Definition - #301 - #09 - The question that solves “ALL”!

(“If you’re stuck in a rut, it’s because you don’t have a “successful alternative!!”)

Suppose I gave you a standard question that stops all argument and meaningless discussion?
(However, it’s a question that requires a “moderated” answer ….a true answer to a question! Not another vague “for instance”, or, “my uncle used to say”, or, “I believe ….” NO!… It must be a true answer to the specific question!)

(So here it is …)**** “What’s the successful alternative?” ****

The true answer starts with the words … “A successful alternative is ….” (or might be) ….

You start with these words and I’ll listen to you all day!!!

BUT!!! .. Start with “For instance…”, or, “Another way to look at it is…” or anything else; and I would rather take a nice warm bath!!!

The question calls for a specific response… i.e. “A successful alternative!!!” Not a criticism, not a description, not “anything else”!!! …. Just a “specific response!!!!
This “question” stops meetings, family arguments, political tirades, complaints, etc.

No one is currently being challenged for a constructive idea, namely, “a successful alternative”. There’s usually immediate silence!! But human nature being what it is, you are liable to begin to hear…”Well. for instance…”

It’s now necessary to call “time”!! ….to remind people that you have asked a specific question which requires a specific “answer”!! This is my reference to a “moderated response”. You lose all the advantages of “the question” if you don’t immediately have people stay within the rules….. “A successful alternative is …”

Most people have not been trained; or, have not been made aware of, the direct way to answer a specific question. In fact, most people never do answer directly. They will usually postulate a different question or circumstance as an answer to a question. Perhaps not having an immediate, appropriate answer causes them to become insecure and their immediate response is supposed to gain “time”. You will also get a “defensive”, aggressive response from people who, either, don’t have a response or become defensive when they are out of ideas. It’s very revealing!!!

Such a simple question .. “What’s the successful alternative?”

What a revealing response you can get. One thing for sure; if you have a little control over the path of the discussion (as a moderator), it will become quite silent. The comments that follow will become more meaningful, more useful. (No more shouting. … No more “oral static”)

(It, also, just might start the exchanges in a search for a “mutual” definition!!! …Wouldn’t that be nice!!!!)

Definition - #301 - #8 – The “house painter”, the “Art student”, and the “Wise man”

And now a story……

A man paints a kitchen chair blue. There are no runs, no blank spots, no paint on the floor, etc. He gets a ticket to the Louvre Museum and stands before the Mona Lisa.
“My God what a painter! There’s no paint on the frame. The floor is clean. There’s no paint on the walls. My God what a painter!”
An art student, after four long years, finally graduates from graduate school and goes before the Mona Lisa.
“My God what a painter! Look at the brush strokes, the composition, his palette. My God what a painter!
The wise man goes before the Mona Lisa and ponders and then says “I wonder why he painted that picture?”

So each person has there own special reaction based on his experience. None is correct or right. They’re only different………
But if you want to be a house painter, for heaven’s sake stay with house painters. You will not be comfortable with others.
If you’re an art student, at least be aware of the trip to be taken to become a “wise” man. Try to understand the difference. Try to understand the effort involved.

(Of course, that’s only if you want to become something different than you are now!! There always are other choices. You can always stay the same and be comfortable with the people like yourself.)

Definition - #301 - #7 – What’s the difference between a Conversation and an Argument?

If you don’t clearly know the difference between “an argument” and “a conversation”, the chances are you are “arguing” 90 % of the time!!! Is that what you want? Well, how do you know, if you don’t know the difference!!!

Before you start defending yourself, let me ask and answer some questions……

1. If you think one is louder than another; can’t you have a quiet “argument”? How about the Supreme Court? Don’t they “argue” most of the time? Volume is NOT the difference!!
2. If you have a disagreement, do you have to have an “argument”? Can’t you disagree and still have a quiet “conversation”? Disagreement is NOT the difference!!
Get the problem? If you knew the difference, someone could argue with you; but, you wouldn’t have to argue with them. While they’re arguing, you would be “conversing”!! …. Possible???… You bet!!

I would like to propose some definitions…….

1. A “conversation” is an oral exchange, between two or more people, WHERE THE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO EXCHANGE VIEWS. One must reach “mutual definitions and understandings” of these views. With no positive attempt to gain “mutual understanding, we don’t begin to have even a “meaningful dialogue”.

