Devil is a Zero

Another interesting post from the Bible throng:
(Found on my FaceBook wall the other morning)

Lynda Joan Folk via Kelly L. Hansen:

When you carry a bible . . . the devil gets a headache.

When you open it . . .  he collapses.

When he sees you reading it . . . he faints.
 
When he sees you living it . . . he flees.

And just when you’re about to re-post this by hitting ‘Share,’
he will try to discourage you.
 
I just defeated him. ‘Share' this if  you’re in God’s army. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clyde McGhee   Simplistic trash! My loving God does not need an army...sad that yours does!!!

Jeff Thomas    "God's Army"? . . . what millennium is this?

Kelly L. Hansen  I'm so sorry you feel that way Clyde McGhee and Jeff Thomas. You can bet (whether you like it or not) you are both going to the top of my prayer list. My Nephew Coulter "Shared" this -- he proudly puts on the armour of God every morning. I thank God for my nephew's understanding of the power of God's WORD against evil.  I share this with you because it is my heartfelt hope you have accepted Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as your personal Savior into your heart so you, too, can enjoy the precious LOVE AND GRACE of the Lord, and AVOID THE HORROR OF HELL. 
I recently read the book 23 Minutes in Hell by Bill Wiese on the New York Best Sellers List. It has me terrified for those who do not know Jesus as their personal savior. I pray God shows me how I can help show more of his precious children, those who are still "sitting on the fence" about Jesus Christ, to PLEASE READ THIS BOOK. I don't want anyone to suffer such a horrific, endless, e-t-e-r-n-i-t-y. Do not avoid reading this book for another day.
23 Minutes In Hell: One Man's Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment 
"My sincere hope is that this book is the closest you will ever come to  experiencing hell for yourself"--Bill Wiese saw the searing flames of hell, felt total isolation, and experienced the putrid and rotting stench, deafening screams of agony, terrorizing demons, and finally, the strong ha...” 

Clyde McGhee  I was born again when I was 17...found out being born once was just fine. Please devote your prays to someone else. Just so ya know I spent 4 years as a "Religious Studies" major in a successful attempt to understanding these things. Your attempts at educating people should be limited to those who did not read and understand their mortgages agreements and I paid off my house 7 years ago. As I said: Simplistic trash! Keep your army out of my life. 

Jeff Thomas    Interesting thought experiment here:

from Lynda's initial post:  . . .  When he sees you living it (the Bible), he flees
First Premise:   
-  To "flee" suggests that Satan has moved to occupy some separate space.
-  There are, for the purpose of our inquiry, two qualities by which we can classify this new space: occupied or unoccupied.
-  Assuming Satan is a work-a-holic, it would not benefit the discussion to consider the latter quality; which leaves us with a Satan in a new space occupied by fresh prey.
-  This new occupant can also be classified into one of two qualities: of the Faith or not of the Faith.
-  It can be assumed that it is the vanquished and not the victor who retreats; so the success of Satan's campaign to gain influence and power, will not prove successful through a strategy which enables repetitive retreats: Satan's power is fueled only by contact with the Unfaithful.
-  ergo:  Satan is only as powerful as the sum total of all "unholy" thoughts and behaviors of "God's" imperfect children.

Now then, "permit" me a second premise:
"When you carry a bible . . .
When you open it . . . "
 - Without hands or arms to hold/open this "Bible", one might deliver equal righteousness upon the Devil in their absence with compassionate thoughts, virtuous speech and charitable behavior.

- Any failure to accept this premise unequivocally, withholds salvation from our handicapped brothers and sisters.   Such failure to extend your "Lord's blessings" to the handicapped is not virtuous . . . (you see where this is going) . . .  So instead, the "Bible" thing you employ here must simply be a metaphor. Fine, we should be able to live with that.

With these two rules established, let's poke around some:

Now if the Devil's power is diminished with each virtuous thought, is it not likely that his muscle is conversely multiplied by the numbers of "God's children" who forsake their father?

- By such reason, would it not be consistent to assume that Satan's power in 1960 was less than half his current level, knowing the World population of 3,000,000,000 people in '60 has exceeded 7 billion today? (assuming, of course, this theology of yours has devised some metrics of his evil, an absence of which draws skepticism to your initial premise . . . but no worries, I'll simply trust you on this.)

- Extrapolating this equation reductio ad absurdum, by turning the clock backward to some abstract moment in history whereby mankind's numbers approach closer to a time before he graced this world; and by collaborating the inverse growth of our human population with the supremacy this Satan derives from it, we are reduced to a Conceptual Theater, where our single, remaining specimen stands isolated in the spotlight:  "God's Child."

- We will have to accept that any further reduction in the population would by association eliminate the Devil altogether, calling into question the forces which aligned to produce him in the first place.)

 -  With Satan's power running now at approximately 1/7,000,000,000th of his contemporary status, I would ask what metrics might be employed to establish the integrity of this solitary child's morality. 
His one dimensional awareness of himself cannot anticipate the broader complexities of inter-personal stress, the catalyst for quantum developments in "character", such as empathy, or lack of empathy; charity, or the absence of it.

