http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:45:15 +0000 MyBB http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=24 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:09:23 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=24 ]]> ]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=23 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:46:44 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=23
Most of the strife in the world today comes from one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Both believing they are right. “I’m on God’s side.” Yeah, right! Just like two High School football teams before the big game, each praying to God to help them win. How dare anyone ask God to take sides. Muslims sending suicide bombers to show that Allah is on their side and that the infidels deserve to die. Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland. What the Hell is going on here. Is it that important that everyone believe the same things I do?

Of course, you have a right to defend your beliefs. But, you do not have a humanitarian right to force your beliefs on other people. Educate them if you want (propaganda), but don’t use force and violence to convince others. If someone is trying to force you into believing something, then you do have the right to push back, but only to the point at which you were pushed.

Can the world’s problems be solved this way. Yes, but it will take a long time. And this is where it starts. People must begin talking about this way of thinking, but most importantly, they must begin thinking and acting in this way. It all starts on a personal level. How you deal with the people around you daily will make a difference in how countries deal with each other. Yours may be a very small contribution to peace on earth, but mighty rivers start with a single drop of rain. Make your drop one for the good.

Together we can bring about real change.

-- Milo Burns]]>
Most of the strife in the world today comes from one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Both believing they are right. “I’m on God’s side.” Yeah, right! Just like two High School football teams before the big game, each praying to God to help them win. How dare anyone ask God to take sides. Muslims sending suicide bombers to show that Allah is on their side and that the infidels deserve to die. Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland. What the Hell is going on here. Is it that important that everyone believe the same things I do?

Of course, you have a right to defend your beliefs. But, you do not have a humanitarian right to force your beliefs on other people. Educate them if you want (propaganda), but don’t use force and violence to convince others. If someone is trying to force you into believing something, then you do have the right to push back, but only to the point at which you were pushed.

Can the world’s problems be solved this way. Yes, but it will take a long time. And this is where it starts. People must begin talking about this way of thinking, but most importantly, they must begin thinking and acting in this way. It all starts on a personal level. How you deal with the people around you daily will make a difference in how countries deal with each other. Yours may be a very small contribution to peace on earth, but mighty rivers start with a single drop of rain. Make your drop one for the good.

Together we can bring about real change.

-- Milo Burns]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=22 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:45:47 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=22
Whether life? What direction it leads?
Onward, upward, beyond the horizon?
Or downward, deeper, underworld bound?
It maters not, the direction taken
Excellence is the goal we seek
Not up nor down nor places not seen
Love of life and perfection of dreams.

Life is bigger, bigger than we see
But daily survival keeps it hidden
We spend our time looking at the surface
Not caring about the beauty underlying
Missing the meaning of love
Wasting the time we are given
Blinded by the fog of our reality.

So many. Multitudes who went before
Staggering though the world
Bent upon making a better place
Instead of opening up what’s there
Blinders of ridicule are placed on us
By society of practical correctness
Refusing to acknowledge that which is there.

Seize your destiny! Rise to the challenge
Of where love truly lies
Beyond the mountains, the sea, the plains
Away from these illusions
Find true meaning within your self,
Mind that is known as soul
Realism that transcends perception.

-- Milo Burns]]>
Whether life? What direction it leads?
Onward, upward, beyond the horizon?
Or downward, deeper, underworld bound?
It maters not, the direction taken
Excellence is the goal we seek
Not up nor down nor places not seen
Love of life and perfection of dreams.

Life is bigger, bigger than we see
But daily survival keeps it hidden
We spend our time looking at the surface
Not caring about the beauty underlying
Missing the meaning of love
Wasting the time we are given
Blinded by the fog of our reality.

So many. Multitudes who went before
Staggering though the world
Bent upon making a better place
Instead of opening up what’s there
Blinders of ridicule are placed on us
By society of practical correctness
Refusing to acknowledge that which is there.

Seize your destiny! Rise to the challenge
Of where love truly lies
Beyond the mountains, the sea, the plains
Away from these illusions
Find true meaning within your self,
Mind that is known as soul
Realism that transcends perception.

-- Milo Burns]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=21 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:44:55 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=21
Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion; and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices , and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another’s, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily, no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.

-- Epictetus]]>
Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion; and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices , and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another’s, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily, no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.

-- Epictetus]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=20 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:43:22 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=20
Science has once again informed us of a new way of looking at life, but are we too distracted, or fail to see its significance or... are we not yet ready to make "one giant step for man, or one giant leap for mankind"? Where in the medical community is this confirming discovery recognized? Is this not informing us of our natural innate (spiritual) power to heal? Is it possible to set aside our dependence on drugs? Can we admit that our lack of responsibility for informing and caring for ourselves is causing our illnesses? Where is this revelation allowed to materialize in other sciences? Where is this revelation to help us reclaim our humanity, our sanity, and our sacred selves?

"The Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Einstein, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama, have each demonstrated the powerful interactions of the inter-connected universe with synchronous words, feelings, and actions." Dr. Noah McKay, M.D. Do we still believe that only these spiritually sacred people have unmistakable healing power? Gary Zukav in his book 'The Dancing Wu-Li Masters' offered a few conclusions written by physicists from the experiments they were performing on sub-atomic particles... "I am a scientist, and I know what I am about to say is not scientific, but the only conclusion left is that these particles are affected by my thought." Does that not support what the three Nobel Prize laureates stated in our 'message'? Andrew Weil, M.D. in his book 'Spontaneous Healing' advises... in his 8 week program for optimal healing... (along with other advice) "note down anything you did to speed the healing process... pay attention to your healing imagery... use healing visualization..." Neale Donald Walsch in his many 'Conversations with God' books reiterates that the three tools of creation are Thought, Word, and Deed.

When we finally accept the reality of our spiritual ability to create, heal, and transform or transcend whatever we are confronted with, only then will we realize just what we are doing to ourselves, to others and the world around us and in us. Are we really careful with our thoughts and feelings? Are we aware that no one can make us 'feel' or think a certain way... that we are always in charge? Do we realize that we can change energy vibrations at will, anytime?