2. An “argument” is an oral exchange between, two or more people, where ONE PERSON STATES HIS OPINION AS FACT”!!! There is little or no attempt to find mutual understanding!! One is faced with a personal opinion stated as a fact. “You are wrong!’…. “Americans think …” …… “The government is….” There’s no discussion. There’s no attempt to state that “this is only your opinion”. This is stated as a fact!!! That’s an “argument”.

Try this question on your friends. If you really ask good questions about the “so called answers” you receive, you’ll prove to yourself that most people do not understand the difference!

If the purpose of meaningful oral exchange is to get someone to understand your point of view, the least you can do is “NOT” state your opinion as a “fact” but merely as “your opinion”. At least that’s a first step!! If they’re not motivated or trained (educated?) to ask meaningful questions about what you meant; they will immediately react by giving you their opinion stated as “the fact”. The fight is on!!!

If the purpose of “your” oral exchange is to find out what your friend “meant”, you will react by asking good, clear, meaningful questions. They may want to argue. You want to “understand”. If, then, you wish to give your point of view, state it as “your, personal point of view”….. “NOT as a fact”!!!

(Much of this subject has to do with “definitions’. Obviously if you still don’t know what the “definition of a definition” is, you are “handicapped” to begin with!! … see, again, Series #101 - # 02)

Definition - #301 - #54 - The NEW America - get used to it!

New communities grow where there are foreign languages spoken and where there are customs and traditions that are foreign to American citizens.

“Multi-culturalism” is a popular slogan. Do you really know what it means? Does everyone have the same ideas about this slogan?

New interpretatations about the Law and, whether or not the Law even exists, are to be expected in some of these new communities. After all, bribery is a way of life in some foreign countries! In some communities there is no law!

The arrival of foreign T.V. programs on the daily media constantly express the value of assimilating to the language and culture of the American experience. Nothing makes people want to exist in a comfortable environment more than a language that is familiar. Why bother to assimilate?....(in the Law or in Language?)

If unfamiliar customs (of politeness, of quality in the workplace or in the home, graciousness …first in line or a left hand turn, etc.) are unrecognizable; then we American citizens must get used to it and recognize it for what it is…unfamiliar in some of the foreign communities. It’s a case of unfamiliarity not flat something that’s done willfully. If a written contract is violated, let it be “unfamiliarity” rather than willful neglect…….. Get used to it!

If, as an American citizen, you lean on the letter of the law to protect you; do not wonder why this isn’t as effective as it once was….”unfamiliarity”! The law is now something to be beaten rather than a coarse of conduct. The Government is something to take advantage of rather than some process “to aid and comfort” for the short time….(not a way of life!)

If we have certain American citizens that do not make a life of Government a dole; we are not giving permission to others to follow this criminal few. We Americans recognize that all its citizens do not obey the laws. But we have built a society that works reasonably well. Newcomers to this society or this country must find a way to contribute….in both money and in “familiarity” with our customs and laws. This is what made America a land of opportunity….NOT a land to be taken advantage of!

The NEW America “is not nor will it” be the land we knew. It’s changing! There are an increasing number of strange faces and languages in our society. Can we keep it “a land of opportunity”? We realize there are changes. Can we keep these changes in such a way that the spirit of America does not change! Will “unfamiliarity” or “familiarity” be the watchword?

Definitions - #301 - #6 - How to find out what you “DON”T” know!!!

What a question !!! ….Whaddy’a mean find out what you “DON”T” know!!!!!
How do you do that?
How can you find out about something you don’t know anything about!!!
How can you ask for help if you don’t know what you need help “about”????
How can you get advice from your “guru” if you don’t know what to ask him???
If I don’t know …. I simply don’t know!!!! …..(You’re frustrating me!!!)

1. – Let me present a possible “successful alternative”…….

At the very least, you can explain your present dilemma to your “guru”. He can ask you questions until he’s sure he understands what you are trying to say. He “must” try to have a mutual understanding of what you are talking about! Can you, now, relate these simple facts to your “guru”. At least this IS something you CAN DO!!!! … Right???
Sometimes the mere attempt at explaining your dilemma in terms that another can understand is enough. You might have gained a new understanding about your situation by this simple exercise. Maybe you didn’t know “exactly” what you were thinking …or saying.

