose our own governors."
"To cashier them for misconduct."
"To frame a government for ourselves."
This new, and hitherto unheard-of, bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only. The body of the people of England have no share in it. They utterly disclaim it. They will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do so by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution which is appealed to in favour of the fictitious rights claimed by the Society which abuses its name."
"The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror."
Paine destroyed Burke's assertions on the benefits and necessity of rule by monarchies:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worse state an intolerable one."
"A greater absurdity cannot present itself to the understanding of man than what Mr. Burke offers to his readers. He tells them, and he tells the world to come, that a certain body of men who existed a hundred years ago, made a law, and that there does not now exist in the Nation, nor ever will, nor ever can, a power to alter it. Under how many subtilties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind! Mr. Burke has discovered a new one, and he has shortened his journey to Rome by appealing to the power of this infallible Parliament of former days; and he produces what it has done as of divine authority, for that power must certainly be more than human which no human power to the end of time can alter."
His passionate arguments in Common Sense helped to fan the flame of independence. Paine thought government necessary, but the best government was the simplest:
"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) of course disagreed with Burke; in the Declaration of Independence took square aim at government and fired a devastating broadside:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Government was and is the servant; the people, as sovereigns, were the masters and only the free exercise of sovereignty by the people gave government any legitimacy and authority. Fundamental rights and authority began and remained with the individual. Government and society were beneficial as long as they served the individual.
It is a natural progression from individual to family to community to society but at no point is government as an entity either natural or preordained. Up to that point, man was a beast and needed to be tamed. The American Revolution said, no. Man could order his affairs. Individuals had the right to do so. Government was but a tool of society, not the pinnacle of it:
"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them;"
But society was not and is not in every state a blessing as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) would note in On Liberty (1859):
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."
His response made clear the limits of a beneficial society (or State):
"…to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
Looking back at the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Paine, Jefferson and Mill, the thread is there to follow: man (beast that he could be) was the source of legitimate government and authorities. If a system of constraints could be formulated that would limit his more base passions without creating despots and tyrannies, the result would benefit all mankind. Jefferson laid the foundation:
"…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
But on this point he was very wrong:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident…"
My goal is to define what a right is, determine their origins, and establish their limits.
After reading the authors quoted here, it was clear the issues had been of concern long before I came around and that one set of answers formed the foundation of our United States. So many of their concerns are still relevant today and their observations continue to enlighten.
The world and society were slowly evolving 230 years ago, a process that has sped up considerably in the last 50 years. It is time to revisit the questions and some of the observations. In his introduction to Common Sense, Thomas Paine offered more hope for his point of view than I do mine:
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
In Part One I lay out a definition and origin for rights. In Part Two I look at how rights serve as a foundation for government management of rights and in Part Three I discuss some of the issues and considerations.
PART ONE: The Origin of Rights
…we must consider what estate all men are naturally in…
The Natural State of We, the people…
Alive. We know the mechanism now. One sperm, leaving the man; one egg leaving the ovary. Both alive. And when the sperm finds the egg, cleaving the surface and entering, becoming one. Alive.
The zygote and the gamete are both human cells. Carrying genetic material, by themselves, they are dead ends. Only joined together do we get true potential. Together they carry the genetic blueprint but without purpose, without a goal.
The genetic blueprint begins with a very basic function: Grow, divide; grow, divide. Eventually the cells begin to differentiate, to specialize. But there is no free will, no decisions; no choices are being made. The first cell grows and divides according to the blueprint. The cell becomes a million cells and still, no decisions are being made, no choices are being considered. Living and yet doing only what is laid out by the genetic blueprint.
As cells differentiate, structures form and coordination between the various parts form patterns we recognize as a 'human'. The coordination is not choice, it is not a consciousness imposing direction or control. The child, however recognizable, lacks the structure and internal integrity to exercise any control over itself. S/he, is still just following the genetic blueprint already provided.
Yet, somewhere down the line, after 18-20 weeks, the child stirs . The first actions are not according to any blueprint, they are not written into the genes. No protein map that says on the 149th day, kick the left leg. Is it a choice? A decision made? Or just a random firing of neurons beginning to establish pathways and connections?
We know the brain begins to show activity well before this point, but all the action appears to be 'internal' to the brain structure.
First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
Actual physical control of the body by a specific 'thought' in the brain - if it is occurring - is beyond our ability to detect. Even if it is occurring, it does not appear to be anything more than a localized biological response to some stimuli. It does not appear that the brain is telling a part of the body, move.
For all the technology available to us today, we can see brain activity but we can not tap in and listen to the 'conversation'. Those first thoughts, maybe fleeting sparks of awareness, belong uniquely, within the brain. For the entire life of the child each thought will occur away from anyone else's knowledge or understanding - unless s/he chooses to share them with others. And from those first thoughts, the plan built into our genes begins to turn over control of the body to the consciousness growing and learning within.
Despite the growing complexity of brain activity, there does not appear to be a 'thought process' going on. The child's brain is reacting to its body, which is reacting to the environment it is in. Stimulus causes reaction. The mother hums a tune, eats a spicy meal. Becomes scared, becomes excited. Each of these events causes the environment the child is in to change and the child's body reacts. Specific sounds excite or calm the child. Is the child thinking, "ah, mom is singing that song I like"? Does the mother's state of mind while singing cause a release of hormones that cause a specific reaction in the brain of the child? Is this thinking? Is this the infant brain making choices? Relax? Rest? We don't know. Our technology can register the reaction, see the change. We can measure the change in hormones, know that they have an impact, but KNOW if there is a specific choice being made?
"There be in animals two sorts of motions peculiar to them: One called vital, begun in generation, and continued without interruption through their whole life; such as the course of blood, the pulse, the breathing, the concoction, nutrition, excretion, etc; to which motion there needs no help of imagination; the other is animal motion, otherwise voluntary motion; as to go, to speak, to move any of our limbs, in such manner as is first fancied in our minds.
…And because going, speaking, and the like voluntary motions depend always upon a precedent thought of whither, which way, and what, it is evident that the imagination is the first internal beginning of all voluntary motion."
Many of the first actions we take as humans are based on direct reaction to specific environmental stimulus. The actions are basic, almost completely automatic. Our bodies make demands, we respond. That does not change, will never change. From birth until death, we will seek food when hungry. We will seek sleep when tired. We will seek a bathroom (or similar) when we need to relieve ourselves. We can decide to ignore those bodily demands, for a time. Eventually the body will override our decisions. In a few cases, even when hunger is ignored for days and weeks, the body will respond, until it can no longer survive.
The process of learning how to react, how to respond, how to control our bodies begins as the brain begins to assume control over the body before birth and continues with certain immediacy after birth. It is a process that will go on for a lifetime.
With very few exceptions, this is the process every human goes through. With very few exceptions we can predict the process with a high degree of accuracy. Whether our parents were rich or poor, educated or not, king or pauper, each of us began this way. We are all born with certain characteristics regardless of race, gender, class, religion or income. We have a heart that beats, lungs that breathe, a body that moves and a brain that thinks.
"Nature hath made man so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind that another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he."
The Law of Nature or the Character of Nature
"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions;"
A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved."
Hobbes and Locke suggest that the law of nature has two components: state – that condition of being equal and independent, and consequence - the result of reason no one can harm another.
Of the state of nature:
We know that in each species, there is a set of characteristics that apply to all offspring, each equal and independent. We know there is a considerable range of possibilities within those characteristics: weight, height, potential for intelligence, propensity for exceeding – for better or worse – the parents. These natural variations give rise to diversity in the population. It is the purpose of nature to encourage this diversity. However, nature does not need that all individuals survive or that any one should prevail. The goal of nature is to give each species the chance to grow and thrive, but it is indifferent to individual life. To Nature each individual is as good for it's purpose as any other is.
Each species however has a great desire that each individual survive. Unlike Natures indifference, each species seeks to nurture those individuals most likely to help carry the species into the future. For the weak, infirm, and elderly incapable of perpetuation the species, there is no future. The species seek the strongest at the expense of the weakest and will cull itself of the non-performers. Each species has a biological imperative that force beneficial (to the species) behaviors on individuals. In humans we call it morality.
Nature may be indifferent to the individual, but we are not. Unlike other 'species', we have free will. We can ignore the imperatives and support the weak, the infirm and the elderly. We have the ability and liberty to choose for ourselves; individuals can choose to ignore or conform to the purpose of nature.
"And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason…"
Of the consequence of nature:
Hobbes and Locke may reason that as a consequence of all being equal and independent, we should not harm ourselves or each other, but that ignores the nature that they find us in 'a state of war'. Here is how I think they get to their erroneous conclusion:
All equal means none have more claim or authority than any other on resources needed for survival. As the species grows in number, competition for resources increases. The diversity inherent in human characteristics grants a natural INEQUALITY in abilities; some individuals will be able to take more than their share of resources. It benefits all individuals to work together to insure everyone has access to resources. For Hobbes and Locke (and many others), in the face of natures competition, working together insures that all survive.
Reason dictates that if an individual threatens another, the transgression can call down upon him or her a forceful response threatening their own survival. It is a form of self preservation that dictates to individuals that threats to others should be avoided.