Since we are neophytes at this healing and creation thing, we must be careful just HOW we manifest it. For example, in his book, 'The Universe is Calling', Eric Butterworth says that we will be 'praying amiss' if we do not take responsibility for that which we are praying. Neale Donald Walsch says... We must not come from lack,... which hives us a keen insight into this creation and healing process. Our creative tools can create positive or negative results. When we come from lack (illness, worry, fear, doubt), then only a negative response will result... there can be no other. So... feeling gratitude and choosing a healthy, positive, and confident response is the key to our healing power.]]>
Science has once again informed us of a new way of looking at life, but are we too distracted, or fail to see its significance or... are we not yet ready to make "one giant step for man, or one giant leap for mankind"? Where in the medical community is this confirming discovery recognized? Is this not informing us of our natural innate (spiritual) power to heal? Is it possible to set aside our dependence on drugs? Can we admit that our lack of responsibility for informing and caring for ourselves is causing our illnesses? Where is this revelation allowed to materialize in other sciences? Where is this revelation to help us reclaim our humanity, our sanity, and our sacred selves?

"The Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Einstein, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama, have each demonstrated the powerful interactions of the inter-connected universe with synchronous words, feelings, and actions." Dr. Noah McKay, M.D. Do we still believe that only these spiritually sacred people have unmistakable healing power? Gary Zukav in his book 'The Dancing Wu-Li Masters' offered a few conclusions written by physicists from the experiments they were performing on sub-atomic particles... "I am a scientist, and I know what I am about to say is not scientific, but the only conclusion left is that these particles are affected by my thought." Does that not support what the three Nobel Prize laureates stated in our 'message'? Andrew Weil, M.D. in his book 'Spontaneous Healing' advises... in his 8 week program for optimal healing... (along with other advice) "note down anything you did to speed the healing process... pay attention to your healing imagery... use healing visualization..." Neale Donald Walsch in his many 'Conversations with God' books reiterates that the three tools of creation are Thought, Word, and Deed.

When we finally accept the reality of our spiritual ability to create, heal, and transform or transcend whatever we are confronted with, only then will we realize just what we are doing to ourselves, to others and the world around us and in us. Are we really careful with our thoughts and feelings? Are we aware that no one can make us 'feel' or think a certain way... that we are always in charge? Do we realize that we can change energy vibrations at will, anytime?

Since we are neophytes at this healing and creation thing, we must be careful just HOW we manifest it. For example, in his book, 'The Universe is Calling', Eric Butterworth says that we will be 'praying amiss' if we do not take responsibility for that which we are praying. Neale Donald Walsch says... We must not come from lack,... which hives us a keen insight into this creation and healing process. Our creative tools can create positive or negative results. When we come from lack (illness, worry, fear, doubt), then only a negative response will result... there can be no other. So... feeling gratitude and choosing a healthy, positive, and confident response is the key to our healing power.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=19 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:41:43 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=19
Subtitled, “An Integral Theory of Everything”, Ervin Laszlo’s book Science and the Akashic Field attempts to relate the concept of the Akashic records or field to modern quantum physics. In so doing he makes some very good points about the interrelatedness of people, consciousness, and things through the use of quantum physics phenomena such as non-locality and the Uncertainty Principal.

Extending non-locality to a systems approach of organism evolution is particularly interesting. By interpreting experimental nervous systems response times (which have shown that reactions to stimuli happen faster than signals can be transmitted by the nervous system) he develops a reasonable theory of how evolution not only occurs, but also explains so called gaps in the evolutionary record. Briefly, he theorizes that organisms are to complex to evolve simply through natural selection of specific genes, but evolve as a whole system which can only be explained through connections of non-locality throughout the whole organism.

While some readers may attempt to assign the Akashic Field to Divine or Supernatural existence of a creator, Laszlo does a good job of using scientific experimental evidence to show that the world we perceive is not quite what it seems.

Some readers may be put off by the title reference to the Akashic Field and its occult or new age connotations, this book is a very good read for those attempting to reconcile metaphysics with contemporary science.]]>
Subtitled, “An Integral Theory of Everything”, Ervin Laszlo’s book Science and the Akashic Field attempts to relate the concept of the Akashic records or field to modern quantum physics. In so doing he makes some very good points about the interrelatedness of people, consciousness, and things through the use of quantum physics phenomena such as non-locality and the Uncertainty Principal.

Extending non-locality to a systems approach of organism evolution is particularly interesting. By interpreting experimental nervous systems response times (which have shown that reactions to stimuli happen faster than signals can be transmitted by the nervous system) he develops a reasonable theory of how evolution not only occurs, but also explains so called gaps in the evolutionary record. Briefly, he theorizes that organisms are to complex to evolve simply through natural selection of specific genes, but evolve as a whole system which can only be explained through connections of non-locality throughout the whole organism.

While some readers may attempt to assign the Akashic Field to Divine or Supernatural existence of a creator, Laszlo does a good job of using scientific experimental evidence to show that the world we perceive is not quite what it seems.

Some readers may be put off by the title reference to the Akashic Field and its occult or new age connotations, this book is a very good read for those attempting to reconcile metaphysics with contemporary science.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=18 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:22 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=18
I love motorcycles, and I love riding. Like many of you what first drew me to bikes was not just the experience of riding, but the feeling that I'd become part of a special community - a brotherhood, really. Nothing calms me more than a long ride down the interstate, waving to the members of my beloved clan. Except when I pass Harley guys. I hate Harley guys. Hate, hate, hate. When they pass me on the highway, you know what I do? I don't wave. With their little tassel handlebars and the studded luggage and the half helmets - God, they drive me crazy.

You know who else I hate? BMW guys. Oh, do I hate those guys. I don't wave at them either. They think they're so great, sitting all upright, with their 180 degree German engines. God, I hate them. They're almost as bad as those old bastards on their touring motorcycles. You know what I call those bikes? "Two wheeled couches!" Get it? Because they're so big. They drive around like they have got all day. Appreciate the scenery somewhere else, Grandpa, and while your at it, I'm not waving to you.

Ducati guys - I don't wave at them either. Why they don't spend a little more money on their bikes? "You can have it in any color as long as it is red." Aren't you cool! Like they even know what a Desmo-whatever engine is, anyway. Try finding the battery, you Italian-wannabe racers! I never, ever wave at those guys.

Suzuki guys aren't much better, which is why I never wave at them, either. They always have those stupid helmets sitting on the top of their stupid heads, and God forbid they should ever wear any safety gear. They make me so mad. Sometimes they'll speed by and look over at me and you know what I do? I don't wave I just keep going. Please, don't get me started on Kawasaki guys. Ninjas? What are you, twelve years old? Team Green my ass. I never wave at Kawasaki guys.