II. –However, here is what you accomplished ….

1. You and your “guru” can now attempt to have a “mutually understood exchange”, a conversation that is constructive because you have agreed on what you’re discussing.

2. Perhaps you have developed a question for him … namely ….What should I do about this? ….. What’s this all about? …. What are my “successful alternatives”? (Do you go to the Doctor and say …”Fix me up, Doc!” and don’t tell him what you feel like? After all this is not a game you are playing. You’re looking for help! Don’t you want to give him some information? )

III. – Here is what you need ……

1. You need a “guru” you can communicate with … someone who will question you about what you are actually saying (not what you meant to say) ….. someone who is trained to seek “mutual understanding” …. a “mutual definition”.

2. You need a “guru” who can help you express what you felt … “a successful alternative”, a new appreciation of the situation, a possible improvement, or (most importantly) if there is “nothing” you can do!!! (To know you can do “nothing” is as important as knowing if there is “something” you CAN do!!!!)

3. You need to know that you need assistance!!!! It’s difficult sometimes to try to understand everything by yourself. No one is going to eat you if you just try and listen and try to understand what another respected person’s idea is. You, too, must make an effort to question this other person so you can make sure you understand what he’s talking about. Don’t be in such a hurry to express your own opinions! After all, didn’t this conversation start with your desire to seek another person’s view? Didn’t you already have your own opinions? What have you gained if all you do is express your own opinions again? (Besides, the other person hasn’t the time for this useless exercise!)

IV. Perhaps the most difficult part of all of this is……
You must realize you need assistance.
You must realize this is NOT a criticism, or a deficiency in yourself.
You must realize that you do not need to defend yourself . (You have merely asked for another opinion!)
And, lastly, you can always disagree with what you’ve heard!!!

IV. – Please, please understand the difference between “repeating” what you’ve just heard or read; and, “understanding” what you’ve just heard or read!!!

A “Label” is no substitute for content or understanding!
Because you “name” it something does NOT add anything to my understanding!

“Volume” is no substitute for content or understanding!
Because you say it “louder and louder” doesn’t add to my understanding!

“Repetition” is no substitute for content or understanding!
Because you say it over and over again doesn’t add to my understanding!

Special Note:
As we discussed, “words” are important.
“Mutually defined and mutually understood” words are the ONLY meaningful way to exchange ideas.


“Is there a successful alternative?”

Definitions - #301 - #05 – To “know” versus to “understand”.

(The “Hammer and Nail” story)

I. First a story…….
Suppose I give you a hammer and a nail for the first time.
I “teach” you to use them.
You “learn” to use them.
You actually “use” them.
You “remember” how to you use them.
And finally, you “memorize” how to use them.
To repeat….I teach, you learn, you use, you remember, and you memorize how to use them.

Fairly complete? ….Yes? …….

So I give you a hammer and nail and you drive a nail right through the pane glass window!
You forgot one thing!!!
You don’t “understand” a hammer and a nail!!!! You “know” about a hammer and nail but you don’t “understand” the hammer and nail

II. Look what this means!!…..

I send you to school and they “teach’ you the English language.
You “learn” the English language.
You “use” the English language.
You “remember” the English language.
You “memorize” the English language ….. But you don’t “understand” the English language!!!!

III. You don’t recognize the difference between “to know” and “to understand”!!!! ….

IV. You can now imagine what this means….for now and for the future. Were you aware of the difference?

V. How are we going to cope with people who haven’t been introduced to this kind of thinking? We are talking about “Definition”, “Understanding”, “Mutual”, and “How do you have a thought?” “Is there a successful alternative?”; or, do we just have to recognize this deficiency and “do” something about it?

(By the way, who is capable of “teaching” this? …. Who “understands” this?)

Definitions - #301 - #04 - How do you have a thought?

I. Interesting question. “How do you have a thought?”
1. How does a “thought” differ from a “reflex”?
2. How does a “thought” compare with an “emotion”?
3. What kind of a “process” will help untangle these words?

II. Please try and be patient …... Please try to follow this little description:
(I would like to draw a sort of “mathematical picture” that I hope will help.)

