What WIll the Political Forms of D.W.S.W.M. Be in 2014-2015

One wonders how the D.M.S.W.M. movement in America will develop in the final two years of the Obama administration. The movement has been of tremendous service in lowering the overall portion of the national income of the poor and middle class while promoting the apposite prior underprivileged. S.W.M.’s wrote the liberal constitution of the U.S.A. and that liberalism has bestowed upon the non-S.W.M. class the mismo (same) rights as themselves overtime including economic opportunity. Yet the question arises as a result if the inclusion of the anti-S.W.M. faction, Marxists, atheists and so forth will compensate for the decay of the economically creative class, the economic egalitarianism of the 20thn century in the U.S.A. and several other substantial points of civil rights for all rather than racial and gender power transfer within a wealth-is-concentrated and American economic and political power and independence lost to globalism.

The American broadcast media has undergone a metamorphosis since the late 1980s into a K.G.B. style tool for the rich. It presents the points of view of a very restricted political class non-representative of the majority and the genius of individuals. Jean Paul Sartre said that the fundamental relationship of the listener (or viewer) to broadcasters is impotence. Politicians have been therefore happy to be embedded with the media for political control of the silent masses. Politicians could have reallocated the broadcast wavelengths to local, independent citizen podcast in Delta quality burst transitions on micro freqs with digital radio receivers. Any citizen could have a local broadcast minute or more if they wanted…well, approaching a century of elite media control maybe democracy is in decay with corporatism replacing it.

In the near future it may be possible for the N.S.A. and the I.R.S. united to assure that no American is thinking of not reporting income or buying anything the government doesn’t know about or regulate. It is remarkable that the tax cut for the rich and cut the size of government without balanced budgets unrealism is accepted and basic budget perfidy accepted so easily. The D.M.S.W.M. movement seems to allow a fundamental acceptance of Federal incompetence and corruption on things economic with happy meal labor reporting a better job picture even in the worst of times.

The promotion of the G.L.T.H.N. (Gay Lesbian Transgender Hermaphrodite Neutered) minority power putsch with the belligerent attack on sane sex heterosexual marriage is largely a result of the Z.P.G. politics of the elites united with the Affirmative Action D.W.S.W.M.  It doesn’t make for a rosy economic outlook for some of us in 2014.

About My Poem 'Rage Against the Meatheads'

The nature of reality is of course a perennial philosophical question. One must have regard for Zoroastrians because of their history of experiencing terrible purges by the Moslem world in Iran. That said Nietzche and Schopenhauer each were influenced by Zoroastrian dualism making inferences about morality-in error I think- in response to the metaphysical paradigm developed in their subjective world views.

One might have a Higgs field paradigm for a Universe or interpret material solid state physics in numerous ways yet other than deriving a natural law paradigm from the evolving Universe as perhaps Cicero did in his day, the better transcending moral structure coheres within the soteriological expression of the Gospel.

Schopenhauer's 'Fourfold Roots of Reason' was a brilliant continuation of Kant's 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics' that is a sort of precis of the' Critique of Pure Reason'. Schopenhauer however derived from Zoroastrianism and perhaps a little from Augustine a pessimistic belief that the world is simply evil and illusory-hence a reference indirectly to Brahmanism too. With the world being evil (as if it were only the political world) morality may be dispensed with for many. That same paradigm applies to contemporary politicsbased on atheist interpretation of evolution.  Nietzche's eternal recurrence metaphysics criterion drew him to infer that morality is de trop... I disagree.

I ought to say that God evolving a Universe within solid state physics that are in-themselves contingent is fine with me. Phase changes can occur anytime-and God is eternal rather than within the temporal field

The Planets are Cold Syrup (poem)

The planets are cold syrup
thick in the night
frosts rime over the worlds held in absolute zero
like aloof beacons screeching through never land
sweet with possibilities
they are cold dreams dormant through time

Everything said through electrons
dots with the dashes of interval
rhythms scaling up ladders to nowhere
bricks in the xy axis of rational number's infinities
have phenomenal moments of meaning
like the shadows of great volcanic slopes
changing as the planets rotate around.

Will Obamacare Pay for Steroids for Boomers?

Obamacare is an onerous and impractical way to deliver cost-effective medical provisioning to the poor, even so one must consider its practical value if any.

Plainly the military and civilian applications of steroid muscle recovery boosters are substantial. Will health providers regard steroid supplements as valid medically when it creates better health for the elderly? While it is easy enough to imagine tired, worn down soldiers in a cold environment perhaps with malnutrition and injury benefiting form steroid boosters it is less common to foresee the benefits of keeping the elderly in good muscular condition when natural muscle repair capacity of the body decreases.

Synopsis of the Gospel of John

Recently I have been reading a well known book on the New Testament by Berkhof. Written long ago its analysis and commentary is quite good. Periodically I may publish my own commentary on Berkhof's commentary. Some readers of the Bible never consider regarding it analytically and that is fine, yet after many years of reading the Bible it is also fun to abstract its structure. Berkhof was quite good at that.