I ride a Honda, and I'll only wave at Honda guys, but even then, I'll never wave at a guy in full leathers. Never, never, never. Yeah like you're going to get your knee down on the New York Thruway. Nice crotch, by the way. Guys in full leathers will never get a wave from me, and by the way, neither will the guys in two piece leathers. And I'll tell you who else I'm not waving at - those guys with the helmets with loud paint jobs. Four pounds of paint on a two pound helmet - like I'm going to wave back at that! I'll also never wave at someone with a mirrored visor. Or helmet stickers. Or racing gloves. Or hiking boots.

To me, motorcycling is like a family, a close knit brotherhood of people who ride Hondas, wear jeans and a leather jacket (not Vanson) with regular gloves and a solid color helmet with a clear visor, no stickers, no racing gloves and regular boots (not Timberlands). And isn't that what really makes riding so special.

This was taken from the Southern Maryland Community Forums. Thank you Shalom Auslander, whoever you are.]]>
I love motorcycles, and I love riding. Like many of you what first drew me to bikes was not just the experience of riding, but the feeling that I'd become part of a special community - a brotherhood, really. Nothing calms me more than a long ride down the interstate, waving to the members of my beloved clan. Except when I pass Harley guys. I hate Harley guys. Hate, hate, hate. When they pass me on the highway, you know what I do? I don't wave. With their little tassel handlebars and the studded luggage and the half helmets - God, they drive me crazy.

You know who else I hate? BMW guys. Oh, do I hate those guys. I don't wave at them either. They think they're so great, sitting all upright, with their 180 degree German engines. God, I hate them. They're almost as bad as those old bastards on their touring motorcycles. You know what I call those bikes? "Two wheeled couches!" Get it? Because they're so big. They drive around like they have got all day. Appreciate the scenery somewhere else, Grandpa, and while your at it, I'm not waving to you.

Ducati guys - I don't wave at them either. Why they don't spend a little more money on their bikes? "You can have it in any color as long as it is red." Aren't you cool! Like they even know what a Desmo-whatever engine is, anyway. Try finding the battery, you Italian-wannabe racers! I never, ever wave at those guys.

Suzuki guys aren't much better, which is why I never wave at them, either. They always have those stupid helmets sitting on the top of their stupid heads, and God forbid they should ever wear any safety gear. They make me so mad. Sometimes they'll speed by and look over at me and you know what I do? I don't wave I just keep going. Please, don't get me started on Kawasaki guys. Ninjas? What are you, twelve years old? Team Green my ass. I never wave at Kawasaki guys.

I ride a Honda, and I'll only wave at Honda guys, but even then, I'll never wave at a guy in full leathers. Never, never, never. Yeah like you're going to get your knee down on the New York Thruway. Nice crotch, by the way. Guys in full leathers will never get a wave from me, and by the way, neither will the guys in two piece leathers. And I'll tell you who else I'm not waving at - those guys with the helmets with loud paint jobs. Four pounds of paint on a two pound helmet - like I'm going to wave back at that! I'll also never wave at someone with a mirrored visor. Or helmet stickers. Or racing gloves. Or hiking boots.

To me, motorcycling is like a family, a close knit brotherhood of people who ride Hondas, wear jeans and a leather jacket (not Vanson) with regular gloves and a solid color helmet with a clear visor, no stickers, no racing gloves and regular boots (not Timberlands). And isn't that what really makes riding so special.

This was taken from the Southern Maryland Community Forums. Thank you Shalom Auslander, whoever you are.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=17 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:30:11 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=17
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is one of the most important parts of what is known as the Bill of Rights. While guns are not as necessary to our survival as they were many years ago out on the frontier, they remain an important building block in the wall that keeps totalitarianism at bay. Without weapons in the hands of a free people, those people become vulnerable to the whims of dictatorship. The people must have a means of assuring that their will is the will of the land and not some charismatic leader who takes over our armed forces. This may seem like an extreme scenario, but we see it happen in countries all over the world. Without a means to defend themselves people become sheep to be herded at the whim of fanatics.

Yes, there are problems. People use guns to commit crimes. The answer is strong laws and prison terms for these offenders. The answer is NOT to take guns away from the law abiding citizens, but to make using a gun in a crime a real deterrent. (See our Position Paper on the Legal System.)

There are prices to be paid for being a free country and sometimes those prices can be very high. A few highly emotional and highly publicized incidents should not allow us to be swept away into complacency. We must defend our rights for to lose one right is to, eventually, lose them all.]]>
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is one of the most important parts of what is known as the Bill of Rights. While guns are not as necessary to our survival as they were many years ago out on the frontier, they remain an important building block in the wall that keeps totalitarianism at bay. Without weapons in the hands of a free people, those people become vulnerable to the whims of dictatorship. The people must have a means of assuring that their will is the will of the land and not some charismatic leader who takes over our armed forces. This may seem like an extreme scenario, but we see it happen in countries all over the world. Without a means to defend themselves people become sheep to be herded at the whim of fanatics.

Yes, there are problems. People use guns to commit crimes. The answer is strong laws and prison terms for these offenders. The answer is NOT to take guns away from the law abiding citizens, but to make using a gun in a crime a real deterrent. (See our Position Paper on the Legal System.)

There are prices to be paid for being a free country and sometimes those prices can be very high. A few highly emotional and highly publicized incidents should not allow us to be swept away into complacency. We must defend our rights for to lose one right is to, eventually, lose them all.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=16 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:29:19 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=16
The real problem is one religion trying to indoctrinate others into their beliefs. This is what we need to protect against. Allowing a religious display on government property is not an attempt to convert others, so long as displays of other philosophies are not excluded. However, protesting a religious display on government property is an attempt to sway others to a non religious belief system and so those actions are no different than attempts at religious conversion. Likewise, holding a prayer by the religion of the majority of attendees at an event is not an attempt to sway the beliefs of others who may be attending. They should just not participate in a respectful manner. Why get upset about it? Likewise, if Christians attend a meeting of primarily Buddhists, they should not get upset with the practices of that culture, etc.

