Obviously this vertigo I'm experiencing is even
making me write drunk.
I should have said.
Well Bill,
They are the best proof I know that genetics is not
cumulataive and intelligence is not inherited but learned.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] interesting
site & 14 points of consideration
Well Bill,
They are the best proof I know that genetics is
not cumulative and intelligence is not inherited by learned.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:58
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] interesting
site & 14 points of consideration
Ray,
I subscribe to the WSJ and took USNews&WorldReport for a number of
years. I also subscribe to the Tampa Tribune. I have forgotten what the
liberal press looks like.
Bill
Maybe you should all read a few more
non-liberal choices on the internet. I've been doing research
because I want to poll them for my Festival. It is interesting what
you find being taught out there in the little colleges by Ph.D
economists. Make them poor and they will come home
to God. Poverty keeps them
Christian. They may have a point
there. That could be another reason they ultimately
don't like Jews, except for the rapture of course, Jews are
seen as helping each other be rich. Another case of
opposites not attracting. How much of this do you
think our addict President includes in his
religion? Anyone know the Robert Burns Poems The
Merry Maid of Chalcedon? I don't think they were referencing
that on this Chalcedon web site.
REH
Social Security and the
Family
Timothy D. Terrell
April 4, 2003
Families in our society are fragmented in
ways that would have been difficult to comprehend centuries ago. This is
all the more strange because we are better able than any of our ancestors
to communicate and meet with family members. The market economy has
produced a wide variety of machines that allow us to speak with and see
people across thousands of miles, and travel distances in a few hours that
would once have taken weeks. With this capacity to keep in touch with
family members, why is it that we have a greater disregard for family
connections than did previous generations?
Perhaps one reason is that we are less dependent on one another than in
times past. Before the state began to provide welfare in its various
forms, unemployment insurance, and Social Security, the family and the
church were the primary sources of assistance for an individual suffering
hardship. The family would properly be the first resort when individual
resources were exhausted (I Timothy 5:8, 16). Thus, the individual
who neglected family obligations, was quarrelsome, or isolated himself
geographically from the family became exposed to greater risk.
The wider availability of insurance has increased the ability of the
individual to purchase protection from some hazards. Yet even when
insurance can alleviate some risks, there are serious eventualities that
would cause an isolated individual or small family to suffer immensely if
the family or church does not step in. Insurance arrangements are better
suited for those events that are unlikely, expensive, and are not
substantially influenced by the insured's own behavior. Insurance is not
for events that are likely. For example, aging, and a decline in the
ability to earn income, is a likely event in the lives of most people.
Saving is better preparation for retirement than insurance. In the event
that catastrophic loss destroys savings, or higher-than-expected expenses
mean that the savings are inadequate, the family or church may be called
upon for help.
Social Security is a poor substitute for this kind of old-age "safety
net," in addition to whatever we might be able to say about its being
beyond the legitimate scope of the civil government. First, Social
Security is a wealth transfer scheme and not a savings plan or a charity.
Money paid into the system goes to fund the benefits of current Social
Security recipients, and not into actual savings accessible only by the
contributor. Payments do not stop when the total amount received comes to
more than the person paid in over their lifetime, plus any reasonable rate
of interest. Instead, the payments continue, courtesy of those still
working (who have no say in whether they pay in to the system or not).
Second, Social Security does not allow for the use of discretion in
relief of the impoverished. Yet the Bible requires us to use discretion in
deciding whether to provide assistance, how much assistance to provide,
and the nature of the assistance (e.g., I Timothy 5:3-16).
Third, Social Security does not allow unused benefits to be retained
and passed on to heirs as an inheritance. In contrast, family funds
allocated to the support of an elderly family member would remain in the
control of the family if the supported individual should not live as long
as expected.
Fourth, Social Security is poor stewardship of the resources used to
fund the system. Because it is a wealth transfer scheme instead of actual
savings, the money going into the system is not being invested in the
economy. The economy's rate of growth is substantially slowed by Social
Security, as several economic studies have shown.
Finally, Social Security eliminates some of the economic benefits that
come from having large families. William Mattox, Jr., writing in USA
Today (July 6, 1999), notes Allan Carlson's argument that today's
smaller families may be related to Social Security:
[I]t's funny how "maybe one" advocates never get around to
complaining about the fact that their Social Security benefits will be
largely financed by other people's children. Indeed, Allan Carlson,
president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, points
out that government old-age programs tend to disrupt the natural
economic incentive for adults to invest themselves in child rearing.
Carlson says that if Social Security did not rob Peter to pay Paul,
Americans would be more apt to appreciate the long-term social-insurance
value of raising children. And Americans would be more apt to question
various economic projections about how ridiculously "expensive" child
rearing is today.
The presence of Social Security can serve as an excuse for family
members, and the church, to dodge their responsibilities to widows and
orphans. Because Social Security is available, parents may not be as
concerned about maintaining a close relationship with their children, or
church members with their church. When one is not financially dependent on
another, one may be less inclined to resolve differences and pursue peace.