-If not the absence or disdain for Charity and Empathy, what alternative root cause could you produce from which all the modern immoralities are descended?

-And who is this Satan, devoid the presence of these malignant forces? 

-  And is it also not my obligation to emphasize that if one could produce a single example where the "Child" exists but the Devil cannot, albeit pulsing at 1/7,000,000,000th of our contemporary "Metric of evil", then by an axiom of multiplication, any equation regarding the Devil cannot be possible,

for if the Devil = 0 when (Child Population) = 1 then:
0 * 1 = 0
1/7,000,000,000 * 0 = 0
and:
0 * 7,000,000,000 = 0

-  At which point in time did your Satan develop enough power to crumble under the weight of this "Bible" of yours?

-  Is it possible to deduce by this reckoning that his very strength is his undoing? And would it not follow logically, by your example, that the best way to kill the Devil would be to reinforce his strength until he self-destructs?

-  Therefore, I think its safe now to come out from your temples and live a good, wholesome and virtuous life without all this ridiculous baggage. Have a blessed day.

Oh, and Kelly, you're a true dear. But please take me off your prayer list. I don't dig the condescension. For all the promise I hold for you and yours, I will never presume to put you on my "People who need to Start letting Reason Rule their Better Natures List." Soldier on my Love . . . but without me.

Kelly L. Hansen  Clyde, I agree, I am not "qualified" to educate anyone on anything. However, Bill Wiese, the author of the book "23 Minutes in Hell" devoted many, many years to religious studies, in his own attempt to "understand these things." I always find it odd when scholars come to such different conclusions. Mr. Wiese is sincere and fascinating. You might find his book quite powerful. In it, Mr. Wiese quotes Chuck Missler (an exceptional scholar with a genius IQ) "The only sure barrier to truth is to assume you already have it." I don't pretend to know absolute truth, I share this because it is my absolute truth. On Facebook, people share what they Love, what is important to them. I'm not trying to offend you or push something on you. You can ignore my posts. It is because I believe in every word of the Bible I post my response to your response to me. In the Bible, Jesus instructs us to share the truth that he is the Son of God, and Savior of the World

Jeff, I've read your post several times. I can tell you are extremely intelligent. I, on the other hand, am not. To be frank, I'm lost at "Premise: Satan is as powerful as the "unholy" thoughts and behaviors of "God's" children." So, would you mind explaining your message in a little less complicated way? I want to understand how you feel. I certainly don't blame you if you don't want to take the time. I thank you for putting so much thought into your response.

Clyde McGhee  If you haven't read the New Testament in Greek before it was so poorly translated (its wisdom obscured) then how can you possibly "believe every word"? It was (I hope we can agree here) written by men! The Bible was written in a figurative mode not lliteral... to believe something that is beyond understanding is foolish..."The peace which passes all understanding..." for instance. People along with truth are always dancing and moving and I am with them...you should consider getting out of the paradigms you are presently encumbered by! I believe what Jeff means in his first premise is that Satan's power IS the "unholy thoughts and behavior of God's children...if you take it from there it may be easier to grasp. 

Kelly L. Hansen   We can agree on the fact that the Bible was written by men. :-] Dr. Gleason L. Archer holds a BD from Princeton and a PhD from Harvard Graduate School, has a full law degree, speaks fifteen languages, among other things. He states "I candidly believe I have been confronted with just about all the biblical difficulties under discussion in theological circles today ... as I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another ... My confidence in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the Biblical text itself." pg 90 of "23 Minutes in Hell. Henry M. Morris, PhD "It must be extremely significant that, in view of the great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the
Biblical history of these periods, there exists today not one unquestionable find of archeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point." pg 91.

Clyde McGhee   Not doubting archeology finds or history but rather the context that surrounded the "New Testament" Did you not read the part about Jesus coming to abolish the law??? Why because the laws of Moses didn't work...My brother, a published Yale Divinity School graduate (MDIV) would not concur with many other "experts" on this or many other related issues. Who cares what the experts say! It is your truth and mine for that matter that count! Have work to do now If time permits I'll check back later. Have a nice day Kelly.

Kelly L. Hansen  Clyde, yes, absolutely. It is our own truth that matters. Thank you for sharing. I hope you have a nice day, as well.
-Jeff, I've just seen your response above. Ouch. I did not intend any disrespect. I understand how you feel based oon what you’ve stated. I’m sorry.

Jennifer Lesson Thomas If your God is benevolent, why does he threaten me with eternal suffering? Also, if all these people reading the Bible weakens the devil, why is there still so much "evil" in the world? 

Jeff Thomas @ Kelly: Thank you for the kind words. No need to apologize. You had no way of knowing my perspective. I believe you meant well.  I am no more intelligent than you or Lynda or Clyde . . . or Jen. No, I am simply somewhat less distracted than you are by voices of ostensible authority, be they Gods, Dr. Gleason L. Archer BD, PhD, (genius, speaks 15 languages) or satirical syllogistic Wise Guys like myself.