The bottom line is to distinguish between attempts to convert and simple displays. Of course, all displays -- both verbal and physical -- could be considered "advertising" and an attempt to convert, but the question must be asked: "Is it advertising or coercion. The former is OK, the latter is not.

All people should have the opportunity to be exposed to all beliefs without prejudice. This should be the underlying tenant of all religious freedom. Any religion which fears it's believers may lose faith by being exposed to alternative views does not believe in true religious freedom and, therefore, would not receive the privilege of equal exposure. That includes agnostic and atheist philosophies.

As for Christmas, the holiday is Christmas, not winter holiday or any other Politically Correct name. Call it what you want, but don’t get upset when someone calls it something other than your preference. A rose by any other name……….]]>
The real problem is one religion trying to indoctrinate others into their beliefs. This is what we need to protect against. Allowing a religious display on government property is not an attempt to convert others, so long as displays of other philosophies are not excluded. However, protesting a religious display on government property is an attempt to sway others to a non religious belief system and so those actions are no different than attempts at religious conversion. Likewise, holding a prayer by the religion of the majority of attendees at an event is not an attempt to sway the beliefs of others who may be attending. They should just not participate in a respectful manner. Why get upset about it? Likewise, if Christians attend a meeting of primarily Buddhists, they should not get upset with the practices of that culture, etc.

The bottom line is to distinguish between attempts to convert and simple displays. Of course, all displays -- both verbal and physical -- could be considered "advertising" and an attempt to convert, but the question must be asked: "Is it advertising or coercion. The former is OK, the latter is not.

All people should have the opportunity to be exposed to all beliefs without prejudice. This should be the underlying tenant of all religious freedom. Any religion which fears it's believers may lose faith by being exposed to alternative views does not believe in true religious freedom and, therefore, would not receive the privilege of equal exposure. That includes agnostic and atheist philosophies.

As for Christmas, the holiday is Christmas, not winter holiday or any other Politically Correct name. Call it what you want, but don’t get upset when someone calls it something other than your preference. A rose by any other name……….]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=15 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:28:12 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=15
Space Exploration -- The only thing space exploration costs us is the metal that goes into orbit and burns up on re-entry. All the money spent goes directly into our economy and so, space exploration is not a burden on society, it is an enhancement. Mankind has always explored the boundaries of knowledge and will continue to do so by setting goals that appear unreachable. It is human nature to explore the unknown. So, using this inherent need to explore provides the motivation for scientific discoveries which ultimately improve the standard of living for all the inhabitants of this planet. So many scientific advances came out of our moon landing program, yet we decry the expense of space exploration. Without visionaries striving to explore and the people in lab coats working to give them the tools to do so, it would be a dull and uncomfortable world.

Medical Research -- To many times drug research is rushed to market and data is hidden to assure that it reaches the market. Drug research must be open and peer reviewed before it is presented to the public. The same is true with many medical procedures. Government funding of this type of review is essential for the welfare of the public.

Physics -- Who we are as a people will be defined by our knowledge of the universe and the reality we live in. High energy particle research is needed to further this knowledge as well as our understanding of cosmology. Theoretical sciences must be pursued so that we may better understand the direction our future shall take.

Academic Research -- It is in our universities that the seed of our future is germinated. Funding of academic research is needed, not only for the sake of the research itself, but also to properly teach our future scientists in research techniques and to let them explore ideas while they are young and without preconceptions.]]>
Space Exploration -- The only thing space exploration costs us is the metal that goes into orbit and burns up on re-entry. All the money spent goes directly into our economy and so, space exploration is not a burden on society, it is an enhancement. Mankind has always explored the boundaries of knowledge and will continue to do so by setting goals that appear unreachable. It is human nature to explore the unknown. So, using this inherent need to explore provides the motivation for scientific discoveries which ultimately improve the standard of living for all the inhabitants of this planet. So many scientific advances came out of our moon landing program, yet we decry the expense of space exploration. Without visionaries striving to explore and the people in lab coats working to give them the tools to do so, it would be a dull and uncomfortable world.

Medical Research -- To many times drug research is rushed to market and data is hidden to assure that it reaches the market. Drug research must be open and peer reviewed before it is presented to the public. The same is true with many medical procedures. Government funding of this type of review is essential for the welfare of the public.

Physics -- Who we are as a people will be defined by our knowledge of the universe and the reality we live in. High energy particle research is needed to further this knowledge as well as our understanding of cosmology. Theoretical sciences must be pursued so that we may better understand the direction our future shall take.

Academic Research -- It is in our universities that the seed of our future is germinated. Funding of academic research is needed, not only for the sake of the research itself, but also to properly teach our future scientists in research techniques and to let them explore ideas while they are young and without preconceptions.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=14 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:27:22 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=14
The main way we compete is to index our tariff structure on imports to the wage scales for manufacturing of similar products here. This will bring the cost of imported goods up to that which is produced domestically. An added benefit would be to reduce the advantages of American businesses taking their manufacturing to foreign countries to take advantage of cheaper labor. It could also encourage other countries to pay realistic wages to their workers. A similar tax on services outside our borders, such as outsourcing of call centers could be devised.

A system of realistic comparison between the wages of one country to the same standard in our country would provide a means of assuring the original cost of each item is competitive no matter where it was made.]]>
The main way we compete is to index our tariff structure on imports to the wage scales for manufacturing of similar products here. This will bring the cost of imported goods up to that which is produced domestically. An added benefit would be to reduce the advantages of American businesses taking their manufacturing to foreign countries to take advantage of cheaper labor. It could also encourage other countries to pay realistic wages to their workers. A similar tax on services outside our borders, such as outsourcing of call centers could be devised.

A system of realistic comparison between the wages of one country to the same standard in our country would provide a means of assuring the original cost of each item is competitive no matter where it was made.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=13 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:26:26 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=13
We need to stop frivolous law suits and legal harassment. The best way to do that is to change our system of law suits to a loser pays all costs system. The way it is now, you can be right and still have to pay thousands, even millions of dollars in attorney fees and court costs. It is possible for someone with a grudge to ruin the life of another simply by bringing a suit against them, even though they know they will lose. To many times people will bring a suit against a company knowing that the company will settle out of court because it is cheaper to do so than to win in court. A loser pays all system would prevent this from happening.

There is no law anymore, only lawyers. It doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, what matters is who can hire the best attorney. Justice is found in the pocket book.