Nature has no such reason. Nature does not need nor expect that all individuals survive or procreate. Competition within and between species is one of the characteristics of the law of nature. Once an individual ceases being useful, a species is as indifferent as nature itself.
In early humans, competition often resulted in death. It is the 'state of war' that Hobbes spoke of. The only change that has occurred over the centuries is we have channeled that competition into non-fatal (usually) sports. Species (even homosapiens) continue to encourage competition; the biological imperative is strong.
Like the state of nature, humans can impose reason over competition; we can impose free will over the biological imperative. Liberty is not bound by nature. The law of nature is for the unthinking animals. Humanity, expressing a thought, exceeds the limits of nature and sets for itself, each one of us, our own path through life.
Such is the human condition: a part of nature, but by free will, unbound from the indifference of nature and free to choose compassion over competition. These characteristics are part of the human condition and are the foundation of the statement: all men are created equal.
"I think…."
What is the nature of thought? Thought is the physical action of the brain. When thought occurs, our body responds. For a thought to occur we need some things. The brain must have structure and integrity, it must have resources such as nutrients and energy, and it must have impulse such as internal or external stimulus.
When these things are in place, thought is possible. From thought comes action. The body responds to the brain's thoughts. Whether it is autonomic such as breathing, or conscious, such as running, the thought proceeds the action. A specific thought expressed as an action is unique to each individual human; the process of thinking and acting is integral to the physical structures of each human.
The human condition grants no one greater, nor less authority or station than another. At birth, the groomsman and the prince share the human condition equally. Every human needs air to breathe, food to nourish and water to drink. These needs are the primary or fundamental impulses that stimulate thought.
Never, have our thoughts been subject to review, interpretation, interception or modification by another person. Every thought that has ever moved within our minds belongs to us. We may choose to share them with others, we may act in ways that people can interpret as a response to a thought we have had, but the thought is ours alone forever. It can not be taken by another, it can not be restricted, or limited by another. The owner of the thought is without question, the human in which it is formed.
Thought is an expression of free will. It requires effort on the part of the individual. A thought is the sole property of the individual. A thought, by itself, exists only as long as the individual holds it. Whether the thought continues, whether it is expanded, or restricted is the choice and responsibility of the individual.
This is freedom – the source of liberty. The absolute, unrestricted act of thought that finds its expression in every single human being. It does not find its source in government or society; by document or decree. It occurs without leave or permission from another or all. It is inherent in every human, by nature of our existence. It can not be denied or refused; it is inalienable. The absolute freedom exists as long as we exist.
Our thoughts are ours until we decide to share them with others. It is always, in every way , our choice whether a thought comes out from behind the curtain. We own our thoughts and we own the actions that result from those thoughts. As the means of having and holding those thoughts is ours, the thought is ours. This ownership is the essence of individuality.
"In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".
If we own the thought then we own the action that expresses that thought and the consequences thereof. You can not separate the act from its consequences. The structure that allows thought, the thought held and expressed by an act and the consequences of that act form an unbroken physical chain unique to each individual. This is part of the foundation of personal responsibility.
Actions are an expression of our thoughts. In order to satisfy the needs of the human condition, we need to express our thoughts with certain actions. All actions necessary for the continuation of an individual are fundamental to their existence and the need to freely express those acts is absolute. The human condition demands that we express those acts.
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it."
The actions are required because we exist and because our existence depends on them.
Before there is an act, there must be a will to act. And before there is a will to act, there must be a thought. Without thought, there is no free will. Free will is the physical expression of thought. It can not be restricted except by our own desire/choice. It can not be denied except by our own limitations.
Two impulses create thought: needs and desire. We share needs – they are part of the human condition. Desire is that aspect that Jefferson called the 'pursuit of happiness'; it is no less fundamental to the human condition. We are more than bare existence. We seek to satisfy our fundamental needs but they are more than just breathing, eating and existing. We seek companionship and we seek to extend ourselves with children and accomplishments. The actions that allow us these pursuits are as necessary to our well being as the food we eat. Each of these needs stimulate thoughts that seek to be expressed by actions.
Thought exists within the individual, unless the individual expresses that thought, either directly or by expressing an action, it remains out of sight from others. This is the foundation of privacy. Every act belongs to the individual as do the consequences of those acts. Privacy is ownership of thought and the individuals ability to limit the expression of that thought.
Attempts to restrict the free expression of fundamental actions are a threat to the individual. We have the need to protect our freedom to express fundamental actions. This is the completion of the foundation of personal responsibility. It is a fundamental characteristic of the human condition to desire to continue to exist. The species seeks to maximize the individual and each individual seeks no less.
Threats to the individual can be dealt with by any means such that the threat ceases to be either imminent or persistent.
"And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that everyman ought to endeavor to peace, as far as he hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can defend ourselves."
"In transgressing the law of Nature* the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind;
….the execution of the law of nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation."
* that being all equal and independent, no one ought
harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
Obviously Locke is not suggesting that the character of "equal and independent' is being transgressed, but rather the violation of consequence or the precept that one should not harm another or self. It is the state of nature that competition exists and that competition is often fatal. Competition does not always exist between individuals and species. If the needs of the individual or group are being met, there is no competition for resources. Among humans, if each individual's needs are being met, competition is social interaction. Unlike species of animals, humans have the ability to work together (in situations of scarce resources) rather than in competition. Once again, humans can exceed nature by exercising free will. However, individuals (or groups) that act to obtain more than their needs at the expense of others have interfered in the ability of others to satisfy their needs, such an act is the nature of the transgression.
There is nothing in the human condition that prevents such transgressions except reason. These types of acts are threats to others. When they are acts expressed solely for the pleasure of individuals, we call them evil. When these evil/threatening thoughts are expressed, it is part of the human condition to seek to limit, restrict or stop them. This is the foundation of self-defense.
I have the need to breathe, if you attempt to prevent me from fulfilling that need, you have proclaimed to all humanity that you are willing to deprive others of their needs; that your reasoning has determined denying the needs of another is acceptable or desirable. Such reasoning is a threat that needs to be faced or addressed, as you would do any such threat to your existence.
What actions are fundamental? If eating is fundamental is gathering food fundamental? Is preparing or cultivating food fundamental? Any action necessary for the free expression of a fundamental act is not subject to limit, restriction or denial EXCEPT when the act threatens others.
The individual has the need to express fundamental thoughts and to defend against attempts to limit, restrict or deny those needs. Actions by individuals, groups or societies to limit, restrict or deny that freedom are a threat to the individual and all individuals and are therefore subject to any action to prevent or eliminate that threat.
At this point, we need to define responsibility as it relates to the individual expression of actions. Any stimulus can provoke a thought, but our free will determines what happens next. Do we keep the thought or dismiss it? Do we express the thought through action? These are our choices; this is our free will in action. We can be coerced, threatened or encouraged but it is our choice what happens next. It is the fundamental nature of thought that gives us both the ownership and the responsibility for them. Many people will make lots of arguments that coercion can be extreme, that stimulus can be so well known and defined that specific thoughts can be forced to be expressed. In each and every case, once the thought exists, it is the free will of the individual, the choice of the individual, to dismiss, hold or express a thought. Individuals are solely and always responsible for the expression of a thought by their actions and the consequences thereof. I can not hold you responsible for my thoughts and actions. I own my thoughts, I choose to express them by acting. I am responsible for them. You can not hold me responsible for your thoughts and actions. You own your thoughts, you choose to express them. You are responsible for them. Each of us have thoughts, express them and are responsible for those actions. As long as those actions do not threaten another, there is no limit to the number of possible actions we may take.
"…though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself…"
In this Locke was wrong. He said it but either couldn't see it or wouldn't see it. Slavery was/is a choice. If every thought belongs to you and every act and consequence likewise, then being a slave is a consequence of the choice to accept servitude or the alternative (often death). There is no slavery except by choice:
"For whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw down on himself the death he desires."
Death can be a choice. When the burdens of life exceed the value an individual holds for it, they choose to die or not to continue to fight for life. For many, this is the final expression of a fundamental thought and they have just as much freedom to express it as any other fundamental act.
The Island
Last night you went to bed, comfortable in your life. This morning you awoke, alone, on an island somewhere in the middle of an unknown sea or ocean. After the required yelling to find out who is playing a trick on you, or where the cameras are hiding, you determine you are, in fact, alone. Your sense of organization kicks in, or is it just your hunger, and you set off to find the necessary requirements for sustaining your life, at least for the next couple of hours.
A day spent exploring your island confirms a growing suspicion that if you are going to survive, it will be up to your imagination, your abilities and the resources available to you. Today, you are the king of your domain. Survivability is the only rule. Over the next several weeks, you gather food, water and the materials to build some shelter. You took what was needed, you choose a place to build, and you soiled the previously pristine environment. You did what was necessary to survive. Soon, certain routines became established, but whether something was done on a Monday or a Thursday was as irrelevant as whether it was Monday or Thursday. You sought food and water when necessary, repaired your shelter when it needed it. Whether you sat back and waited for whatever came next or strove to alter your circumstances, each day was devoted to ensuring the next.