No one has a patent on truth. Fact is a piano bench. Truth is the quality of light through the windows of the room you found it in. I simply removed the candles, and opened the drapes.  Lo and behold ! . . there was old Satan, sitting in his altogether at the keyboard. So I sketched him.  The answer sometimes lies in stealing that second look behind the easel. My post is still up. Give it a second, slower read. I'd genuinely appreciate some compelling impression of the content more than your flattery . . . Please, give it a second look . . . just for fun. (P.S.: You might get more out of it by unlacing some of that cumbersome armor you lug around. . . . just sayin'.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself. - D.H. Lawrence

And so, briefly:  There is an assumption in Lynda's post that the Devil is a destructive force (a "negative integer") working against ("subtracting from" or rather, "adding a negative integer to") our best endeavors (sum/product).
I am simply trying to apply the logical axiom which reduces specific equations to the set of "zero-population", such is the case when any natural number is multiplied by 0; or perhaps, more damning: the case whereby a procedure is defined as Impossible, such as the example where any attempt to divide an integer by 0 is proposed.

Considering the urgency of sound, logical Intel when ruefully engaged upon such pugnacious endeavors, that is, our virtuous campaign against the Prince of Evil, I should think it my grave responsibility to aid in exposing the source of this "Devil-gentleman's" power, that we might undo it thereby.

You will be relieved to know, that the power of Satan's influence (the dividend) is reduced to zero when the population of his target audience (his victims) is, through correlated process, reduced to 1.

And so I am truthful when I say: I never saw a Human disrespect himself. A person will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having disrespected himself.

With this explanation in mind, give my post another go. You might even entertain some doubt about all the Absolutes so eloquently stitched into the saddlebags of your war horse. 

Kevin Blank   This will be worth less than two cents but here goes: If people can't feel in their hearts and minds what is truly righteous opposed to damning, the King James Instruction Pamphlet won't do them any good. Oh, and that Bible you all speak of is really nothing more than a confusing business card.

Lynda Joan Folk     ok.......that was fun. There is evil in our world, this we can all agree on...Right? Each of us has felt it, in one way or another.. it is her we'all become missionaries of our own truths. I like all of you believe in not separating the power of good. Now what happens here is what may be good for you may not be good for Joe. So here’s where personal discernment and your ‘armor’ come in. Lynda Joan Folk   sorry writing on a phone. 

Clyde McGhee   So Lynda why did you repost this? See the ruckus it caused? Perhaps the point all along...

Lynda Joan Folk   AWAKE Sheeples Clyde McGhee Well I for one am glad it wasn't about the banks getting tired of that! Lynda Joan Folk don't like truth? Lynda Joan Folk again, awake!

Clyde McGhee Two sides at least to every story... enough already...time to move on!

Jeff Thomas How 'bout them Mets? . . .

Clyde McGhee I could give a flying fuck about them as well!

Jeff Thomas . . . (wouldn't know a Met if one got stuck in my wheel well)

Lynda Joan Folk   Clyde. ..you are a bit crabby . . . . the more u have. ........as the story goes

Clyde McGhee At least I wasn't sleeping when I realized the capitalistic market system has some rather serious flaws...and who says life should be "fair"... Lynda how is your trip going? How is the van holding up? Did you find a suitable battery for the solar panel? If so how is it working with computer? Inquiring minds want to know!
NOT A bit crabby just tired of hearing about the banks...

Lynda Joan Folk http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/askovc/ Here fill this out... make sure u tell them how incompetent they are. the trip is great. the van is great. I am still looking for a battery.
What's fair? by who's logic . . . . and your still crabby.

Justice doffs her Hoodie

Feb. 26, 2012 – At about 7:17 pm George Zimmerman shoots Trayvon Martin as the 17-year-old is walking back from a convenience store in Sanford, Florida, wearing a hoodie.
George Zimmerman, a 28 year old neighborhood watchman, called 911 about the "suspicious teen" and allegedly followed him. He admitted to police he shot Martin in self-defense after an ensuing physical altercation. He is taken into custody but released that night. No charges are filed.


 March 19 (21 days later) : The U.S. Justice Department announces it will investigate Martin's death.



April 11, 2012: Special prosecutor Angela Corey announces that Zimmerman is being charged with second-degree murder in the shooting and that he is in police custody.

After much preliminary drama, a Trial Judge was finally chosen and the trial to determine Zimmerman's culpability is scheduled for jury selection.

Details are available in  numerous, supplementary on-line publications: For a thorough dissection of the ordeal, I recommend this link from News13: http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/13/george_zimmerman_jur.html

June 20, 2013: Both sides agreed on an all-women jury plus four alternates.
July 12, 2013:  After deliberating over two days, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

This decision resulted in Nationwide protests on a scale not witnessed since the Rodney King riots in 1992. Needless to say, the overwhelming public outrage toward the verdict was met with pockets of criticism from the usual incendiary, fundamental conservative sources (i.e.: Pat Roberts and his 700 Club, Rush, Hannity, Ann Coulter and their like minded audience.) The line here appears to have been drawn across the unapologetically transparent issue of crime's statistically close association with black youth.