John is the gospel differing from the synoptics significantly. The disciple was an elder when the book was written for the churches of Asia at the request of the Bishops. Berkhof provides insights into why John’s gospel is so theologically deep and contemplative seemingly rather than simply matter-of-fact about the works of The Lord.

Berkhof believed that John’s temperament that made him prone to ‘vehemence of character’ and ‘great strength’ bringing them to miss a little on the subtlety of love. Jesus named John and his brother James Boanerges- sons of thunder. John were corrected by the Lord on several occasions (i.e. Mk. 9: 38; Lk. 9:49;Lk 9:54 & Mt. 20: 20-24; Mk. 10: 35-41). Berkhov believed the correction changed John sufficiently that he became more reflective and thoughtful about the deeper meaning of the Lord’s incarnation on Earth. While the beginning of John’s gospel is brilliant theologically even so we can discern in the Revelation again something of the vehement character of the disciple applied to prophecy.

Berkhof divides the gospel of John into five parts like the synoptics.  In itself that coincidence seems remarkable and possibly a result of book packaging by design, quite a skill set for any publisher of the era, oh well, with God’s help…

1)      The Advent and Incarnation of the Word

2)    The Incarnate Word the only Life of the World

3)    The Incarnate Word, the Life and Light, in Conflict with Spiritual Darkness

4)    The Incarnate Word saving the Life of the World through his Sacrificial Death,

5)    The Incarnate Word, risen from the Dead, the Saviour and Lord of all Believers

John’s gospel is written with the authority of an eyewitness Berkhof notes. In chapter one verse 14 John relates that “we beheld his glory” and in 19:35. “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe”.

Berkhof’s analysis of elements of the book of John following his treatment of the five sections of the gospel comprise.

1) Characteristics

    A- John’s gospel ‘emphasizes the divinity of Christ

    B- Teaching of Christ are discourses and a couple allegories yet no parables in John’s gospel

    C- John features Judea and Jerusalem and not Galilee as in the synoptic gospels

    D- More definite about time and place of events than synoptics

    E- ‘Hardly any Hebraisms’ because book was written for Greek speaking readers

2) Authorship

Berkhof points out that opinion of authorities of antiquity were nearly unanimous in crediting John with writing the fourth gospel. Berkhof notes that for John Hebrew was a native language and he is completely at home in the cultural concepts yet learned plain Greek very well. John’s Greek sentence construction is not elaborate.

John does not use his known name in the gospel either, instead referring to himself in the third person as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Cf. 13: 23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:2, 3, 4, 8; 21:7.”

Berkhof considers more recent criticisms of John the Apostle as the author and/or that the gospel was written in the second century knocking those down adroitly. Interesting reading though, even if only to discover the basis for such opinions.

3) Composition

      A- Readers and purpose – Likely to the churches of Asia Minor that were having trouble with a heresy of Cerinthus, and also to get the authorized record of a living disciple of Christ while it was possible.

      B  Time and place – Probably between 68 and 98 A.D.

      C   Method- The Gospel of John is of an autopic character, that is, he recollected from memory and did not much use written documents although he was familiar with them, and even presupposes the reader’s familiarity with the synoptics. John remembers the ‘elaborate discourses’ of the Lord and writes of those in his own style, as if they differed little.

4) Canonical Significance- Berkhof reports that antiquity accepted the book of John as canonical from the earliest time except for Marcion and the Alogi. The Alogi it was remarked rather humorously may have been just one fellow, one Epiphanius of a Monarchist sect.

Year Ending Note on Logical Fallacies

Logic is a fascinating tool for distilling the gist-the truth, falsehood and accuracy of written points and perhaps not so much of spoken words, since demotic rave talk and hurry-up inaccuracy plus shortcuts and implicit assumptions that the listener is familiar with the situation hold it to a lower standard of accuracy in explicit meaning commonly. Since it’s about the end of 2013 it’s worth mentioning logical fallacies, what they are and why they are so much fun.

Wikipedia and many other sites have lists of logical fallacies. One doesn’t need to read a text on classical and symbolic logic to benefit from learning what logical fallacies and how to recognize them. Here is a list from a Wikipedia article of basic categories of fallacies though there are numerous other ways of describing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Formal Fallacies

Propositional Fallacies

Quantification fallacies

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Informal fallacies

A syllogism is an abstract method for reducing arguments made in language to a simple structure that can be tested for truth value. There are 256 possible forms of syllogism and just 23 are valid. In a text named ‘Elements of Logic’ the philosopher W.V.O. Quine demonstrated how to build a system of logic from the ground up. It’s still worth reading though there are more modern texts inclusive of contemporary systems of symbolic logic.

I suppose that media arguments nearly invariably use distribution fallacies when talking about federal debt, federal budget, the national unemployment rate and so forth. One can use time errors as well as material errors in making quantification and I suppose distribution fallacies. The worst thing is when politicians themselves are unaware of the logical error of their arguments.

Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal in 2016 for Repubs?

With the U.S. Economy rebuilding upon a slippery slope foundation and such large public debt, high unemployment and ecosphere reform challenges its difficult to imagine that many Republicans will be interested in running for the White House in 2016. Perhaps two likely candidates with a chance of winning are New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. With the NFL regular season ending tomorrow its worth looking to and beyond the playoffs.