The church is a backup for the family when the family cannot provide
for its own needy (again, see I Timothy 5:16). Yet the family
should be the first recourse when disaster strikes. Social Security
bypasses the church, and makes the church and the family unit less
economically relevant, and therefore less effective.
How, then can our society move toward a more family- and
church-oriented system of economic dependencies, and away from our current
dependency on the state? The first step will be a renewed recognition of
the mutual responsibilities family members and church members have toward
one another, and a preparation to meet those needs. Families should save
not only for vacations, houses, education, and retirement, but for
emergencies beyond the immediate family. Churches should become sources of
practical assistance, and not simply direct the needy to state programs.
Next, the state can assist in returning charity and old-age provision
to families by phasing out Social Security. There is no way to do this
without someone losing some benefit they expected. Some group is going to
receive less than it expected, whether those currently receiving benefits
or those currently paying in to the system. Cutting benefits will succeed
politically only if a large number are "grandfathered" into the current
benefits setup. But the sooner Social Security taxes are ended, the sooner
money will be freed up to go into personal savings and charitable efforts.
Some nations have phased out their own Social security systems by moving
to required contributions to individual IRA-type investments. The state
has no legitimate authority to require people to provide for their
retirement in any fashion, but at least the wealth redistribution aspect
of old age provision would be reduced.
As difficult as the politics may be, eliminating Social Security is, I
believe, a moral obligation. The closer we move to reestablishing the
family as an economic support network, the stronger our society will be.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 11:49
AM
Subject: [Futurework] interesting
site & 14 points of consideration
Just thought I would drop
this in the mix as a site some may like to visit. This book is mentioned
on the page that was forwarded to me.
Darryl
Don't Nobody Anybody
- The Basics of
Rankism "From the moment a child gets out of bed
in the morning until she is safely tucked in at night, there's one
central mission: the avoidance of humiliation at all costs. We have to
be so careful not to subject children to public humiliation." - Dr, Mel
Levine, Oprah Winfrey Show
When the somebodies of the
world abuse their power, the nobodies lose their dignity. Without
dignity, people lose heart and can become angry and hostile. When we
respect each other, we can have peace.
"Pulling rank over others may
be the ultimate cause of violence in the world today." - Robert W.
Fuller
Robert Fuller's new
book Somebodies
and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank has been garnering a
good deal of interest as he tours North America. He recently included
NSP headquarters on his itinerary and we were delighted to host him over
lunch as he talked about rankism. The June issue of Fast
Company is also featuring the book in its "Stuff off the Month"
section, as follows:
Book: I'm a Somebody -
Get Me Out of Here! Everybody wants to be somebody - even if it's only for 15
minutes. That's not just the American Dream: It has become an
inalienable right (not to mention the prevailing logic of prime-time
TV). The problem is, almost every rise is accompanied by a humiliating
fall. The most illustrious somebody is made to feel like a Nobody at
some point. And here's the twist: In a world where everybody is striving
to be Somebody, Nobodies might have the edge. That's the intriguing
argument that Robert W. Fuller, former president of Oberlin College (and
a self-described "former Somebody", makes in his bold new book,
Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank (New
Society Publishers).
Like a Betty Friedan for the
21st century, Fuller sets out to debunk the "Somebody mystique." The
problem is that whether we idolize J. Lo or J. Welch, our hero worship
doesn't get us any closer to success in our own lives. What's more,
Fuller argues, it obscures the true definition of greatness: In order
really to be Somebody (who's famous for more than being famous), you
have to continue to grow, to venture into the unknown, to learn from
others who are more expert than you. In other words, you have to be
willing to be a Nobody again (and again).
- Polly LaBarre, Fast
Company magazine, June, 2003.
In addition, some 14 points to
consider:
Note: Canada is not far behind in this (although hidden) when one
views the actions of our elected officials.
"FASCISM ANYONE?" - The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
Dr. Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, p.20
http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/ Dr. Lawrence Britt, a
political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia),
and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes shared 14
identifying characteristics of fascism:
1. Powerful
and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the
Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the
need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that
human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The
people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture,
summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as
a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying
patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common
threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals;
communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of
the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems,
the military is given a disproportionate amount of government
funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military
service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The
governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively
male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are
made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and
anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.
Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly
controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic
mediaspokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war
time, is very common. (Look what's happening at
the F.C.C. under Powell jr. right now! K)
7.
Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion
and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations
tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to
manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the
religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The
industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are
the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a
mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power
elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the
organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are
severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the
Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open
hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for
professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free
_expression_ in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse
to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and
Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost
limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to
overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties in the name
of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually
unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant
Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are
governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other
to government positions and use governmental power and authority to
protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
appropriated or even outright stolen by government
leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes
elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even
assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to
control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and
manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control
elections.
|