Without exception, every action you took was either to further your survival, or increase the comfort of your situation. You required no permission, no license or grant. If you could imagine an action, if you had the ability and the resources, you could take that action. Every action had direct consequences. A failure to obtain water meant thirst. Cause and effect came unbuffered. Soon you learned which actions would benefit you, and which would make you uncomfortable or take you to the brink of death. Those choices became rules for your survival.
If you were the type that thinks from a philosophical point of view, you would probably note that you had absolute freedom to do whatever you wanted. Only your imagination, abilities, resources and the consequences of your actions could limit your choices. It doesn't take many false steps to realize the need to consider both choice and outcome. Yet, there is no denying the freedom to express whatever thought comes to your mind.
No one granted you that freedom. It was not handed to you, or provided by decree. That ability to act with complete freedom is inherent in the situation. Alone on an island, there is no government or society to impose limits on your actions. On the island, you have the complete freedom to act in any way that your imagination, your abilities, the resources and the consequences allow. You are the king of the realm, the sovereign of the island.
Then one day, another person appeared. After the requisite yelling and shouting, you stood staring at each other. Effective immediately, all your resources were cut in half...or were they? What did you owe this new person? You had already ascertained food and water resources, built shelter and established your domain. What right did this new person have to what you had worked so hard to establish?
Here was someone, like you, stranded. A short conversation revealed he too went to sleep one night and woke up to find himself relocated, no lock, no stock, no barrel. Although two would now divide your available resources, you gained the additional human resource of new imagination, new abilities and a second pair of hands. Knowing that your food and water resources would be sufficient to support both of you, you offered your new domain partner support and friendship. In return, he offered friendship and a chance to double your labor pool.
As of that day, your freedom to express yourself completely and freely ended. Some boundaries would be established, some limitations imposed. You would teach your friend the rules you learned the hard way. Society had come to your little island.
Your ability to express yourself did not end with the appearance of a second person, you imposed a limit on it. Society, such that it exists on the island, imposes limitations upon you. It is done with your agreement because you want to 'improve' your situation on the island, not create dissension. This is the fundamental purpose of society, to create a means for individuals to freely express their actions and to establish boundaries for each member in doing so. For the benefit of all, each of us gives up some freedom to act. Our ability to express ourselves does not disappear, the options available become self-limited.
How many of the actions we take for granted today didn't exist three thousand years ago? How many actions are based on knowledge that didn't exist two hundred years ago? Today, children are taught actions in elementary school based on knowledge that was unique to specialists just a decade or two ago. As knowledge grows humans take that information and combine it in new and unique ways, thinking new thoughts that need new actions to express them. While the number of possible acts is infinite, there are only three types of limits on the ability to express thoughts through actions:
Limits by Nature: Knowledge, ability and resources.
Limits by Self: Consequences, free will.
Limits by Force: Individual, State/government
Limits: By Nature
There are natural limits on the actions that individuals express. As many will attest to, I am tone deaf. I can sing, but most people want me to avoid it at all costs. When I sing it generally offends people in earshot. The first person to sing did not know about scales or tone. They just 'sang'. (I acknowledge the first 'singing' was probably more like humming, non-information bearing sounds that were pleasing to the singer and hopeful those around him or her.)
There is a foundation of knowledge that must exist prior to the thoughts that require a new action. Individuals are limited by their own knowledge and abilities and any thought they express is equally limited. Each new action is based on the knowledge and actions of those that preceded it.
The ability and knowledge to act are part of the human condition. Without the ability to make sounds, there is no singing. Without the ability to hear, there is no need (or desire) for singing. This does not mean that a deaf person can not sing. Singing exists in the knowledge base of humanity and is therefore available to all with the knowledge of it, with or without the ability to express it.
The knowledge base of actions belongs to all humans. Once established, the action is universal even to those of us without the ability. If one person lacks the resources to act specifically, the act still exists. For each human, singing exists even if they lack the ability (tone deaf) or the resources (vocal cords).
Some actions are so basic that only individual abilities, knowledge and resources will limit their expression. With few exceptions, every individual will be able to express them as their abilities as humans expand with their knowledge. The range of actions has expanded slowly as history progressed. Limited access to natural resources and individual abilities made basic actions all that could be imagined. Small groups of nomadic humans formed to expand the abilities and resources available so that they could express their few actions with fewer inherent limitations. A new action might be expressed in China but not seen in Europe for decades or even centuries. Other actions were resource dependent to the extent that groups closely guarded access to the resource, limiting the ability of other groups to know or express an action such as bronze making. Every new resource would prompt a flurry of innovation of thought and action.
Every action requires physical qualities and knowledge that the action is possible. For most basic actions, the physical qualities necessary exist in virtually all of us, but the knowledge must be learned. From sitting up, to walking, to eating, to sex, humans spend years learning to use the physical qualities of the human body. Many of the basic actions humans take are fundamental – they satisfy a basic need of the human body. They are also often beneficial – they have a range of possible actions that can equally satisfy the basic need.
For those that lack an ability (deafness for example), some individuals will be able to overcome the obstacles or limitations. Others will learn new abilities, or obtain resources not previously available. But not everyone will be able express every action. It does not make the actions less universal.
Our ancestors could not imagine knives or forks because they had no knowledge of metallurgy or even (far enough back) tool making. The knowledge base was shallow, the abilities available to them limited. For them, all acts were fundamental. The need to provide food and shelter left little time for anything else.
We truly stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. Our knowledge base, our universe of actions has been established by the painstaking acts, thoughts and imaginations of millions of forebearers. Every act had consequences and only through trial and error, success or death, accomplishment or failure did humanity learn which acts were beneficial. Humans spend their waking time in thought and action. The process of learning determines which thoughts deserve action and what acts deserve repetition. As the consequences of acts are learned, new knowledge is combined with the existing and new thoughts occur. The process is repeated in each of us throughout our lives. The process is part of the human condition, a consequence of our characteristics. It can no more be restricted or denied than breathing.
Beneficial actions ensure, assist, improve or satisfy the needs of the human condition. I asked earlier if eating is a fundamental act, what would procuring or preparing food be? Such actions are the nature of beneficial acts. The range of actions that are possible in order accomplish beneficial tasks are broader than fundamental actions. Breathing is breathing; not many options to accomplish it. Eating is fundamental, but what is eaten, when, how, how much are all variables with various degrees of freedom. Beneficial actions are still necessary actions and have the same demand on freedom of expression, but we can control the expression of such acts well enough to consider the consequences. Beneficial acts are the foundation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are necessary for the health and well being of humans and therefore are part of the human condition.
I knew a woman many years ago that gave birth to a child with no swallow reflex. It was painful to watch her deal with the slow death of her child. Many of us take eating for granted. It is one of those 'bodily' functions that we just do. But any parent will tell you that babies and eating are a messy combination. Our physical ability to eat is built in, but we must still be taught to eat. From a basic eating process to the more creative preparation and savoring of a seven course meal, we learn TO eat, WHAT to eat and even when to eat. Satisfying a fundamental need can often be done using beneficial acts.
Learning what foods are safe or useful has been a human endeavor from the beginning of our time. A child is exposed to many foods that have already been vetted by his/her parents. How often have we wondered how and why someone decided something would be good to eat? The entire concept of caviar makes my stomach lurch yet many people love the texture and taste. (YUK!) Over thousands of years humans have built up a knowledge base of acceptable foods that include a significant portion of the plant and animal matter on the planet. Yet, even acceptable foods to a parent sometimes are bad for the child. The learning process must be repeated for each human. Our learning process did not just include which foods were acceptable, but how they were prepared. Consider wheat. We mill the grain, combine it with water and other items. Tools to plant, harvest, mill, and cook all had to be developed and tested. Each act had to be expressed, the consequences determined and the results assessed. If the act were beneficial, it could be used again and it could lead to further developments. The need to eat can be expressed in as many ways as there are individuals. Whether it took thousands, or just hundreds of generations, eating became more that just satisfying the fundamental need to nourish.
What happens to people with food allergies? The fundamental need still exists however people with allergies will be limited in the foods they can eat. The limit is not imposed from outside, but as a result of the consequences of eating inappropriate foods. Children learn they are lactose intolerant, or have a peanut allergy. Those foods are keep from their range of possible acts. But even these type of situations stimulate thought and actions. Soy milk and lactose free milks were developed and made available, increasing the knowledge base of possible foods for all humans. Individuals have taken the knowledge of food and allergies and applied different preparations in the process added to the knowledge and range of expressed actions that constitutes the human condition.
When a new action has been expressed, the knowledge of it can be spread to others with the appropriate physical qualities where it can be combined and expressed. The range of physical qualities and knowledge grows and changes. We would barely acknowledge the basic sounds and efforts of our distant ancestors as speech and they would be confused and probably terrified at the range of noises we consider normal speech today.
Once an action has been expressed, it becomes part of humanity's knowledge base. They are part of our heritage that is passed down by generation after generation. As humans gain knowledge and combine it with the existing, we innovate. We think new thoughts and each new thought needs new actions to express it.
There is an infinite range of thoughts. The range of actions needed to express those thoughts is equally infinite. Each action awaits someone to imagine it and to consider acting in a specific way that expresses each new thought. Until someone does, the action remains unknown. Until the first person sang, there was no singing. Until the first person danced, there was no dancing. Once the first person sang, others, upon hearing, could sing. As knowledge spreads, actions spread.