Oddly enough, the Zimmerman verdict produced another notable contradiction which divided the country along a more philosophical tangent, creating debate across traditional ideological divides; producing agreements between some conservatives and progressives, pitting liberals against liberals and in rare cases, conservatives contradicting conservatives.

I'm referring to the energetic dialogue which debated the merits of the case according to the strict legal parameters of the US justice system:   Was Justice served by the verdict?
I have reprinted below, just one of these discussions to illustrate a single, particular dimension of the debate as a record of the attitude among my particular community of friends and acquaintances at the pitch of this historic event.
For the record, this conversation begins with a post from my old friend Malcolm Brazil, a true, dyed in the wool progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malcolm:  I'll say this. The Z verdict. I think it should be god damn hard to get a guilty verdict in America. The prosecution should do their job, in the courtroom, not in the press.
Here is the fact. A jury of 12 people found that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is out system. Perfect, no. But I favor it rather than having a trial based on the readers of NY Post, or NY Times.
Don't blame Florida for finding him Not Guilty. Don't blame the jury.
The prosecution didn't win. They failed.

Jennifer J Waldorf :  Hell of a fail.

Malcolm:  It is a fail. But I would rather a 1000 fails than an innocent person convicted in the press.
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the verdict, but this is the system we have. I like the system. Perhaps not the details, at times...

Jennifer :  Yes. I'm no less sickened, and it's not just the verdict. It's the idiots supporting this murderer. No one is safe here.

 

Malcolm :  Those idiots are a different story. I agree 100%. There should be no celebration here. A young man was needlessly killed.

Amy Bodenberg :  6 jurors, actually

 

Mary Mcglashon :  Why 6 jurors?

Grace Bradley:  Fla only requires 6

Jeff Thomas : "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", Sir William Blackstone, 1765;
(ref also: Genesis 18:23-32); Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae, c. 1470)

Mal, I understand your intentions very clearly, but remain unconditionally powerless to resist any attempt to shield them from every available, responsible cross examination.
It is essential that together, we remember that the very concept of "Justice" concerned by these sentiments exists independent of the imperfect systems we employ to approximate them.

Quick and decisive verdicts, however sanctioned, imperfectly served, require every citizen's due diligence to exact notice and expression back toward the fundamental Principle which produced them; to put the system on "notice", so to speak.

The public's outrage of Zimmerman's behavior cannot simply be reconstructed from the clippings of NY Post or the NY Times opinion essays. The trial transcripts, televised live on network and cable channels, revealed enough data for the public to form various independent opinions of the "justice" served to Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman that strange night.

I for one will remember the odd circumstances which produced five white female jurors from the potential pool of six. This represents only the first of many "legitimate" wrinkles contained within the system of "Law" too many of us confuse with "justice."

The space here is simply too small to detail more of the peculiarities which were employed to produce the acquittal; suffice it to say that given such liberal, legal interpretations of the trial proceedings, any number of potential verdicts might well have resulted from any theoretical number of hands dealt the public. This is merely "Law", not synonymous with "Justice."

Let the People mourn.
Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"

Terrance MacDevitt: and so societies form in the hills my friend!

 

Jennifer Thomas :  Is it the five white, or female, or both factors that is odd? And why odd? For centuries a jury of anyone's peers meant all white men.

 

Jeff  : Your point is well taken Jen, but consider instead the identical stakes played out in a game of chance where I am less concerned with the "peculiar" suit of each card than the probability against a straight flush on the first deal.

It is inevitably conceivable that any sample of the Zimmerman trial's "uniqueness", though perfectly "lawful", could provoke similar, tangent critiques; each capable of equivalent, reasonable interrogation. For example, I find the dismissal of all references to "racial prejudice" during the jury selection to be equally spurious.

The trial witnessed by the American people complied with every letter of the law. We have seen the historic dangers of an all male jury; we have seen the Supreme Court give "citizen" status to corporations; hell, we all let OJ walk for Christ's sake.

We have a responsibility as American citizens to release our grip from the apron of the Law; maturing to re-focus our attention on the Justice we too often confuse it for.

Clyde McGhee : I do not understand how any reasonable American can recite the Pledge of Allegiance (particularily "Liberty and Justice for all") with their hands over their heart and a straight face to boot... just amazes me. On the flip side it did take a good amount of explaining when my children asked why my hand was not on my chest and why I did not speak those hollow words.

Jeff :  From: USHistory.com, "Historic Documents":

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) . . . In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words 'under God,' creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration."

Clyde, it is unreasonable to accept that axioms of any kind can substitute for principles. I know, for instance, the axioms which establish that a triangle's sides must conform to a specific table of ratios, but cannot employ these same figures to recreate the eccentricity of such polygons employed to suspend a building or bridge in mid-air.

The conciseness of the Pledge seems to deliberately imitate the succinct elegance of an axiom; a rather disingenuous entitlement seeing as the human condition exists solely to confound every attempt to define it beyond its vaguer principles. But does knowing this excuse the rational man from every compromise? William James and RW Emerson (among others) authorized a unique legitimacy for the "modern" Pragmatic gentleman of letters to believe one principle yet behave according to its contradiction in splendid, philosophic fidelity. A duality with a very rich history borrowed from its Clerical Cousins.