1. If you take a dot in space and move it in a direction, you will create a “line in space” which we will call the “First Dimension”.
2. If you move the line in a direction you will create “plane in space” which we will call the “Second Dimension”.
3. If you move the plane in space you will create a “cube in space” which we will call the “Third Dimension”.
4. But the whole process cannot happen if there is no “space” which we’ll call the “Fourth Dimension”.
5. But if there’s no energy to move these “things” nothing could happen. We’ll call the moving force “energy” and it can be named the “Fifth Dimension”.
6. What is the source of this energy? We’ll call that the “Sixth Dimension” and so forth….

III. Now let’s try to use this picture in a “human” form.

1. If you have a “reflex” (i.e. breathing, smelling, hearing, etc.) , there is very little use of the brain. Let’s call “reflex” the “First human Dimension.
2. If you have an “emotion”, there is a little bit more brain power exerted in the reaction. Let’s call “emotion” the “Second human Dimension”.
3. If you use your “intellect” (i.e. for information, logic and reason …. more brain power), let’s call this the “Third human Dimension”.
4. There must be something beyond intellect, logic and reason. Let’s use the term “wise”. Let’s call “wise” the “Fourth human emotion”
5. There must be something beyond wise, let’s call it “faith”. Let’s call this the “Fifth human Dimension”. And so forth…..

IV. So…the more the “brain” is involved the higher the “Dimension.

1. “I’m completely emotional!” … this is an advertisement of a “Second Dimension” person….a person whose brain is only slightly involved. ….a little more than pure “reflex”, but still a minimum of “brain” involvement.
2. “I’m an intellect.” …. I believe that logic and reason are the end in itself…the highest form of human. This is an advertisement of a “Third Dimension” human. This person is unaware of any other “Dimension”; unaware that there’s more in life than pure logic and reason.
3. “He’s a wise person.” …. This is a person who knows that reason and logic (known information) are not the end of things. There must be more. It’s not necessary to know what it is. It’s only necessary to reach out and see what there might be, knowing that the search is the adventure. This is a description of a “Fourth Dimension” human being.
4. Etc., etc. …
5. Which “Dimension” are you? What “Dimensions” are your friends? Which dimension do you want to be?
(and ….Thanks for being patient….)

VI. So back to “How do you have a thought?”

1. You speak to yourself!!! You express something to yourself!! You USE WORDS!!! You talk to yourself!!
2. In each person’s throat there is a three way valve. One direction is “out of your mouth”. One direction is “to your brain”. One direction is “out of both at the same time”!
3. If you believe this, you can no longer say “It’s on the tip of my tongue!” Certainly you said something to yourself. You can certainly repeat what you told yourself, or, you simply did not have that thought!! You don’t own that thought!!
4. Think what happens if your communication skills are poor.

If your language is poor, your thoughts are poor!!
If your thoughts are poor, what do you think your conclusions are going to be like?
Can you make good choices if your thoughts are poor?

So, now, do you realize the connection between “Definition” and “Thought”?

Now do you realize how important language is? …….

Definitions - #301 - #03 -Words, Words, Words!!!!

(Whaddy’a mean “What do I mean”?)

Let’s try something……..

I. –“I would “like” to be an American.”
1) Which American?… A rich American, a poor American, an educated, an uneducated, a successful, an unsuccessful, a new citizen, an old citizen, a young, an old…..Get my drift?
2) What about a Southern American, a Northern one, a small town one, a big city one…Get my drift?
3) How about a Black American, a White, a female, a male, an Asian ….Get my drift?
4) “Who” are we talking about? …...… What do you mean?
5) Who do you wish to be “like”? …… What do you mean?
6) Yes, I do speak English!!!! ……….. “Whaddy’a mean?”

II. – “I would like to live in a country “like” America.”
1) Which “country”?... South, North, Mid West, farming country, city country, suburban country…
2) You mean “like” as in a “duplicate”; or, as in “with the all the same characteristics”; or, as in “some of the characteristics (i.e. Which ones in particular?) …Get my drift?
3) Which “country” are we talking about? …...Whaddy’a mean?
4) Which “America” are you talking about? ….Whaddy’a mean?