Many of our actions are part of the human condition. They exist in every society and from archeology we can find evidence of many common actions in every grouping of humans from the earliest history. For many actions, their first expression resides tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of years in the past. Many more actions await our imagination in the future. Our universe of known actions continues to grow with each succeeding generation.
The source of every thought and action is the individual. An individual, using their knowledge, experience and thought, considered an action and expressed it. Every thought and action finds its source in the individual. Every expression of an action is by individuals, either solely or with the assent or joining of others. However, while each thought may belong to an individual, each act that expresses it belongs to humanity.
Limits by Self: Consequences, free will
The abilities and resources of the individual naturally limit the free expression of an action. Limits can also be self-imposed by the individual. All actions have consequences. When an action has been expressed for a long time, the consequences of its expression are well known. Often those consequences are precisely the intent of our action. Over history the expression of certain actions has resulted in specific consequences so consistently that the action and its consequences are tightly correlated. If this is the result you seek, this is the action you take. If this is the action you take, this is the result. Further, if the consequence of a specific action satisfies a need of the human condition, the action associated with it becomes fundamental to our behavior. Consider procreation.
However, new thoughts often require new actions that might have poorly understood consequences. If each human can express an action to the limit of their abilities and resources, the effects of those actions can extend and potentially threaten the free expression of other individuals. When this happens and the people know each other, it is possible for them to work together to either minimize the impact, or share the consequences. Individuals can choose to limit their actions to the extent that the consequences of their actions do not extend to the others. This self-limitation helps individuals function in groups or society.
The action continues to exist but a limitation has been imposed upon its free expression. The individual on the other side of the fire will bash my head in if I attempt to express my desire for his spouse. I can still act, if I am willing to live with the consequences. The learning curve for such self-limitation was probably pretty steep but those that survived the process passed along that knowledge along with the knowledge of the action itself.
Over time the consequences associated with particular actions became well understood, yet there remain inherent dangers not only to the individual, but also to those around him or her. The limits of the individual's abilities and resources reduces the risks to others, but most individuals will impose additional limits on the free expression of their own actions in order to obtain the consequences they seek. Within a range of behaviors where consequences are well known and defined, individual actions with limits of expression become the established norm, or tradition.
When acts are rights
To this point, we have talked about how thoughts originate in the individual. Thoughts are owned and controlled by the individual. Thoughts are then expressed outwardly by actions. Thoughts and actions that support the fundamental needs* of our existence are part of the human condition that we share with every individual. These actions are the foundation of rights. A right is the ability and freedom to express a thought through action.
An inalienable right is the ability and freedom to express a thought through action that satisfies a fundamental need. You can not deprive the individual of the freedom to take these actions without depriving the individual of those needs required to continue to exist. These inalienable rights are part of the human condition. Deprive individuals of the freedom to satisfy fundamental needs and you are a threat to the existence of ALL that share the human condition.
Yet, not all rights are inalienable. Beneficial acts are rights to the extent they ensure, assist, improve or satisfy the needs of the human condition. I must have the freedom to obtain food in order to satisfy the inalienable freedom (right) to eat. The freedom however is limited. Actions that threaten the freedom of others are limited by force imposed by others (individuals, groups, communities, and or the State). Self-defense is an inalienable right.
Rights exist because we have the need to express thoughts fundamental to our existence. The historical source of our rights is not some government or document, but in the human need, freedom, and ability to express thoughts by action.
Every right finds its source in the individual. The freedom to act is not a function of society; it is part of the foundation of the human condition, to live, to exist. From your first expression of free will, you have the freedom to act to satisfy the needs of the human condition. Consider:
Unfortunately, not everyone has the abilities or resources to express every act. This does not deny them the action, only the ability to express it. Every action has natural limits. Actions we express are limited by our imagination, our abilities and the resources we have available. We also impose limits ourselves as we learn the consequences of our actions and finally, if we wish to participate in society, whether that is just one other person, or millions, we chose to place limits on our actions in order to improve our situations.
Unfortunately, not everyone has the abilities or resources to express every right. This does not deny them the right, only the ability to express it. Every right has natural limits. Rights we express are limited by our imagination, our abilities and the resources we have available. We also impose limits ourselves as we learn the consequences of our actions and finally, if we wish to participate in society, whether that is just one other person, or millions, we chose to place limits on our rights in order to improve our situations.
If my life is mine, not just to live, but to do as I chose with it, then liberty is that freedom of action.
Without exception on the island, every action you took was either to further your survival, or increase the comfort of your situation.
Joining with others in society is a beneficial act. How much you limit your actions for that survival and comfort is both an indicator of the value of the society you belong to and the value of your contribution to it.
Not every act will be fundamental or beneficial. Inalienable rights are not subject to restriction or limitation – we need them to continue to exist. Beneficial rights can be restricted or limited because there are multiple means to accomplish the goal of satisfying a part of the human condition.
Evil acts are those actions calculated to deprive others of their freedoms to express their thoughts or deprive them of the ability to satisfy the needs of their human condition. While an act that threatens others could satisfy a fundamental need, the act itself creates in others the fundamental need to stop it. This defines the limit of a right: actions that satisfy a part of the human condition that does not threaten other humans.
Each human has needs that must be fulfilled and as long as each can fulfill those needs, there is no cause to interfere with anyone else's actions. In early human history, our planet offered abundant resources and virtually unlimited space. Humans formed small groups to increase the available resources (hands and brains) and to accomplish more than one or two could do themselves (bringing down a large animal). As long as each individual was allowed to fulfill their needs, the social groupings were beneficial.
For those early societies, a human that took the needs from another was no different than a beast attempting to attack a human and was probably treated no differently, either running him off or beating and leaving behind. From these early beginnings we have the concept of property. THIS is mine. THAT is yours.
"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person'. This nobody has any right to but himself. The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to It something that is his own, and thereby makes it is his property.
In general, the following conditions are required in order to justify the right of first occupancy for a given piece of land. First, the land must as yet be uninhabited; secondly, no more must be occupied than is needed for subsistence ; and in the third place, possession must be taken not by empty ceremonies, but by work and cultivation, the only mark of ownership which ought, in default of juridical title, to be respected by others."
Items that fulfilled the needs of the human condition were acquired and the effort to do so created ownership. Berries on a bush were available to anyone that came by and picked them. However, once picked, the effort to do so gave the person that picked them greater claim to them. Property is a characteristic of the effort of the individual. Before great societies a piece of land had no owner. The land existed. When someone came upon the land and then put labor to it, they held a claim against the land and against any other. If the land fulfilled a need of the human condition only with the effort of an individual, that individual had a claim on the fruits of his labor that exceeded any others. This is the foundation of private property.
Limits by Force: Individual, Government
"For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent."
In the island society, it was mutual agreement that guided choices and actions. But what happens when one breaks that agreement? Such issues on the island must be resolved by the two, but in a society of millions, the mutual agreement that exists is the system of laws that each society creates. Laws do not prevent the actions of their focus; they punish infractions. Those punishments establish consequences that people can use to make choices (such as civil disobedience). However, some punishments carry the penalty of incarceration. The forcible restriction of liberty is the only limit imposed by others we freely accept as a necessary component for the function of society. The authority for that force is granted by individuals to a government.
What is authority? When one or more other individuals have agreed to act in agreement with me, our actions constitute a single right to act that does not exist individually. It allows each individual in the agreement to call upon others in the agreement to act in concert. Its simplest form is created when we enter into a personal relationship with another individual. This is the foundation of marriage. It is an outward declaration that two individuals act as one and have claim on the freedom to act of the other.
Other forms of authority create communities, companies, organizations and governments. We give others the ability to call upon our freedoms either directly, or by agreeing to limit our actions for the benefit of the larger group. Locke called it the social contract.
When we grant an individual or organization the freedom to act in our name either for personal benefit (such as an attorney) or the benefit of the community (government), we have granted them authority. Our lack of consent revokes or denies the freedom to act in our name. This grant of authority is limited as to allowed acts and duration.
Our right to self defense is an example where we give the State to authority to act in our stead. It has authority because it has our ascent to do so.
Introduction to Part Two
Originally, this section was part of that online debate. If at times it appears that I am answering a question from an audience, I was. There are other beliefs as to the foundation or origin of rights. The two most common are morality and traditions.
Morality foundations find their support in the idea that God has ordained or prohibited certain behaviors and it is appropriate to make laws for all based on those proclamations. Where God has been quiet (privacy?), no right exists.
When morality based on religion fails to define rights sufficient to our current period in time, we get argument that tradition and the vast experience of our forebearers defines the full extent of our rights. Our ancestors have tried all the variations and only what is left, works; that our institutions and historical precedent guide the range and extent of rights.
Both foundations or origins fail to move forward with human knowledge and experience. Leprosy is not the corruption of the skin by sin; seizures are not the outward manifestation of the inner battle against demons; fabrics are just clothes; pigs are just another meat that needs careful preparation; gays are natural variations in the human species; and our fathers do not want us to grow up with nothing more than they have or had.
Our rights are more than just the experience of our past, or the limits of our beliefs. They are the infinite expression of our free will.