The contemporary Acolyte simply neuters the contradiction between scientific method and scriptural discipline by assuming a duality of faith, which has provided a workable, if not technically flawed détente between the inner engineer and the spiritual servant. For this individual, a statement of scriptural importance, for example the raising of Lazarus from the dead, inexplicable from a scientific perspective, is accorded to faith, enough said. The Bible’s shaky take on chronological passages however, say a seven-hundred year old man or a six thousand year old planet Earth, are dismissed as quaint and insignificant details easily corrected by science’s application of carbon dating and DNA techniques.

Perfectly reasonable people are never reasonably perfect. The Pledge is a platform from which the greatest majority subscribe, counting on the probability that they will never be called to pay its marker. We are all Faust until, like you (and me), we confess our thoughts to our tongues.

Clyde :  Well aware of the pledge change, I left the God BS out for brevity. As for where does faith lie, or arise... well from this growing older Religious Studies student, knowledge destroyed what faith I had.. and it was not of the moving mountains variety. Figurative language as I suppose the Bible employed has an odd effect on people. You may want to glance at my brother's book ..War in Heaven Heaven on Earth Theories of the Apocalyptic ISBN 1-904768-88-1 as it is far too terse to actually read.

Jeff :   Thanks for the head's up on Glen's book. Tell me something more about him sometime. I also have a published book, "Two Coins", if you are interested. An allegory of my experience as the father of a disabled daughter and the collateral liabilities we endure in a double-dealing world. I've arranged with an organization called SCO, (St. Christopher's of Ottley) to send all proceeds from the book's sale to help them provide clothes and therapy equipment for the children. (note: Book sales very poor . . . haven't bought so much as a sock for them yet.)

My daughter was admitted there two and a half years ago. She was born legally blind, profoundly deaf and severely autistic. Most of my principles come from learning to make instant decisions with my heels at the cliffs edge. If my writing comes across pretentious, please cut me some slack. Noone who knows me would confuse me with the pompus ass who writes from this keyboard. Hope you're well Clyde . . .  

Clyde : Terse no, a bad joke.. Wordy really .. Glen was a mathematician who went to Yale Divinity School on a scholarship (from the Lutheran Church) and got a Masters of Divinity. Had a couple of churches but was told he was psychologically unfit to be ordained (he was crazy). He is nuts of course, but no more then the rest of us who just aren't content playing the game. For many years he read a book a day until the shelves fell and quite literally buried him completely. Lately he thinks or more accurately acts like all people should be as bright as he is so socially a little a challenged at this point in time. Jeff, I will attend to the remaining part of your previous comment at a more appropriate time as I need to give it some mental energy which is not available at this time. My best to you and yours and do enjoy the land across the sea.

Kevin Blank:  On the Zimmerman/Martin thing, one guy killed another guy and the verdict reached by a jury of his peers appears to be unpopular by many. The way I see it, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. He ignored the advice of law enforcement, a confrontation inevitably ensued and a young man died. It’s not like this kind of thing hasn't happened before. I'm certainly not satisfied but I'll get over it.

 

With respect to the media, no need to worry. Something will come along soon enough for them to, once again, exploit the shit out of.

 

Good vs. evil, black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative, the NSA, and the conspiracy theorists will all continue on; business as usual.

Jeff :  Yes Kevin, we will move on. It's the wisdom of your comment which offers evidence of the most chilling lesson of the whole affair. Exhausted by the challenge to reform the system, American Justice simply adds another broken toilet to the front yard landscape, astride  the tall switchgrass pushing through the wheel wells, trunks and hoods of the rusted cars and trucks, abandoned to their makeshift graveyard, decades ago  . . .

Fade to Black





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Emr:  A Texas Tea Party leader admitted recently what most of us already knew, the Republican party doesn’t want African-Americans to vote. When asked at a meeting of Texas Republicans “what can Republicans do to get black people to vote,” a Texas Tea Party leader, Ken Emanuelson, gave the following answer: “I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”
I knew that, did you?

Linda Sampson Rotella   One honest TP goon...must have thought it was a secret meeting and had their white hooded sheets on...

Jesse LoRe  [at the time of this dialogue, Jesse used a portrait of Mark Twain as a "Profile" icon to identify himself on FaceBook] John, I believe it is a qualified statement using the word "if" and I would take it one step farther and say I don't want anyone to vote DemoFascist. Have a great day.

Jeff Thomas   Courting the black vote warrants an "if" when the Republican/Conservative/Tea Party/Libertarian platform is starved of new ideas. (note to Jesse: "Obstructionism" is not a new idea.)
Why waste the time and effort pretending to be "inclusive" when you can just target the voting process and be done with it?

John Emr   Jeff, Jesse is an independent Libertarian, that doesn't necessarily mean he wants racist Neanderthal Republicans in office either, right Jesse? Or do you? Are you a fan of Louis Gohmert? Would you like a congress full of that shit?