As for criminal law and our over crowded prisons, we need to reduce the number of repeat offenders. This can best be done through a two tiered prison system:
1.First Tier: Correctional Institutions where non violent first time offenders are sent. Here they are given opportunities to earn an education with emphasis on how to make it in the world legally. More like an educational system, this gives people true rehabilitation opportunities. They must graduate at a higher level than they were at when they entered and they must have a job waiting on the outside.

2.Second Tier: Prisons where all violent offenders and repeat non violent offenders are sent. Here they are warehoused with no privileges or perks. Time is spent in a cell with reading materials provided, only leaving the cell for supervised exercise -- meals served in the cell. After an appropriate time is spent in the prison, they may be paroled to a correctional institution on the first tier where they will go through the rehabilitation process. Misbehavior at the correctional institution will result in going back to the prison.

Our country has to many lawyers and to many prisons. We need a criminal system that works by actually making getting caught for a crime something that is unpleasant and by providing real opportunities for people to change. And we need a system that is responsive to the people, not just lawyers. We can only do this by being sure crime doesn’t pay.]]>
We need to stop frivolous law suits and legal harassment. The best way to do that is to change our system of law suits to a loser pays all costs system. The way it is now, you can be right and still have to pay thousands, even millions of dollars in attorney fees and court costs. It is possible for someone with a grudge to ruin the life of another simply by bringing a suit against them, even though they know they will lose. To many times people will bring a suit against a company knowing that the company will settle out of court because it is cheaper to do so than to win in court. A loser pays all system would prevent this from happening.

There is no law anymore, only lawyers. It doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, what matters is who can hire the best attorney. Justice is found in the pocket book.

As for criminal law and our over crowded prisons, we need to reduce the number of repeat offenders. This can best be done through a two tiered prison system:
1.First Tier: Correctional Institutions where non violent first time offenders are sent. Here they are given opportunities to earn an education with emphasis on how to make it in the world legally. More like an educational system, this gives people true rehabilitation opportunities. They must graduate at a higher level than they were at when they entered and they must have a job waiting on the outside.

2.Second Tier: Prisons where all violent offenders and repeat non violent offenders are sent. Here they are warehoused with no privileges or perks. Time is spent in a cell with reading materials provided, only leaving the cell for supervised exercise -- meals served in the cell. After an appropriate time is spent in the prison, they may be paroled to a correctional institution on the first tier where they will go through the rehabilitation process. Misbehavior at the correctional institution will result in going back to the prison.

Our country has to many lawyers and to many prisons. We need a criminal system that works by actually making getting caught for a crime something that is unpleasant and by providing real opportunities for people to change. And we need a system that is responsive to the people, not just lawyers. We can only do this by being sure crime doesn’t pay.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=12 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:24:46 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=12
This being a Republic, we expect certain things from our elected officials. We expect them to represent our wishes, even when those wishes are in conflict with their own. And, when we say OUR wishes we are referring to the majority of constituents of the representative. We elect people who we believe have our same beliefs and interests, but that isn’t always so. Yet, it is the duty of the elected representative to present those majority interests in the government, even when they conflict with their own. This is a principle which many of our elected officials seem to have forgotten.

The only reason a society has for having a government is to provide for the basic needs of its citizens which includes the infrastructure which that society needs to sustain itself. In our country that includes roads, bridges, airports, etc. Then, government also provides for the safety and security of its citizens through armed forces and police. These agencies of the government also assure that the will of the citizens, as expressed through the elected government, are upheld. That will of the people amounts to the culture of our society. So, in other words, the purpose of government is to maintain the culture of a majority of its citizens as expressed through their election of representatives.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, we’ve come to expect much more from our government. What is needed is a return to the basic principles of our nation. Not just less government, but a more efficient government that will take care of our social basics and let the people take care of themselves and others as they see fit.]]>
This being a Republic, we expect certain things from our elected officials. We expect them to represent our wishes, even when those wishes are in conflict with their own. And, when we say OUR wishes we are referring to the majority of constituents of the representative. We elect people who we believe have our same beliefs and interests, but that isn’t always so. Yet, it is the duty of the elected representative to present those majority interests in the government, even when they conflict with their own. This is a principle which many of our elected officials seem to have forgotten.

The only reason a society has for having a government is to provide for the basic needs of its citizens which includes the infrastructure which that society needs to sustain itself. In our country that includes roads, bridges, airports, etc. Then, government also provides for the safety and security of its citizens through armed forces and police. These agencies of the government also assure that the will of the citizens, as expressed through the elected government, are upheld. That will of the people amounts to the culture of our society. So, in other words, the purpose of government is to maintain the culture of a majority of its citizens as expressed through their election of representatives.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, we’ve come to expect much more from our government. What is needed is a return to the basic principles of our nation. Not just less government, but a more efficient government that will take care of our social basics and let the people take care of themselves and others as they see fit.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=11 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:23:12 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=11
Of course, many details need to be worked out, but the general idea of the system is this:

First, Social Security should be true social security. We don't need a nationalized retirement system -- people should be responsible for their retirement on their own. However, not everyone is capable of doing the right thing and thinking of the future like they should. In this day and age we should be able to at least assure that everyone will not have to live out their old age in poverty. It doesn't have to be the Ritz, but we could take care of their basic needs.

1.Housing -- If the person does not own any property, government housing should be provided.
a.If they own property but it is not paid for, the system would provide a supplement to their mortgage not to exceed the cost of public housing.
b.If they have a place to live that is paid for or is under a mortgage, the system would pay an amount of tax and insurance based on a regional average.
2.Food -- Food stamps enough to live on, providing nutritional basics.
a.Stamps would be for specific categories of items to prevent unauthorized purchases.
b.Stamps would not be transferable to prevent selling them.
3.Income -- Provide a disposable income equal to the current poverty level. Working or any other income would reduce benefits on a dollar to dollar basis.]]>
Of course, many details need to be worked out, but the general idea of the system is this:

First, Social Security should be true social security. We don't need a nationalized retirement system -- people should be responsible for their retirement on their own. However, not everyone is capable of doing the right thing and thinking of the future like they should. In this day and age we should be able to at least assure that everyone will not have to live out their old age in poverty. It doesn't have to be the Ritz, but we could take care of their basic needs.