text:
Free Metal Monday: Speed Queen-Garage Demo
"We're Speed Queen and we play heavy fucking metal!". That about sums up this five-piece band
and their kick ass (name your price) D.I.Y.* demo. Influenced by the likes of Exciter, Skull fist, Enforcer, Iron Maiden, Motörhead, Raven, Savage Grace, Sortilège and the Scorpions, with this killer slab of metal quite likely the group's first release, Belgium's Speed Queen is comprised of Thomas Kenis (vox), Andreas Stieglitz & Tom Neeskens (guitars), Lander Savelkoul (bass) and Toon Driezen (drums). These fist bangin' maniacs released "Garage Demo" back in late October of 2014 and this highly-recommend recording features two heavenly numbers in the form of Speed Queen's N.W.O.B.H.M.-inspired signature speed metal song and the equally sharp and snazzy "Fly High". Despite the short-length and the limited production costs associated with it, "Garage Demo" is worth downloading especially in you are a fan of N.W.O.B.H.M. and/or traditional heavy metal-infused speed metal. Hopefully there will be more where this came from as Speed Queen has that certain type of sound and style that's just screaming for a full-length release NOW and preferably one on LP!
** On the group's bandcamp page they let us know that these two songs were recorded in a garage. Hence the title. That said, "Garage Demo" sounds really good for a home recording. In fact I've heard studio recordings that do not sound as good as this two-track release so don't let this one's title keep you from checking it out. Speed Queen's demo here is more than worthy of inclusion in your personal music collection and I wouldn't at all be surprised to wake up one morning and find that these guys have signed a long-term record deal!
Labels: 2014, 2015, Belgium, demo, Free Metal Monday, heavy/speed metal, N.W.O.B.H.M. influences, Speed Queen