Jeff Thomas    . . . and Jesse, you might want to familiarize a bit more with the writings of Mark Twain. You'll find your selection ironic at best. He pretty much despised the very philosophy you Libertarians call "common sense."
Here's a taste, compatible to a brief attention span:
http://www.henrygeorge.org/archimedes.htm
. . . have a great day.

John Emr   Voter suppression is the only way they'll ever win. Extraordinary, no? Ah, American ingenuity at work...

Jesse LoRe   Jeff you say "brief attention span" like that is a bad thing. Why is being mentally deficient a dis-qualifier? Do not those of us with limited intellect deserve the same extra-consideration of, say women in combat, or minorities with lower test scores? Or does your compassion only extend to those that agree with you? Just a thought for Jeff "Mr. Equality" Thomas, aka 'Mr Compassion'.

John Emr   Jesse, I suspect he was specifically referring to you, not all those with "brief attention spans". Stop playing victim, you know you're not...

Jeff Thomas   Ouch . . . although your disingenuous compassion toward the subject of minorities and the disabled leads me to believe I might be helping change your outlook.
I'd be better convinced if the reference you attach to "brief attention span" was restricted to your narrow, spiteful interpretation; however, by simply observing the hay of which a perfectly intelligent man such as your self has made of skimming the surface of these many complex issues; of forming entire platitudes from the crumb-tray of anecdote; I would be hard pressed to restrict the term "brief attention" to the cognitively handicapped.
Now before you take off in some other, unrelated direction, did you learn anything new about your old "hero" Sam.

Jesse LoRe   Jeff, I am afraid your genetically stunted intellect precludes you from reading the words that you so hastily post. Please take the time to read the article you posted and relate that to the circumstance of Americans, visa vi, Sam's perspective as it relates to our current form of "self governance".

Jeff Thomas   Jesse, I thank you for being patient with me; I have indeed squandered too much time with you, assuming that some relic of pride or decency might eventually surface from the cesspool of your rhetoric, (ref: your twin FB posts, from April: "I hate ni##ers". . . . . to some credit however, your daughter scolded you).
You are, plain and simply, unfocused. The essay is not a shuttlecock to be swatted back and forth. It is a document worthy of critique, an exposition of a man and his thoughts. Like the man who wrote it, it is not infallible; it deserves to be read and discussed, not rolled up in your fist to swat pests.

"Give me the private ownership of all the land, and will I move the earth? No; but I will do more. I will undertake to make slaves of all the human beings on the face of it. Not chattel slaves exactly, but slaves nevertheless" - Mark Twain

I hazard to guess you might recognize this from the essay. This would have been a constructive place to begin. Your bigotry simply cannot bear up to scrutiny. Sam has become your eggshell figurehead; to protect one pithy phrase, you would deny the truth of the very man who wrote it.
At this point, I assume you've already folded it into a paper hat. It would be impossible for someone with your remarkable erudition to have completely subjugated the thesis without intention. Your style of debate is as reckless as the politics you employ it to protect.
I like you, but suggest you practice your dialogue on someone less experienced before coming back to be humiliated by me again. (. . just a note: it's "vis a vis", not "visa vi" . . . have a great day.)
- 'Mr Compassion'

Jesse LoRe   Jeff, thanks for pointing to an abbreviation of my deficiencies and thanks again for caring enough to share.
As to my debate style: I did not realize this was a debate. I thought the idea was for us to sit idle while you drone on and on about yourself and fling insults. But if you want to have a civilized debate about Twark Main’s writing I would be glad to . Is Facebook the proper forum? Is brevity wasted here?
The quotation is just that, a quote, regardless of Clemmons’ political bent, the words sum up my perception of the ruling class in America today. As well as citing one quote by an author, (Clemmons) that some have described as the "Father of American literature" hardly elevates him to the status of "eggshell figurehead". I can state without hesitation Clemmons would not share your, complete and unquestioned trust in politicians, of any Party , to Lord over mankind in a just manner.

Is this really the source you want to use to support your thesis? Whatever that is? Some doctored up article of questionable origin. “If Mark Twain wrote the shorter version, did someone else contribute to the longer one attributed to “Twark Main”?” Dr. Jim Zwick, (http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/09/14/mark-twain-and-the-single-tax/) The evidence points to this article having been written at least in part to Henry George.
However I am still not clear as to your point about Clemmons, are you saying that he advocated abandoning common sense in favor of the ideas of academics elitist, and is this article alone, what you are basing your argument on? Does Clemmons advocacy of the Single Tax make him a socialist? My understanding of the academic argument is that Clemmons “cherry-picked” the ideas of the Single Tax and Social Gospel movements that sought his approval to promote their cause. He is said to have supported the public ownership of utilities and infrastructure, but Clemmons also had the common sense to realize that no workable alternative to private ownership which did not restrict personal freedom and the right for one to enjoy the fruits of his labor had presented itself.
Also considering Clemmons many personal tragedies, [the deaths of his children] and financial troubles as a result of failed investments Clemmons view of the World had certainly become jaded at least a little. Also, you have to give consideration to the time in which Clemmons lived. He lived in a world where a slave owner could “put down” a man if he violated the wishes of his master or was no longer of use to him, where workers (of all colors) toiled on the land they could not own in exchange for the barest of sustenance. The world was in turmoil as the industrial age was in full swing and society was in transition from one socio-economic paradigm to another and as always happens the poor got poorer and the rich got richer. My observation Clemmons remained an observer, more so than an activist.
http://www.henrygeorge.org/archimedes.htm
http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/09/14/mark-twain-and-the-single-tax/
http://www.biography.com/people/mark-twain-9512564