1.Housing -- If the person does not own any property, government housing should be provided.
a.If they own property but it is not paid for, the system would provide a supplement to their mortgage not to exceed the cost of public housing.
b.If they have a place to live that is paid for or is under a mortgage, the system would pay an amount of tax and insurance based on a regional average.
2.Food -- Food stamps enough to live on, providing nutritional basics.
a.Stamps would be for specific categories of items to prevent unauthorized purchases.
b.Stamps would not be transferable to prevent selling them.
3.Income -- Provide a disposable income equal to the current poverty level. Working or any other income would reduce benefits on a dollar to dollar basis.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=10 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:20:48 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=10
All environmental decisions need to be weighed against the long term affects. Environmental impact statements need to address all aspects of a project, not just the adverse effects on the existing environment, but also the long term effects of not proceeding with the project.

Can we maintain pristine wilderness indefinitely? Not without serious population control and all that implies to our economy. Should we drill for oil in those wildernesses or should we allow the economy to suffer while we try to develop alternative fueled vehicles? Should we put large amounts of money into high polluting electric vehicles because we don't see the pollution at the electric plant or should we put our money into realistic research for development of future fuels such as hydrogen or others? Lets take the emotions out of it and make logical decisions that are the best for people as well as the animals. Lets keep our environment clean and healthy but recognize that there are going to be some irreversible changes simply because we have to maintain quality life for people.

Lets get to the real cause of our environmental problems -- over population!]]>
All environmental decisions need to be weighed against the long term affects. Environmental impact statements need to address all aspects of a project, not just the adverse effects on the existing environment, but also the long term effects of not proceeding with the project.

Can we maintain pristine wilderness indefinitely? Not without serious population control and all that implies to our economy. Should we drill for oil in those wildernesses or should we allow the economy to suffer while we try to develop alternative fueled vehicles? Should we put large amounts of money into high polluting electric vehicles because we don't see the pollution at the electric plant or should we put our money into realistic research for development of future fuels such as hydrogen or others? Lets take the emotions out of it and make logical decisions that are the best for people as well as the animals. Lets keep our environment clean and healthy but recognize that there are going to be some irreversible changes simply because we have to maintain quality life for people.

Lets get to the real cause of our environmental problems -- over population!]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=9 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:19:35 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=9
And, of course there is the issue of “white flight”. The unstated purpose of choice, vouchers, and private schools is to remove students from the kids who are “not their kind”. Flying the banner of achievement, parents try to remove their kids from schools that are under performing instead of helping the kids who are not of the same color or economic background to achieve as well.

All the blaming of the public school system comes down to bad parenting. But that’s the way it is in our society today -- find someone else to blame. With the proper parental support children will excel in any learning environment. In fact, the students who will come away with the best tools for living in our society will be the ones who are not removed from schools suffering from social or economic ills, not the students who are moved to the “better” schools and isolated from the real problems of our world.

But there is more to it than just parental responsibility. The public school system must bear responsibility as well. W must also look to improving our public schools which have been on the decline for many years. We must fight the NEA and other unions which protect the incompetent teachers. We need a business approach to the management of our schools with a well stated goal of accountability and a firm vision of the product we are trying to produce. We need paid school board members (even though that can cause some other problems) in order to get real management into our schools and leave the educators to educate. Yes, the system is broke but it needs fixing, not abandonment.

The push to destroy our schools has even reached the level of our national government. No Child Left Behind is a travesty designed to destroy the public school system and replace it with an elitist conglomeration of private and parochial schools. Because NCLB requires schools to improve every year until they reach 100% eventually all our schools will be “failing” because no school will ever be able to truly reach perfection. We need to set the bar high, but it also needs to be obtainable with recognition of success for students who may not be college material, i.e. recognize vocational technical training as an important part of our education system as well. Part of what that will entail is recognizing the potential of each individual student and helping to attain their own individual success, not just the success of passing a test.

There are several things we need to do:

1.Bring a work ethic into our schools. Have students go to school 8 hours a day, just like a job, but with no homework. There would be plenty of time for students to get all their work done in an 8 hour day. What is the difference between going to school 6 hours with an additional 2 hours of homework and going to school 8 hours a day? This would also lessen the burden of day care on many families. Do we maintain the short school day just for the sake of teachers who don’t wish to work a full 8 hour day? And, lets do away with the myth of working long hours as a teacher, although some do. If teachers can’t get the work done in an 8 hour day as well, then we need to re-evaluate their efficiency and performance.

2.Go to school year round. The old need to let the kids out of school in the summer so they could help with harvest has passed. As it is now, students who can afford it go to camp, day care, or some other learning experience in the summer while the poor make do on the streets. Level the playing field by having all be in school the year round. This could include 2 weeks off during the summer around the 4th of July for a summer break. A week off in the fall around Thanksgiving for a fall break. 2 weeks off around Christmas for a winter break, and a week off around Easter for a spring break. Plus 2 weeks anytime during the year for family vacations. The schools could offer low cost day care with a learning component during the breaks. Teachers too would work a full year instead of having a 2 or more month vacation every year. Or, like the short school day, do we maintain this “traditional” schedule for the sake of teachers who want full time pay for a part time job.

3.Keep standardized test to measure improvement in core subjects, however, include additional "elective" type courses such as art, music, theatre, etc. And, do not use the NCLB standard of constant improvement being needed as well as allowing for special needs students. The NCLB standards are impossible to be met. Schools should be measured and rated, but not expected to meet a 100% goal. The real world just doesn't work that way. Define a system of school accountability that takes into consideration the success of students, not just their ability to pass a test.

The push to destroy our schools has even reached the level of our national government. No Child Left Behind is a travesty designed to destroy the public school system and replace it with an elitist conglomeration of private and parochial schools. Because NCLB requires schools to improve every year until they reach 100% eventually all our schools will be “failing” because no school will ever be able to truly reach perfection. We need to set the bar high, but it also needs to be obtainable with recognition of success for students who may not be college material, i.e. recognize vocational technical training as an important part of our education system as well. Part of what that will entail is recognizing the potential of each individual student and helping to attain their own individual success, not just the success of passing a test.

4.Do not funnel public money into private schools or even semi-private charter schools, even through vouchers. Lets keep all the players on a level playing field and if that is not getting the job done, lets improve the field instead of letting a privileged few take their ball home and play by themselves.