subset: commoncrawl


text:
No. 25 SMU Mustangs blank No. 20 Tulsa with lone goal by freshman
DALLAS, Texas -- No. 25 SMU defeated No. 20 Tulsa 1-0 on Wednesday at Westcott Field. Freshman Brenden Lee scored the game's lone goal. With the win, the Mustangs move to 7-2-2 on the season and are 3-0 in Conference USA action.
Lee scored his first collegiate goal in the 51st minute. Sophomore Damian Rosales sent a pass up the right side for sophomore Tyler Engel. Engel sent a cross to the far side of the box and Lee struck the ball home from five yards out for a 1-0 Mustang lead.
Goalkeeper Jaime Ibarra continued his stellar season as he recorded his second consecutive shutout, making four saves throughout the night. The shutout was his fourth clean sheet of the season.
Tulsa's best chance to score came in the 83rd minute as Stephen Roberson came in for a one-on-one and was challeneged by Ibarra. Ibarra made the initial save, but the ball continued toward the net until SMU defender Aaron Simmons ran back to kick the ball off of the goal line.


text:
The media, on both sides, the politicians on both sides and the blogosphere are chattering like the nabobs of negativity…to steal a phrase…while trying to explain why Trump, and to a lesser degree, Cruz and Carson are the hands down favorites of the "Outsiders."
I have never seen such idiotic explanations.
And along with those explanations we find disbelief that the base, aka known as the evangelicals, would accept Trump because of his multiple marriages. The religious right should be, in their opinion, raising up and casting Trump into a sea of fire and rushing to embrace, if not Jeb, then Rubio who attends Saturday prayer meetings.
The thing is this. The Tea Party is just so "2010." What remains of it has mostly morphed into various variations of Libertarian and/or "Constitution" parties that spend time lecturing the country about the evils of Obamacare and (gasp!) the national debt.
Both, of course, are problems. But not so much for the "outsiders." They have other issues.
Of course the real question is…… Who are the "Outsiders?" Why aren't they acting like the "Insiders" want them to act??
We're going back one, maybe 2, generations in some cases depending on location.
The norm was the man working. The woman staying home.
That's changed with all that goes with the change. More divorces. More latch key kids. Less time for the family as a group.
The result is a completely new dynamic among the source of the evangelicals. The result is a group that tends to leave religion in the church. A group that has supplied the bulk of enlisted military volunteers but hates how the wars are being fought. A group that has seen its income crater.
At the same time they have seen a flood of people enter the country. These people take the entry level jobs that the group once had. These people are identified as suppliers of terrorism attacks, crime in general and continual attacks on the culture of the group. Some are legal. Millions are illegal. And the government is spending millions on them while telling Seniors the country can't afford to give them a Social Security raise. They see people in check out lines paying for groceries with an EBT card while chatting on a free cell phone with their tattooed body on a disgusting display.
If you can afford tat's, the Outsiders think, then you can damn well feed yourself and your kids.
And they see their schools teaching their children about how nice Islam is but not Christianity.
Wait the Outsiders say. Islam is birthing Muslim terrorists like a popcorn. Why in the bloody hell are we bringing more of'em into the country?
These folks are looking for someone that can state the concerns and who they believe can fix things.
They have no confidence in the DC Republicans and Democrats.
That's the strength of Trump, and somewhat, Cruz. Cruz is beloved by the political junkies of the group and has somewhat established himself as an outsider. Carson was beloved by the more religious in group. But the Left did the Repubs a favor and pushed his supporters to Trump and Cruz.
The parents of many of these were Reagan Democrats who moved over to Clinton in '92. They almost elected Gore in 2000 but enough of their children had become Repubs to elect Bush.
The war elected Obama. People wanted change. He promised change but wasn't specific. Trump and Cruz is specific.
And when I say specific I don't mean policy wonk specific. Trump says he'll stop Muslims from coming in until things are straightened out. That's good enough for them. He's a boss. They know he'll bring in the experts to get the job done. That's what a boss does. Define the task. Set goals.
The Outsiders aren't looking golden words. They're looking for competency.
And there is damn little in today's government.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
"It's the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything." - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine


text:
Blugirl AW11
Bottega Veneta AW11
Alberta Ferretti AW11
Gucci AW11
Diana von Furstenberg AW11
Alberta Ferretti AW11
Elie Tahari AW11
(images via style.com)
C x
My favourite AW collection of the year is Gucci - I can't even begin to explain just how perfect I find everyone single ONE of their pieces! But coats-wise it has to be Jaeger. Oh if only! They are truly very expensive but you clearly pay for what you get with the quality of the fabric and the cut. Is it bad that I aspire to one day being able to buy a Jaeger coat for the Winter?!ReplyDelete


text:
Ad Detail:
Hi All,
Looking for a male roommate for the 1BHK apartment in Hunt Club apartment. Rent is totally $1050 so it would be $525 per month.
Visit Need One Male Roommate for 1BHK in Hunt Club ($525) per Month in Lake Osweg for details on this classified.
Bringing the Community together


text:
I have a love and passion for photography and last weekend my dad's parents tasked me with taking some photos to aid the sale of these geese needless to say it wasn't an easy task.
About Moi
I was born in June 1981, I'm a hearing impaired paper-crafter who loves all things crafty. I sew, although I'm still very much a novice at sewing. I bake and cook hopefully all kinds of delicious treats. I have a huge passion for photography and the camera {yes I'm old school I still use an actual camera} is never far from me. I also love creative writing from making up sentiments/verses for my cards and other paper-craft projects to penning some fiction. I am an avid reader and I may even throw in some book reviews on here too!
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
Honking fun
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
This great old family bible contains a wealth of genealogical material on the Childress family of Scotland County, Missouri. It contains a certificate of matrimony in beautiful color, between William F. Childress of Scotland County, Missouri, and Ellen J. Justice of Scotland County, MO, on March 30th, 1856. On the Death's page, it's shown that William departed this life in 1885 (looks like, hard to read) and Ellen died in 1904, and others are listed afterward. There's a page of Family History with various births listed from 1856 to 1864 (very pale, hard to photograph), then there's a page of marriages mentioning the names Childers, Justice, Wallace, Bryan. There's a 'Births' Page with various dates listed. At the end of the bible, there's a photo album of sorts, with 14 family photographs.
Inside the back cover, there are 3 pages of newspaper clippings with death notices.
There's also a obituary for 10 year old Beulah Justice from 1896, and one for Jas. Childers, 35 year old son of Hiram Childers.
This great old Family Bible is for sale on Ebay Item number: 180334403320. If you are interested in this Family Bible just follow one of the links to Ebay on this blog.


text:
27 December 2013
3 comments:
- Steph said...
I like to make and do resolutions, but I don't have any yet formed for 2014. I have a tradition to consume no alcohol nor caffeine for the month of January every year. That is an exercise in self discipline, rest for my body and awareness of what I consume. But that's more a tradition than a resolution. I also have the tradition to take a pre-dawn hike on New Year's morning and greet the New Year with fresh air and that special time of day. And sometimes there is a brilliant sunrise, sometimes there is greyness. Usually later in the morning I take a nap, because the caffeine fast has begun at that point, and because I stayed up until midnight too!
For a sweet, graphic chart to use for something you want to do each day (one year I used it to track if I took a vitamin or did exercise) see the website/blog for The Small Object. She has made one each year available for free as a download, but sometimes it appears on January 1 and not before. Best to you in your resolution dreaming!
- December 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM
- Jennie said...
I know my big picture resolution is to greet the New Year with open arms and an open heart. XO
- December 31, 2013 at 10:18 AM
- sonrie said...
thanks for your comments! I have checked out your recommendations and found some others. Happy New Year!
- January 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM


text:
We receive a lot of inquiries about the S&S 30 asking about the status regarding production. We are pleased to report that the tooling is now under construction. We are still targeting having a boat on the water in time for the fall boat shows. For more information please feel free to call us directly at +1-203-687-4700 or email us at: email@example.com.
Here is a review by Robert Perry of Sailing Magazine that can be found in the current (March 2012) issue. Please double click for zoom.
Courtesy Sailing Magazine
For plans, additional images, specifications and project history, please visit the Sparkman & Stephens 30 website at www.sparkmanstephens.com/ss30.
Offered at $149,000, sail away price.


text:
|"Sorry about that."
Though there is no right way to make a martini, over the past 50 years or so some serious delinquencies have evolved affecting martini culture. In my opinion, this was helped in some part by Hollywood's favorite secret agent. As much as I envy and secretly wish to be James Bond, his martini preference may have opened the door to the cocktail loosing its way on a bizarre walkabout. You see, in developing his character Bond needed to come across as a super bad ass, one so cool that he went against convention in all respects. Thus, the shaken vodka martini. This version laughed in the face of those craggy old gin drinkers with their tediously stirred martinis.* Over the decades the trend spread like wildfire almost to the point that the stirred gin martini was forgotten. What's more, martini became a "style," devoid of any link to its root with almost no limit to its definition with countless fill-in-the-blank "tinis" found on menus like the candy-sweet Appletini. Don't get me started on variations using flavored vodka. A Gummy Bear Martini, really!?
Then there's one of the biggest offenders, the Dirty Martini. I think this cocktail was solely concocted to sell cheap vodka, gin and vermouth, all so vile they had to be masked with the addition of cocktail olive brine. When I hear it ordered I cringe. Call me a cocktail snob, but seriously, you're drinking a spiked pickling solution from God knows where. And even with the opening of more and more bars with menus offering classic and innovative cocktails crafted from the finest ingredients, prepared with great technique, with selections to satisfy anyone's taste, orders of the Dirty Martini endure.
So in an effort to stop some of the madness and bring a more orthodox martini approach and appreciation to Dirty Martini drinkers I would like to offer an anti-dirty martini of sorts, something to satisfy your taste but open your eyes and guide you in a direction of what a martini should be. I bring you the Gateway Cocktail**:
Gateway Cocktail
2 oz. Gin
1 oz. Dry Vermouth
1-2 dashes of Celery Bitters (to taste)
Add ingredients to a mixing glass or a pint glass or any tall, wide glass you have. Add a couple scoops of ice and stir for about 15-20 seconds until icy cold. Strain into a cocktail glass and garnish with an olive.
This is essentially a martini, but as I don't want be accused of perpetuating a confused martini culture, I'm calling it a cocktail as it veers slightly off the traditional recipe with the addition of celery bitters. The bitters add a wonderful vegetal tone while the olive garnish adds a slight brininess. I love how both play with the botanicals of the gin and the minerality of the vermouth but don't overpower them. I prefer using a London dry-style of gin as gins with more botanical flare, like newer American-style gins, can be a bit too much, confusing the taste buds and making the cocktail taste off. Enjoy.
*As the ingredients of a Martini are all alcohol-based, tradition calls for it to be stirred (same for cocktails like the Manhattan or Old Fashioned). Many swear by this for a couple reasons. One, stirring, as opposed to shaking, will result in a much clearer cocktail. Shaking introduces air bubbles and shards of ice, clouding a cocktail. Stirring will also dilute your cocktail less, which apparently has been scientifically proven. Shaking intensifies the melting process. When you introduce ingredients like juices, mixers, shrubs, etc. that is when shaking is called for in order to thoroughly incorporate such ingredients.
**Disclosure: The addition of celery bitters to a somewhat standard martini recipe is not an original idea. I know bartenders who recommend it to customers or add it by request and some makers of celery bitters have suggested it on their websites. I have to give credit where credit is due.