Jeff Thomas   A good pie fight ends when the shelves are cleared and not before, not the least concerned with who's hand tossed the first shell. There's been more than enough pastry hurled between the two of us to accept anything less than a commitment to stop and laugh at the filling-smeared portraits we've created for one another. You're no more victim than I am. Jolly good that!
My "thesis" continues to be a search for an alternative to the current corporate, libertarian and/or conservative climate which vilifies any discussion of government entitlements to this society's most vulnerable. A large collection of my views on the subject, covering a wide variety of "contemporary" issues can be accessed through this link:
http://jeffreygiov.blogspot.com/?zx=d991f9540c07af43
Here you will find evidence of my work, through dialogues, (most recently a debate with you, imagine that?), conversations and essays.
I respect and appreciate the effort with which you prepared your outstanding response. I also acknowledge that the integrity of the article's authorship is now officially suspect, though not without the obligatory dose of "conspiracy" subjectives: e.g.: "...did someone else contribute ...?"; "...the doubled length of the published article also raises a possibility of joint authorship; and "Did Twain also share the article with Beard, clarifying what “he’ll understand” about the free reign given him in creating the illustrations for the novel?"
I mention this to emphasize the mounting distraction resulting from our stubborn reference to Twain the man (available to us only through a malleable impression of his works), and Twain, the immutable icon of your embrace of Capitalist alienation. These were ideas (ref: Archimedes, Single Tax, Marxism) born of a post European revolution by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; a struggle as old as "production" itself, yet whose incarnations are as unique to their times as the concept of "Universal Health Care" would be to mid-nineteenth century American sensibilities (read: untranslatable.)
FB is an unusual medium to invest more "capital" in such a rich topic, but I have to conclude by suggesting that your concept of Unrestricted Privatization under the cloak of Unbridled freedom from government intervention is desperately flawed. The freedom from Entitlements cannot answer to the right of a society's disadvantaged to avail themselves of enough resources to supply their basic needs, their humanity.
 

Jesse LoRe   Jeff,why am I not surprised by the obligatory, shameless plug for your collection of meandering ramblings.
Like Clemmons. your frame of reference is has been scaled over by progress for the human condition over the last century to the point you can barely recognize the dead form.
Just a thought maybe we should move this over to another page and leave John out of it. LMAO.
 . . . Have a great!

 

John Emr   It's funny, some people advocate cutting taxes so they see a few dollars more at the end of the year not realizing(blockheads) or caring(greedy) that this would devastate millions of people of whom the dream called "America" has evaded. I think you're both intelligent people, but let's acknowledge, we know plenty of people who are not. I'd like my taxes to be lower too, but not at the expense of people who don't or can't work the free market economy

http://youtu.be/CdAZ79AhcfY (note: this is a link to an edit from the Mr. Rodgers PBS children's show)

There's so much in this world we can learn, no matter how young or how old we are... 

 

Jeff Thomas   Jesse, . . . and why is it tediously predictable of you to frame every benevolent gesture with pig-headed suspicion? Your tendency to forget the questions you ask has become annoying, but for the sake of integrity, I'll continue the example I have set for you with the prospect you're not yet too damaged to learn.
Information seems to frighten you, so it is small wonder, the fascination it holds; anything so potent, it follows, must hold great value. Is this why you confuse my invitation to explore the form and content of my politics (my "thesis" as you put it) with a commodity? One "plugs" something for profit and "shares" something for which he expects no return. But then, it is my fault for assuming you were more clever with the concept of sharing.
If by "scaled over" you are attempting to express the idea that our perpetual concern for the "human condition" has, through contemporary enterprise, been rendered inconsequential, I politely refer you back to my dear friend John Emr, who initiates these discussions for the very dialectic exercise we are "guilty" of. What better use of this space than to crush the life out of an idea as selfish, contemptible and medieval as your own. And please, for the sake of my sanity, look up words and phrases you don't know. I'm tired of mining your words for meaning.
Have a greater day than yesterday.

 

(. . . and John, I was wondering if you know anything that might support the story about Fred's preference for zippered sweaters over buttons. My sources tell me that he skipped a button hole one time on primetime and was mortified. It was all zippers from then . . . true?)

 

John Emr   Since childhood, the sweaters were all made by his mother, and he preferred zippers, never buttons...

 

Jeff Thomas     . . . oh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so it was never buttons then . .. . . .. .. . . . I see.

 

Jesse LoRe   Jeff. 'scale deposits' such as lime or rust that tend collect on inanimate objects, like your politics.