III. HOW ABOUT....I want to live in a “Democracy!!!”…Oh my gosh!!!
I want a “real relationship”!!! ……..Oh my gosh!!!
I want to be “free”!!! ………………Whaddy’a mean?

So, maybe now, you see the problem!!

If you don’t spend the time necessary to “mutually” communicate, to “mutually” arrive at a definition; you are merely making noises at each other. I doubt if the exchanges of noises will produce any significant results. Are you talking “at” someone; or, are you talking “with” someone. Did it ever occur to you to find out?

The “process” is “TO ASK!!!” … “ASK” what is meant!!!….Try to mentally meet each other, to arrive at “mutually” understood definitions…. Spend the time!!!…… “What’s the successful alternative??”


So, again, maybe now you see the problem!! ……..

Words, Words, Words!!!!

Definitions - #301 - # 02 – What’s “the” definition of a “definition”?

I. Unless you have tried to answer this question yourself, you will not have the appreciation and understanding of what this answer might be. Isn’t it true that if I point to the sky and remark how “green” the sky is today; and then, look at the grass and remark how “deep blue” the grass is today; that you could understand what I was referring to? You could then discuss the “green” sky with me. True, I could now identify your meaning of “green” with my usual meaning of “blue”. We could exchange. We have a “mutual” understanding of your definition of “blue and green”. It may not be efficient but it is “mutually” understandable.
We have “defined” blue and green by relating them to objects that we both can observe. We have “sort of defined the words” mutually. We both understand the terms in future exchanges. But, if I had not recognized the relationship with the objects of sky and grass, I wouldn’t have a clue to what you were referring!!! How about Republican, Democrat, free society, American…get what I’m getting at?

II. A “label” is no substitute for understanding.
Because you call “it” something, because you “name” it something; does NOT add to my understanding. It remains just a word. There is no “definition!

III. “Volume” is no substitute for understanding.
Because you say it “louder” does NOT increase my understanding!

IV. “Repetition” is no substitute for understanding.
Because you say it over and over again does NOT increase my understanding

V. Is there a successful alternative to “definition”?
Now do you see what happens if you don’t know the “definition of a definition”!! If you don’t know what it is; how are you going to have a “mutually understood” exchange with me. What we now have is “oral static”!!!

My definition of “oral static” is…..

“The proper placement of, proper English words, in a proper sentence that “means nothing!!!” …It’s just noise! …. It’s just “static”!!! … It’s just “oral static”!!

How often have you engaged in an exchange of “oral static”? Neither party is interested in finding out what the other party meant when they said “………..”

Neither party is trained, or educated, or motivated to try to first find out what the other party means. But as night follows day, each party will have an answer or an opinion of what “each thought the other meant!!!” If that isn’t an exchange of “oral static” I don’t know what is!! What’s the use? What is gained? There is no “mutual understanding”! It’s just noise!!

Yet people get angry. People get disgusted, frustrated, loud, etc. over something that neither party has tried to understand. …..They just stay there and yell at each other! … Leave in a huff! … All because people haven’t thought about the possibility of “first” trying to understand!


Talk about “conflict resolution”!!! How is that possible without “first” realizing that an effort must “first” be made to establish a “mutual definition” of what you’re talking about. Chances are that in a “mutual” pursuit of “mutual understanding” there will be little or no conflict.

So what do I think is the “definition of a definition”? ……..

My definition of “definition” is …

The word “Definition” is the name given to a “process” by which things are separated into ever smaller parts.
A rock is harder than snow, but softer than a diamond. A rock is heavier than a feather. A rock is usually rougher than silk. A rock can be almost as rough as barbed wire. Etc., etc. …..
By relating to things that we “both” are aware of, we engage in a “process” of breaking the word down into ever smaller distinctions. This can also be applied to “an idea”, to an opinion”. Before you can answer , you must first “define”.
“Is there a successful alternative”?

There is NO need to speak at each other, only with each other!
There is no need to yell (volume), no need to “repeat”, no need to “label” something (as though the “label” increases understanding).
No need to do anything “at” each other!! … only “with” each other!!

This could help to “define” the word “mutual” and “understanding”.