text:
Main Hoon Shahid Afridi is a Splendid, Awesome, Terrific and Great Pakistani Feature Film. It exceeds in all the departments, Creative Direction by Syed Ali Raza Usama, deep & profound acting by Humayun Saeed, Ismail Tara, Shafqat Cheema, Mahnoor Baloch, Hamza Ali Abbasi, Javed Sheikh and Newcomer Hero Noman Habib.
Sensible and seat gluing story by Vasay Chaudhry, Camera Work & Picture Quality was beyond expectation and High Definition which makes the movie watching experience more pleasurable.
Yes! It had some vulgar or obscene scenes like item song of Mathira and other actresses but it was necessary to create the environment for elite class and it can be ignored considering the whole package of the film and storyline.
The Songs are wonderfully amazing and so much full of zeal and passion. The match scenes in the cricket ground are too good as well.
Well done Humayun Saeed and Six Sigma, Well Done ARY Films.
Have you watched the movie yet? If not then you should go and watch the movie in cinema to support Pakistani Film Industry and believe me you will not be disappointed by MHSA at all.
Give your feedback in the comments below.
Credits :Ahsan Ejaz


text:
Court of Justice of the European Union
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was first created in 1952. The Treaty of Lisbon added to its jurisdictional scope. The CJEU comprises the following 2 branches.
- The Court of Justice: this court continues to give preliminary rulings, hear some actions against EU institutions brought by EU countries and take appeals from the General Court. It now also gives rulings in the area of freedom, security and justice and makes decisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and issues arising from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- The General Court: this court has jurisdiction to hear actions against EU institutions brought by citizens and, in some instances, by EU countries. It also gives rulings in cases on employment relations between the EU institutions and their civil servants.


text:
Well here's another short blog post.
I've decided to enter Lucid Designs editing contest 2:
Link Here
I've made a short introduction and a few brief Cinematics, I cannot wait to start editing these clips! I need some ideas and i want my edit to be as original as possible so leave a comment below!
Cheers ~


text:
The Woman Warrior
What are 2 of the most difficult things on the narrators list that she tells her mother
Song of a barbarian reed pipe
Song of a barbarian reed pipe
1) That it's her mother's fault she flunked Kindergarten because her mother couldn't teach her..... that she's smart, amd that she isn't getting married...... she's going to college.
2) That she caanot tell the difference between her mother's truths and lies.
3) just for good measure....... she told her mother that she hated Chinese schools.
(Page 205)
The Woman Warrior


text:
Thursday, January 24, 2013
What would you do?
What do you do with your orphan blocks?
Linking up with Really Random Thursday at Live a Colorful life. I think this applies, don't you?
7 comments:
- Deb@asimplelifequilts said...
I would sash them wonky style to a uniform size and put them into a quilt. I think wonky adds some zip and makes a fun layout.
- January 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM
- Barbara @ Nähtante Quilts said...
Why don't you use the nicer ones on pieced backs and throw out the uglier ones? Or you assemble some kind of crumb quilt?
- January 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM
- Coffee Break Whatever said...
I am to that stage now in using my scraps... but...the whole "point" of a "Civil War" quilt is that they only had small bits of fabric from time to time and never had enough to make more than one square but when all those individual squares were put together, the quilt was beautiful! Make them and put them together! Just post the results!!
- January 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM
- Janine said...
I tend to use orphan blocks in smaller projects like sewing cases and pouches but I think your suggestion of sashing them and making a quilt is great :)
- January 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM
- Stella Nemeth said...
Those are really random.
How about dividing all of the ones you have into piles where the colors go together. All the greyed colors. All the pure colors. That kind of thing.
It is possible that some of the blocks could go into a modern kind of quilt set, where you only use 4 or 5 blocks in the top with the rest as negative space.
Or you could make a bunch of four patch and flying geese to put together a Civil War kind of setting where anything goes, with some of the others.
- January 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM
- Stella Nemeth said...
How about going through the blocks and organizing them into groups either by color or by style.
Some of them could become a Modern Quilt with just a few blocks and a lot of negative space.
Others a very traditional scrap quilt with four patches and flying geese blocks to get them all to fit together.
- January 24, 2013 at 1:39 PM
- Live a Colorful Life said...
Yes this totally qualifies. All my random blocks are in a bin...somewhere. Thanks for linking!
- January 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM


text:
max FILE size is 4GB. Max PARTITION size is in TB range...
Motherboards.org forums. Free tech support, motherboard ID, and more.
Moderator: The Mod Squad
You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP installation process. Windows XP can mount and support FAT32 volumes larger than 32 GB (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create a FAT32 volume larger than 32 GB by using the Format tool during Setup. If you need to format a volume that is larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system to format it. Another option is to start from a Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me) Startup disk and use the Format tool included on the disk.
Return to Motherboard Identification Forum
Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Bot] and 2 guests


text:
I am feeling really good, you guys. Good enough to… get back into blogging. Good enough to go to a kink event wearing very little and genderfucking. And to actually cook rather than just putting stuff in the oven. And to tell my mother about the potential physical effects of testosterone on my genitals.
So, yeah. My mum was here today, and it was mostly very good. We talked of many things, including transition and elements of physical transition I think I want and why I'm seeing a psych until my GIC (Gender Identity Clinic) appointment. And we got, a couple of times, to the really shitty doctor's appointment I had last week- I went in asking for something recommended to me by another doctor at the same practice, and was treated with the patented doctor disdain of anyone ever mentioning the words "I looked it up" or "online" to a doctor (the phrase mentioned was "online CBT"- I was asking for an NHS created programme of online CBT). I had a couple of other questions, he spent most of the time doing a "health review" which seemed to consist of checking my weight and making inaccurate assumptions about my diet from this and telling me to exercise more EVEN when I said that I hadn't been able to because of depression. Which is unsuprising.
So, I'd got onto it with mum while talking about the CBT stuff, and we started talking about Health At Every Size. And as an illustrative example, I used this doctor making assumptions, and tried to explain that while I do want to get more exercise this year, I don't want to lose weight for losing weight's sake as it will probably have very either no impact on my health, or a negative one.
The response was: "But maybe it would help your self esteem"
My mum thinks or has thought many odd things about my self esteem. She has thought I'm transitioning because of low self esteem. She has thought that telling me that if I got pregnant, social services would take the baby away was the best way to react to the fact that I was having sex. Oh yeah, and she's thought that when I gained a vast amount of weight after two years of disordered eating the best thing to do was to keep on telling me I should eat less.
Here are some lists:
Things that would probably not help Melusin with his self esteem by themselves:
- Losing weight
Things that would or do help Melusin with his self esteem:
- Transition
- Changing thought patterns/some form of therapy
- Being recognised as his gender
- Bodily autonomy
Things that definitely would not and have not helped Melusin with his self esteem:
- Having it assumed that he is lying whenever he talks about eating healthily or doing exercise
- Having it assumed he is a weak or bad person
- Catcalling, especially people's responses to him eating in public
- Food policing
- Being encouraged to hate his body, and having it assumed he does.
- Being encourage to lose weight by any means necessary.
- That thing that he does (and has been conditioned into doing) where he doesn't eat all day until he's incredibly hungry and dizzy and unhappy, because he doesn't feel he deserves food and the idea that he should eat less has been suggested to him so many times, which leads to him not enjoying the food he's eating because he's just so hungry.
I just find it fascinating, and deeply sad that it is thought that changing an arbitrary number on a scale/ratio of adipose tisssue on one's body has miraculous effects on self esteem all by itself, even when I'm already talking about being fat shamed. That the response to me not wanting to do something potentially bad for me is to suggest it would improve my mental health.
So I said no, and talked about how transition's been really good for my self esteem. Because it has, including in terms of accepting my body type. Which is a subject for another post.