Jeff Thomas   . . . and Jesse: Your reply about the "Archimedes" essay was far more involved than my reply. I would like you to understand my sincere appreciation of the work involved. FB, as you point out, is a difficult medium to address issues of such breadth, but worth the effort to sharpen our pens.
You ask what influence this article has on my "thesis"/"argument." I offered this essay as one might suggest a YouTube file from an old Jon Stewart show. I simply found it funny that you have replaced your profile picture with Sam's likeness and a quote of his, "not measuring what use he made of it" (Shakespeare, Henry V.) Your explanation was satisfactory to the task. Thanks.
It is as ridiculous to extrapolate my entire ethics from this essay as it would be to plumb the depths of Jon Stewart's body of work to understand the details of our economy.
and this:
" . . . where workers (of all colors) toiled on the land they could not own in exchange for the barest of sustenance."
Have you come across the term "alienation"? Marx coined this phrase to describe the ownership by one class of the diminished labor of another class. I ask because your context of the phrase in question seems to betray a sentiment at odds with a Capitalist model. How do you feel about this?

Oh, and by the by,  so you get the pun: "mining your words" . . . thank you.

Jesse LoRe I thought the quote expressed my feelings of disenfranchisement, and my feelings of a government that is against me, not just on the local level but on all levels. Not just against me but "for" the other guy. A government of good intentions and unforeseen consequences equals chaos, which is what we have now. I may not be sophisticated by any standard, but at least I have the benefit of knowing that what I say is true. Not sure what your experience is Jeff, but it does not sound like you have spent much time around the low or lower lower socioeconomic class. I am curious if you have ever, intentionally, been overseas to examine other cultures?

I realize (not sure if you do) that there will always exist the 20% of the population that is incapable of "taking care of themselves" and the debate we are having is what to do with these folks.
My position, which I think is reasonable is this:a safety net for the least able. The social experiment of the Great Society has failed. As evidence I point to the $17 trillion in national debt compared to the $18 trillion "invested" in the socialist movement. However noble an enterprise the Great Society "was", as it has morphed into full on Socialism, there is NO evidence that it has provided any catalyst to lift anyone out of poverty (with possible exception of thieves/politicians) in fact I say it has institutionalized poverty. I contend the government of the last 50 years has created a false economy that, as by the laws of nature will collapse. Government meddling in the economy prolongs recessions and actually insures that we have one regularly. Think of the government like the alcoholic or drug addict, conventional wisdom says they have to hit bottom before they can begin to recover. The same goes for the economy you have to weed out the bad, let the money change hands, so we get back to the business of making more of it. A good for you, is good for me, philosophy. Not a society where you take half of everything I make and give it to some schlep that can't earn.

I am not saying do nothing, just 'scale' it back to a more manageable level, and weed out the fraud and abuse that would more than make up any deficit. But no, our politicians are to lazy and greedy to do the real work of governing. As a Building Contractor in a past life, I cannot count how many times I have heard from public officials, how they had to 'spend it' or they would get their budgets cut, as if they were protecting their little fiefdom. How much sense does that make to you? What about all the deadbeat dads who's children you are supporting? Are you encouraging bad behavior? By what standard is that bad behavior you ask? By the standard of,"if you cannot afford to have kids then don't, fucking, have kids. What are you, a farmer with no tractor that you need 22 kids?

Jon Stewart---really!!!!! Guess I just never developed a taste for screaming and yelling as a form of entertainment. You, have fun with that though.

Jeff Thomas   You've lost the privilege of conjecture. You know nothing about me. My personal history would humble your smuggest efforts to discredit me. If you detect some resentment, try and recall the fun you had composing "genetically stunted intellect " after I shared personal, family related information concerning such matters. I was perfectly willing to let it ride, along with the rest of your jabs, but you now attempt to weave them into your thesis. Enough is enough.
The suggestion that you've cornered the market on "hardship" is simply irrelevant and egocentric.

You have finally conceded the need for specific entitlements for some abstract 20%. All your writing to this date suggest this is a new twist in your thinking. How is it possible to reconcile your claim:
"Not a society where you take half of everything I make and give it to some schlep that can't earn."
(Here we have the opportunity to explore the tangent issue: "You didn't make that.")

You blame the government for the recession. My thoughts on this subject begin here (not a plug, but a link to some information you are conceivably unaware of):
http://jeffreygiov.blogspot.com/2009/08/shortly-after-class-economics-student.html

I haven't time to continue right now, but I will finish by adding that it seems we're really not so far apart after all. There is much common ground between us. I hope to meet you there soon.

Jesse LoRe Ah Jeff I thought we were having fun here? As for the jab, chaulk that up to "short attention span" probably a symptom of to many blows to the head. Surely you do not credit me with being able to recall something that far in the past. I am not attempting to weave anything, just trying to offer some insight into how my perspective is formed. I would be that last person to complain about my circumstance as the my experience tells me I have no legitimate claim on misery. You are right that we do have more common ground than is apparent I believe where diverge is on the solution side. In closing I apprrciate your patience with my stunted intellect and apologize for the jab. Have to run finish up later. Thanks.

John Emr It will not be finished until one of you is dead.

Jeff Thomas Just needed to let you know it pissed me off. Thanks for writing back; explanation understood, apology accepted. . . took a few too many blows to the head myself over the years.