One wonders if Gov. Christie would be anything like the late John Belushi?







Image credit of Gov. Bobby Jindal to Greg Skidmore by wikipedia













image of Gov. Chris Christie via wikipedia

Demo Federal Judges, Broadcast Bigots & The Hostile Homosexual Takeover

Like nativity scenes on courthouse lawns that were normal and customary until a profusion of godless atheists rocked the boat in court and federal judges concurred on corruption, marriages were heterosexual-only in the U.S.A. before the Obama administration decay. While there is a pretext constitutionally for a separation of church and state with the no establishment of religion item, nothing at all is written about marriage. In fact government has no requirement whatsoever to participate in anything regarding marriage or to recognize it legally though religious marriages are free to exist. Existentially speaking, government could allow corporations to marry, or decide that temporary marriages could be made between politicians and electorates. Creative fiction can be made in government promulgation of law when Occam’s razor is eliminated as criteria for legislation and judicial decision.

Government reinforcement of marriages was a traditional role even so far as selling marriage licenses. Yet in the post-modern age of biological and social trans-morphology perhaps it is time for government to step aside and withdraw from the non-constitutional task of regulating or sponsoring an institution of marriage.

There is no rational reason for homosexual marriage based on biology. Male and females procreate together instead of amongst the same sex. If there is to be no rational foundation for state involvement in marriage-not even in order to prevent incest (what two queers are going to produce deficient progeny with sex?) then it will be difficult for immoral government judges to explain why two sisters or two brothers can not marry as homosexuals and further, in order to assure equality and non-bigotry, that sisters and brothers and even parents ought not be allowed to marry.

A science fiction story ‘Lazarus Long’ was written by a graduate of the naval academy with such an existential marriage paradigm. Biotech screens for genetic deficiency were used as the sole paradigm for screening procreation. When biological rationalism is removed from the paradigm for marriage there are no boundaries. Government should not inevitably be such a worst-case evil dictator of immorality just because it has nuclear weapons and unlimited force to compel states to comply with perversion by judicial decree.

The forces of doom will polemically label resistors to the pseudo-scientific morphing of society to amoral subjectivity under bio-engineering as phobes of the homo agenda. The salient bigots in the U.S.A. today are broadcast media sycophants of satanic psychology

Federal courts moved to force states to permit homosexual marriage with the Utah case the lever godless elites of the Government apply to dictate immorality to all the states.

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4218829

A Federal judge also found the N.S.A.’s invasive surveillance program lawful dismissing an A.C.L.U. suit

It is wrong for the courts to veto democracy-2/3rds of Utah voters voted for a ban on homosexual marriages- and force the will of the wicked on the people of the United States. If 2/3rds of Americans were to vote to ban invasive federal surveillance programs in the states it is certain that the Obama administration would say with support from select federal judges that you lot of n’s can’t do that.

Federal Courts Move to Dictate Morality to States/Veto Democracy

Federal courts have moved to force states to permit homosexual marriage with the Utah case being perhaps the basic test of the power of godless elites in the Government to dictate morality to the states.

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4218829

Homosexual marriage is not only sinful it’s fundamentally irrational. In an age of pseudo rationalism because of the influence of scientific thought the left seems to accept an existentialist economic method of limitless debt being o.k. and without future adverse consequences for the poor and middle class and force homosexual marriage upon all of the states-not just those exceptionally atheistic.

Marriage is about security for couples procreating and raising progeny. It was developed for the defense of women and to stop males from fighting over female so much. The state has conferred some financial helps to married couples traditionally because primarily for two reasons; 1) Marriage security is costly and 2) Raising families was encouraged.

There is of course a difference between civil and religious marriages-neither requires the other yet neither is necessarily exclusive, that is each can occur for one couple. Homosexual fans have sought to expropriate marriages for the financial benefits placing a burden on those that are not married to pay for that superfluous and wicked lunacy. Reason would inform one that homosexual couples could ensnare themselves with whatever legal contractual obligations they like and not make a hostile takeover of marriage. Yet it seems a basic in-your-face sort of moral decay is required by Democrat Judges as if the founders would have supported homosexual marriages.

It is wrong for the courts to veto democracy-2/3rds of Utah voters voted for a ban on homosexual marriages- and force the will of the Harvard Law School, Boston, San Francisco and other leftist cities on the people of the United States.

If marriage is really superfluous even for heterosexuals because of social prosperity then the financial benefits of marriage could be cut back ton rational levels. Marriage was a particular thing with a particular reason for existing, instead of bureaucratically expanding the definition to create an irrational and larger state bureaucracy new different structures suitable for what people that want to sanctify homosexual behavior require could develop.  If there were laws made to regulate avian behavior, they ought not to be applied to reptiles. If adults can stay up till government curfew it doesn't follow that children should and if heterosexual couples required some sort of state financial advantage in times of yore it doesn't follow that homosexual behavior in the third millennium ought to be regarded in the same context as man-woman procreators of the past.

Mendenhall Glacier Nov 2013