text:
So now for the investment pitch: replace all lighting in your home with LED lighting, and throw away the incandescent bulbs so nobody plugs them in by accident. The LED bulbs are at least 6 times more efficient, and will pay for themselves in savings in as little as 8 months.
(read in Jim Gaffigan audience voice) Throw away the incandescents? That's so wasteful!
Nope. Plugging them in and having them waste energy ever again is way more wasteful. Send em to the landfill.
The bulbs will pay for themselves in savings - it's just a matter of time. to calculate the savings from a bulb purchase, you will need to know:
- C = Your electricity cost. There is a standard rate on the bill, but don't forget to add in any taxes or per kwh fees. Mine works out to $0.14 after all taxes and fees.
- H = How many hours per day the replaced bulb is used. for this example let;'s say 4 hours per day.
- W = the old incandescent bulb wattage (usually 60)
- N = the new wattage for the LED bulb (usually 9.5 for a 60W replacement)
So in our example, the monthly savings will be around $0.85 per month. If I got the bulb for $5 (yes, $5, at Ikea), the payoff period will be under 6 months. Every 6 months a little green leprechaun hands me $5. And all I had to do was replace a light bulb. Oh, and did I mention that these new bulbs will last 20 years?
Now that you are sold on this investment, you have the task of selecting the brand and type of bulb. Here are the standard ratings that differentiate what type of light the bulb you are getting:
- Brightness: All bulbs are measured in lumens. A 60W bulb from the dark ages puts out around 800 lumens. Anything from 700 to 900 will look similar in brightness.
- Color: The color of the light (or yellowness) is measured as a temperature, corresponding to the blackbody radiation spectra of a material heated to that temperature measured in Kelvin, or K for short. Soft white is the most common at 2700K. Bright white will be some higher number.
- Color Rendering Index: This is the accuracy of the bulbs attempt to replicate an incandescent bulb. A score of 100 would be perfect and no one could tell the difference. Some brands advertise this number, which is a good sign that they have done some engineering to get the bulb to put off good light.
- Dimmable: If you have a dimmer switch, make sure it says "dimmable" without the "not" in front of it somewhere on the package.
- Enclosed fixtures: If you are installing in a closed fixture, be sure that the packaging is marked as being rated for enclosed fixtures. The reason some bulbs will not work in enclosed fixtures is due to the heat being dissipated from the bulb. Although this is much less heat than an incandescent, it is enough to damage the bulb if it builds up in the fixture.
- IKEA - yes, IKEA has 700 lumen LED bulbs at $4.50. Some have a transparent case and look nice in exposed fixtures. They have a few different styles to choose from. Good light color and are dimmable too.
- Phillips - In my opinion the best brand for bulbs, but not cheap. I have Phillips for all my overhead recessed lighting. $12 to $20 each. Home depot stores in minnesota have some bulbs at reduced prices, thanks to subsidies from XCEL energy.
- Feit - $6 - $12 each - Costco had a deal on these last month. Feit bulbs were among the best rated on consumer reports.


text:
and noon!! It was great!!!
Here front of the house at around 11am
and 9am-- and my mom and I are still in shock and I am surveying my domain ( and the nieghbors)
This is how it was about 8am...Not very exciting i know-- wait it gets bettter-- i gotta build ya up.. so here is 830 am
Here front of the house at around 11am
and here we are at about 2pm
Can't have snow without a little 'yellow'
Do ya like my jacket? Sorry it's last seasons..it will have to do
Here is close up of me in my front yard. I know it looks like Tahoe!
Hope all you other doggs stayed toasty indoors!!!!


text:
The Lamborghini is very well-known and luxurious brand that pretty much anyone has heard of them. They make quite luxury supercars with powerful engines and gorgeous performances and also with pretty beautiful search. One of the most recent 2017 Lamborghini Aventador should provide fantastic velocity, strong engines, and really aggressive appearance. Approaching model will hit the dealerships with some redesigns, each in exterior and interior, and it truly is anticipated to entice a great deal of consideration of possible customers. If you would like pretty luxurious and famed vehicle, and if you can afford it, approaching 2017 Lamborghini Aventador are going to be the ideal selection for you personally.
2017 Lamborghini Aventador Upgrades Design
The interior design and style of the new model is quite elegant, with an innovative cockpit. The TFT exhibit is often set in several modes and it will present the many essential info regarding the motor vehicle. Also, the driver has a choice to regulate the exhibit functions by the buttons mounted about the steering wheel. The center console, in addition to the slim dashboard, helps make the interior more fashionable than before and we are able to count on high-quality leather within for instance Nappa and Alcantara leather. Forthcoming model will have up to date multi-media Infotainment system for much better entertainment inside.
The exterior layout of your upcoming 2017 Lamborghini Aventador is fairly remarkable, along with the visual appeal is phenomenal. Also, we are able to anticipate slight redesign on this section, so the brand new model will be even far better than its predecessor. So, we have now a predicament that approaching model is made of lighter supplies for example aluminum and carbon fiber, and therefore, we've got significantly improved fuel consumption as well as far better performances from the vehicle. This impressive supercar will likely be intended for two passengers along with the doors will be opened as shears, which will give the motor vehicle all the more desirable appear. The front fascia will probably be slightly redesigned and it will receive by far the most futuristic appear. The wonderful aerodynamics with the new 2017 Lamborghini Aventador features a entirely flat and downy underbody when a large diffuser disperses air beneath the back finish. This model will feature a fixed spoiler, and that is naturally incorporated into the tail. The roof of your new model are going to be accessible in 3 colors and people are brown, black and red. Attractive 2017 Lamborghini Aventador will feature a really significant 19-inch alloy wheels when the front bumper will be fitted with all the big air intakes for much better engine cooling. Also, the headlights on the forthcoming model are going to be powered by LED system.
2017 Lamborghini Aventador Engine
The 2017 Aventador engine is expected to find yourself for being ready employing a V12,, 6.5-litre ( gasoline), that is experienced at creating an highest energy from 690 HP plus a twisting for 690 Nm with every 1 of the displacement from 6498. This precise engine is really mated right into a 7-speed (ISR tools box) computerized transferring, that enables today's day car that can have the speed of 100 km/hr in addition to 0-60 array hourly within the get going all as a result of 3 minutes in inclusion to 2015 Aventador major speed is really 350km/hr or 217 variety hourly. The LP700 4, that is the bottom model, offers a use of 7 mpg within the town as well as 17 mpg over the road, utilizing the mixed range of 13 mpg, whereas the true Roadster fashion offers a utilization from 10 mpg within the town in inclusion to 16 mpg throughout the street, with each other collectively with the mixed assortment with 12 mpg.
2017 Lamborghini Aventador Price And Release Date
Each designs within the Lamborghini Aventador launch will probably be throughout the third or possibly 4th one fourth of 2017. The following Lamborghini Aventador Price varies from $397,500 - $548,800, dependant on the optionally available elements in inclusion to the form.