Without these thoughts, how can you have a “mutual exchange” that is meaningful, constructive, thought provoking? How can you have a “conflict resolution”? How can you enjoy the mutual exchange of thoughts and feelings? How can you truly enjoy your conversations with others?


So how important is the “definition of a definition”???

Current - #201 - #20 - Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with a "Peace" plan !

(Hard to argue with this logic!)

“I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan”:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?!

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

Definition - #301 - #53 - “To Ignore” is a good thing!”

“To ignore” is NOT TO FORGET but to temporarily put aside what you worry about!
You can “ignore” and find rest!

“Ignore” has a temporary feeling.
“Forget” has a permanent feeling.

“Ignore” means to temporarily put aside. It does not mean “to abandon”. You can find temporary relief from the things that stress you. You can always confront them later.
“To ignore” is not a bad attribute. It just means that you are tired and need a rest.

You can “ignore” an argumentative person but you don’t necessarily have to forget him. You can “ignore” a subject that seems inappropriate. You can “ignore” an ugly relationship. You do not have to eliminate it permanently. “Ignore” can be a great help in your life!

Sometimes the pain of having to give up on someone or something is simply too much. You can “ignore” it for a length of time and get back to it!….(If you wish…!)

Keep in mind the word “IGNORE”. It might be useful in the future!

Current - #201 - #19 - THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES !

By Paul Harvey – “Conveniently Forgotten Facts”

Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow Black Panther named... Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head.
Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn.

Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers. In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard, and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College.

Isn't that something? As a 60's radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean!

Only in America!

Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California School Board.

How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy?
Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial.

One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.

O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean?

No, neither!

The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the state of New York---- our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story." Pass this on!
This deserves the widest possible press.
Also remember it, if and when she runs for President!

Thought this was worth while reading.

Current - #201 - #18 - At least two different “worlds” …..

One “world” is a world filled with the imperfect “human beings”.
The other “world” is the “perfect world” filled with peace, harmony and bliss.

The world filled with the imperfect “humans” is filled with such things as the desire for food, shelter and survival (protection and safety). These “imperfects” developed the ideas of power, force, “haves and have nots”, motivation for a “better” life, improvement in their living conditions, accumulation for a rainy day, and more. With these desires came tension, disorder for a few, safety for a few, and a constant feeling of change. Change was a hope and change was a “disorder”. Some were content, some were unhappy. Everything was not the same! There were great differences!

The other “world” was without pain and suffering. It was with peace and bliss. It had its own language and definitions. It felt no need to be caught up in the “other world’s” problems. Somehow or other food , shelter and survival “were taken care of”. In fact, it often had its own communities, its own followers. They could communicate with each other in their own “language and ideas”. There was no need to communicate with the “outside world”, the world of the “imperfects”. “Join us” or live in the world of the “imperfects”. Isolation by ideas, language or philosophy seemed a likely answer to the pain and suffering of the “imperfect world”. Why challenge bliss?

So, we have at least two worlds.
They both have a right to exist. They both have a reason to exist. But they are quite different!

What happens in the meantime? Who changes? Who becomes responsible in the “meantime”? How do they express their responsibility?
If two worlds exist on one planet, how do they exist? …. In “isolation”?
Perhaps this is the way … isolation.
If neither world insists on its way, and they do not interfere in each other’s pursuits, perhaps “isolation” works. If the followers of one support the philosophy of “their world”, both spiritually and financially, and nether side uses the treasure of the other, “isolation” might work. But if the two mix in treasure and/or ideas, you have immediate conflict!

Since there are little means of communication, it is important that “isolationists” accept their role. There will probably be no way ever to communicate successfully. Each world will have to find its own way to survive.
The “secular” world”, the “religious “world, the world of “peace and bliss”, the world of “imperfects” …. (and more) …. WOW! We have a problem!!!!

Perhaps a few will try to “bridge the gap”, but for sure, it will only be a few!!
Since most of us will be unable to “bridge the gap”, the best we can hope for is compassion. Neither acceptance or allowance will be successful. You cannot accept or allow something you don’t even understand. Compassion for “isolation” is the best the many can hope for.

“No more war”! …. “Peace for all”! …. “No more killing”! …. “Save the whales”! … “Save the trees”!
“Save the environment”! … “Save the ozone layer!” …. “No more baby killings”! …. Etc., etc, etc.