Everyone is entitled to a quality education in this country, not just those who can afford to go to other schools. If we sequester our privileged children behind the doors of private schools we will eventually create a caste system which, it appears, is the ultimate goal of those who promote vouchers and other forms of segregation.]]>
And, of course there is the issue of “white flight”. The unstated purpose of choice, vouchers, and private schools is to remove students from the kids who are “not their kind”. Flying the banner of achievement, parents try to remove their kids from schools that are under performing instead of helping the kids who are not of the same color or economic background to achieve as well.

All the blaming of the public school system comes down to bad parenting. But that’s the way it is in our society today -- find someone else to blame. With the proper parental support children will excel in any learning environment. In fact, the students who will come away with the best tools for living in our society will be the ones who are not removed from schools suffering from social or economic ills, not the students who are moved to the “better” schools and isolated from the real problems of our world.

But there is more to it than just parental responsibility. The public school system must bear responsibility as well. W must also look to improving our public schools which have been on the decline for many years. We must fight the NEA and other unions which protect the incompetent teachers. We need a business approach to the management of our schools with a well stated goal of accountability and a firm vision of the product we are trying to produce. We need paid school board members (even though that can cause some other problems) in order to get real management into our schools and leave the educators to educate. Yes, the system is broke but it needs fixing, not abandonment.

The push to destroy our schools has even reached the level of our national government. No Child Left Behind is a travesty designed to destroy the public school system and replace it with an elitist conglomeration of private and parochial schools. Because NCLB requires schools to improve every year until they reach 100% eventually all our schools will be “failing” because no school will ever be able to truly reach perfection. We need to set the bar high, but it also needs to be obtainable with recognition of success for students who may not be college material, i.e. recognize vocational technical training as an important part of our education system as well. Part of what that will entail is recognizing the potential of each individual student and helping to attain their own individual success, not just the success of passing a test.

There are several things we need to do:

1.Bring a work ethic into our schools. Have students go to school 8 hours a day, just like a job, but with no homework. There would be plenty of time for students to get all their work done in an 8 hour day. What is the difference between going to school 6 hours with an additional 2 hours of homework and going to school 8 hours a day? This would also lessen the burden of day care on many families. Do we maintain the short school day just for the sake of teachers who don’t wish to work a full 8 hour day? And, lets do away with the myth of working long hours as a teacher, although some do. If teachers can’t get the work done in an 8 hour day as well, then we need to re-evaluate their efficiency and performance.

2.Go to school year round. The old need to let the kids out of school in the summer so they could help with harvest has passed. As it is now, students who can afford it go to camp, day care, or some other learning experience in the summer while the poor make do on the streets. Level the playing field by having all be in school the year round. This could include 2 weeks off during the summer around the 4th of July for a summer break. A week off in the fall around Thanksgiving for a fall break. 2 weeks off around Christmas for a winter break, and a week off around Easter for a spring break. Plus 2 weeks anytime during the year for family vacations. The schools could offer low cost day care with a learning component during the breaks. Teachers too would work a full year instead of having a 2 or more month vacation every year. Or, like the short school day, do we maintain this “traditional” schedule for the sake of teachers who want full time pay for a part time job.

3.Keep standardized test to measure improvement in core subjects, however, include additional "elective" type courses such as art, music, theatre, etc. And, do not use the NCLB standard of constant improvement being needed as well as allowing for special needs students. The NCLB standards are impossible to be met. Schools should be measured and rated, but not expected to meet a 100% goal. The real world just doesn't work that way. Define a system of school accountability that takes into consideration the success of students, not just their ability to pass a test.

The push to destroy our schools has even reached the level of our national government. No Child Left Behind is a travesty designed to destroy the public school system and replace it with an elitist conglomeration of private and parochial schools. Because NCLB requires schools to improve every year until they reach 100% eventually all our schools will be “failing” because no school will ever be able to truly reach perfection. We need to set the bar high, but it also needs to be obtainable with recognition of success for students who may not be college material, i.e. recognize vocational technical training as an important part of our education system as well. Part of what that will entail is recognizing the potential of each individual student and helping to attain their own individual success, not just the success of passing a test.

4.Do not funnel public money into private schools or even semi-private charter schools, even through vouchers. Lets keep all the players on a level playing field and if that is not getting the job done, lets improve the field instead of letting a privileged few take their ball home and play by themselves.

Everyone is entitled to a quality education in this country, not just those who can afford to go to other schools. If we sequester our privileged children behind the doors of private schools we will eventually create a caste system which, it appears, is the ultimate goal of those who promote vouchers and other forms of segregation.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=8 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:12:19 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=8
The Bill of Rights states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...." To make a law prohibiting same sex marriage or any law regarding marriage is tantamount to requiring marriage to be defined by the Christian religion (or any other religion for that matter).

From the government perspective, marriage should be viewed as a contract between two (or more) people who have a mutual desire to be treated as the same person with rights of survivorship, etc. depending on state laws concerning those matters. In other words, from the government standpoint, marriage is no different than any other business partnership. Who (or what sex) those two people are should not be a concern to the government.

To advocate otherwise is to advocate a religious view and an attempt to convert others to a religious belief by limiting the application of contracts.

Governments should recognize contracts, religions should recognize marriage. When government gets involved in marriage the line between separation of church and state is erased.]]>
The Bill of Rights states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...." To make a law prohibiting same sex marriage or any law regarding marriage is tantamount to requiring marriage to be defined by the Christian religion (or any other religion for that matter).

From the government perspective, marriage should be viewed as a contract between two (or more) people who have a mutual desire to be treated as the same person with rights of survivorship, etc. depending on state laws concerning those matters. In other words, from the government standpoint, marriage is no different than any other business partnership. Who (or what sex) those two people are should not be a concern to the government.

To advocate otherwise is to advocate a religious view and an attempt to convert others to a religious belief by limiting the application of contracts.

Governments should recognize contracts, religions should recognize marriage. When government gets involved in marriage the line between separation of church and state is erased.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=7 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:11:15 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=7
These first three are what it takes to survive. By survive we mean exactly that -- sustain life. The next three are all about quality of life. In our modern world we've grown beyond just survival and we expect more from life now. Not just for ourselves, but for others as well. That's what makes us human and, therefore, why we refer to these as Human Rights. So, as human beings who care for and have empathy for other human beings, it is our duty to help others in securing, not only their right to survival, but also their right to a life of quality.