It’s a Constitutional right…. But does it “solve” anything? …. Whose world???

Current - #210 - #17 - It’s just a sign….

"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH A SINGLE AMERICAN!"


(This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Philadelphia. You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement. One would think that anti-hate groups from all across the country would be marching on this business...)

“And that the National Guard might have to be called to keep the angry crowds back.
But, perhaps in these stressful times one might be tempted to let the proprietors simply make their statement . . .

We are a society who holds Freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty. . .”

(And after all, it is just a sign. You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign?)


Answer: A Funeral Home

(Who said morticians have no sense of humor?)



(Yet another lesson about judging before having all the facts!)

Current - #201 - #16 - Just Suppose ……..

Let’s play a game …. “Just Suppose….”
(The ideas mentioned do NOT have to be real. Some ideas may seem to have substance; but that’s NOT the point! This is a game…. “Just Suppose!”)

Suppose France and Germany do NOT feel threatened; or at least the politicians or their spokesman put out the word that “They don’t feel threatened anymore.” After all there’s no Russian threat, no nuclear threat, no land grab or “domination threat”, etc.

Suppose France and Germany think they can protect themselves. They don’t see any reasonable threat they can’t protect themselves against. After all, France has a vast percentage of Moslems in their world and they have active business and financial interests in Iraq. If anybody has good intelligence connections it should be France! Germany sells restricted goods and science to Iraq so they, too, should be aware of Iraq thoughts and movements. They, too, must feel secure.

Suppose these two countries AND OTHERS feel they no longer need the assistance of the U.S.A.!

Suppose they feel financially able to “get along”! They have vast public medical and retirement programs. (In France, you retire with 75% of your final salary!)
Suppose the general population is about as informed and logical as most general populations are. And suppose they live in an environment of reasonable freedom (that is… NOT ruled by a military, secret police, dictator state….) This “general population” tends to be segregated into…..

A small percentage of so-called “intellectuals”,
A small percentage of so-called “teachers and professors”,
A small percentage (although most highly influential) media spokes persons (NOT fair and balanced!)
A small percentage of “rich folks”, industrialists, power users (contributors to their favorable parties or personalities)
A large percentage of people who live off the “largess” of the government (the army, police, fire, program administrators, etc.)
And a major portion of “the general public!”

Who is talking for these people?
Who is making the decisions for these people?
Does the “general public” have the information, the intelligence or the desire to really understand? (Are they just “too busy just getting along”?)

But who is “demonstrating”? Who is “claiming to know”? Who is trying to make “policy”? On what BASIS?

Suppose, just suppose the U.S.A. is not felt needed anymore?
The U.S.A.’s financial help is not needed, at least with the strings attached! (Anything “free” is, of course, accepted!)
The U.S.A.’s scientific help is not fully required in nuclear, bio-logical, bio-chemical, space technology, defense, etc. The U.S.A. is “just not needed”! (The U.S.A. can be accepted, can be used, but “for free”!,.. no strings attached!)
The U.S.A.’s so-called “consumer market” seems no longer “necessary” for the financial and social health of the world.
Again ….. “The U.S.A. seems no longer necessary for the world!”

What of the U.N.?
What of N.A.T.O.?
Are “they” irrelevant now?
What of the efforts to extend democracy, the “democratic way” of thinking and governing?

What happens if certain parts of the world is wrong? … Then what?
Do the changes of the street determine “policy”? …. Are “they” going to be “responsible”? … What will “they” do to carry the burdens of their mistake? … How will “they” repair the damage? … the loss of life, the loss of direction?

Do people demonstrate without clear alternatives? … clear policies for correction? Or are the “demonstrators” just demonstrating… demonstrating “against” with no alternatives, no “plans for corrections”!
Again … What if “they’re” wrong? How will they correct the corrections or damage they have caused?

Again … “Just Suppose”

I kill you in the name of my God Allah. He tells me to kill all who are not like me or oppose me!
I kill you in the name of Jesus Christ, my God. He tells me to kill all who are not like me or oppose me!
I kill you in the name of any God. He tells me to kill all who are not like me or oppose me!