As a prosperous country which has the ability to meet all of it's citizen's needs and more, we have a moral responsibility to assist as many people in the world as we can to obtain these rights for our fellow human beings as well. But this is a fine line we walk. When we march to peoples' rescue under the banner of human rights, is that what those people really want? Cultures which have evolved under dictatorships may not be evolved enough to handle the immediate affect and responsibility of democracy. Old habits die hard. When we observe a dictatorial government that is oppressive and denying those human rights to its citizens, we should intervene? If we should intervene, once human rights are restored through the removal of the dictator, how do we decide when it is time to go home and leave the people to their own resources? Should we allow them to fight a civil war (which is often what happens when the strong arm of dictatorship is removed) or should we take sides and support one side of that civil war? These are questions that must be answered before we go marching in as saviors under the banner of Human Rights. Sometimes, harsh as it may sound, the people may be better off in the long run if we just mind our own business. But then it may not. Each situation will need to be evaluated on its own merits without emotional knee jerk reactions and with a long term plan encompassing all the social factors as well as military strategies.

In addition, we must remember we are not attempting to spread Democracy or Prosperity through the world. We are only trying to protect those human rights. If we are trying to save the world by bringing them democracy, we are no better than the missionaries of old who went forth killing people in order to save their souls through Christianity.]]>
These first three are what it takes to survive. By survive we mean exactly that -- sustain life. The next three are all about quality of life. In our modern world we've grown beyond just survival and we expect more from life now. Not just for ourselves, but for others as well. That's what makes us human and, therefore, why we refer to these as Human Rights. So, as human beings who care for and have empathy for other human beings, it is our duty to help others in securing, not only their right to survival, but also their right to a life of quality.

As a prosperous country which has the ability to meet all of it's citizen's needs and more, we have a moral responsibility to assist as many people in the world as we can to obtain these rights for our fellow human beings as well. But this is a fine line we walk. When we march to peoples' rescue under the banner of human rights, is that what those people really want? Cultures which have evolved under dictatorships may not be evolved enough to handle the immediate affect and responsibility of democracy. Old habits die hard. When we observe a dictatorial government that is oppressive and denying those human rights to its citizens, we should intervene? If we should intervene, once human rights are restored through the removal of the dictator, how do we decide when it is time to go home and leave the people to their own resources? Should we allow them to fight a civil war (which is often what happens when the strong arm of dictatorship is removed) or should we take sides and support one side of that civil war? These are questions that must be answered before we go marching in as saviors under the banner of Human Rights. Sometimes, harsh as it may sound, the people may be better off in the long run if we just mind our own business. But then it may not. Each situation will need to be evaluated on its own merits without emotional knee jerk reactions and with a long term plan encompassing all the social factors as well as military strategies.

In addition, we must remember we are not attempting to spread Democracy or Prosperity through the world. We are only trying to protect those human rights. If we are trying to save the world by bringing them democracy, we are no better than the missionaries of old who went forth killing people in order to save their souls through Christianity.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=6 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:06:08 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=6
The best alternative to the IRS proposed yet is the Automated Payment Tax. The APT system is the most fair and equitable system yet proposed and will not require the bureaucracy we currently have in the IRS. No forms to file and no way to beat the system. Visit the web site http://www.apttax.com/index.htm of the people who have done the leg work on this and listen to their ideas. I'm sure you will be impressed.]]>
The best alternative to the IRS proposed yet is the Automated Payment Tax. The APT system is the most fair and equitable system yet proposed and will not require the bureaucracy we currently have in the IRS. No forms to file and no way to beat the system. Visit the web site http://www.apttax.com/index.htm of the people who have done the leg work on this and listen to their ideas. I'm sure you will be impressed.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=5 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:04:06 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=5
A more practical approach is needed in order to preserve the rights of women and the rights of the unborn as well. An approach which recognizes the potential for life but the realities of life as well. An approach which recognizes quality of life for all as well as just the existence of one. The only way to do this is to draw the line at the difference between potential life and sustainable life. Now, it could be argued that with today’s technology, any potential life has the capability of becoming sustained life, however, a more practical approach with natural criteria should be used. For most purposes, the third trimester approach works well and has for decades.

Therefore, the best approach to the question of abortion is to allow women to choose whether or not they wish to nurture a child so long as that choice is made while that life is still just potential. Especially when the woman had no choice in the matter such as rape.

However, this does not absolve the woman from responsibility in making choices about her future. Nor does it take the man off the hook either. People as a whole need to learn how to control their basic instincts when those instincts will lead to an unintended future. That is why any approach to abortion needs to include education of our younger population recognizing how hormones cloud their judgment. Sex education is the beginning. But beyond teaching our kids the facts of life, we need to teach them responsibility and consequences of their actions.

The question of abortion is not just about ending a potential life, it is about the quality of life for all people and the approach all people have toward life. There is a connection between how we as a people live our lives and the outcome of individual actions. Only through teaching our children thoroughly and by setting proper examples can we avoid the social consequence that has become abortion.]]>
A more practical approach is needed in order to preserve the rights of women and the rights of the unborn as well. An approach which recognizes the potential for life but the realities of life as well. An approach which recognizes quality of life for all as well as just the existence of one. The only way to do this is to draw the line at the difference between potential life and sustainable life. Now, it could be argued that with today’s technology, any potential life has the capability of becoming sustained life, however, a more practical approach with natural criteria should be used. For most purposes, the third trimester approach works well and has for decades.

Therefore, the best approach to the question of abortion is to allow women to choose whether or not they wish to nurture a child so long as that choice is made while that life is still just potential. Especially when the woman had no choice in the matter such as rape.

However, this does not absolve the woman from responsibility in making choices about her future. Nor does it take the man off the hook either. People as a whole need to learn how to control their basic instincts when those instincts will lead to an unintended future. That is why any approach to abortion needs to include education of our younger population recognizing how hormones cloud their judgment. Sex education is the beginning. But beyond teaching our kids the facts of life, we need to teach them responsibility and consequences of their actions.

The question of abortion is not just about ending a potential life, it is about the quality of life for all people and the approach all people have toward life. There is a connection between how we as a people live our lives and the outcome of individual actions. Only through teaching our children thoroughly and by setting proper examples can we avoid the social consequence that has become abortion.]]>