Question … Whose God is the right one?
If I raise a question of right or wrong in the name of GOD, it will all depend on how my GOD is translated.
Are there certain questions that should not be a God issue?
Are there certain issues of “belief” that should be kept “personal” not national?
Are there certain issues of God that should not be “policy” since all Gods are not the same.
NOTE: I am saying “certain”….. NOT “ALL” or “NONE”!!

The tricky part is to determine which issues are “certain”. And “who” is to make this determination?
Human beings are not all the same and certainly not all are “perfect”.
But, not to at least think about this dilemma, just to “demonstrate” without logic or reason, seems self-defeating. Just “to be against” is not an answer!
A Challenge!!!! …..If you are looking for “a smoking gun” that means that the gun has been fired!!!
Do you wait for the “warehouse” of mass destruction devices to be sold or given to the “delivery systems” ( i.e. the “terrorists”) or is it better to destroy the “warehouses” now before they become “suppliers”?

If reading all this gives you a headache, just “get along” and hope for the best!
If you feel you can’t do anything about all this, just “get along” and hope for the best!
If you, at least, consider these ideas, you ARE DOING something about all this!
Test your ideas against others. Discuss your ideas with others. But, at least, HAVE SOME ideas, some alternatives, some corrections. Take responsibility, just don’t be “against”!

Current - #201 - #15 - Stimulous Package.....

What would happen if the “Stimulus Package” was sent to

the“consumers”? ….. “OR” ….. What would happen if the

“Stimulus Package “ was sent to the “business community”?

Do you want to encourage more “business activity”, more new, enlarged plants, more jobs available, etc.
“or”
Do you want to give “consumers” more money so they can spend more?

If people spend more, business will have to increase their sales and perhaps their jobs (that is, if “worker productivity” doesn’t absorb the increase in sales activity!)
If you want to start more businesses or increase their spending on more equipment, increase the volume of purchases, and try to make it more possible to make a better profit, the “incentive” should go to business.

If you’re a Democrat, you believe “the people” should have the “incentive”.
If you’re a Republican, you believe that “business and investment” is the better way to a more permanent solution to a stumbling economy.

Not too difficult to figure out! …. Where do you stand?

Do you think a “Tax Cut” to the people to give them more of their own money is the best way?
Do you think that a “Tax Cut” only benefits the “rich”? (despite the fact that the “rich” already pay over 40% of the total bill, although they represent less than 1% of the population!)
Do you know that if the “rich” were to pay a 100% tax, the USA could only run for about 6 weeks! If you took all the income from the so-called “rich”, you wouldn’t approach the total amount of money the Government spends!

So what’s wrong with all the “stuff” you hear about?
To give more money to the people to spend; or, give entrepreneurs and business a “stimulus” to grow a stronger economy?
Will business follow “consumer” demand, or does “business” need a temporary “stimulus” to gain confidence in the future and grow a stronger economy?
Which comes first?
Are you a Democrat or a Republican? …. or ….What’s in the best interest of the country?

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Without a stronger and growing economy the USA will not have a future!
Jobs,(and hence income from these jobs), are created by people willing to take a “risk”….. stockholders, banks and “rich” individuals and corporations. … The “risk” to lose all, the chance to be rewarded!!!
That’s quite different than “leaning” on someone else to provide sustenance.
Yes, there are “corporate” crooks! Yes, the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) leave the price times so-called earnings ratio a chancy number at the very least! Yes, certain “rich” people do not share their good fortune well! Yes, yes, yes!! You need the “risk takers”

BUT, relying on your government to provide you with your well being is a “short sided dream”!!

Current - #201 - #12 - Iraq Choices!

There are only two main choices!! ….. You choose!!!

1. Do you want to see the “mushroom cloud” first? …… OR

2. Do you want to prevent the “mushroom cloud” from happening?

Depending on your choice, it is predictable what you are going to say!!
You simply cannot “talk” your way out of this!

Please, please consider what is being said here.
To repeat … “You simply cannot “talk” your way out of this!”

If you begin with the “U.N. … Coalition…. You haven’t made your case yet. … etc.”; everyone knows which question you chose!!! The rest is “blah, blah, blah!!!”
Look at the two choices again!!

The media is filled with “words”, but……
Again…”Which choice is being made?” …. Which of the two main questions is being chosen? It’s too simple!!!

Another comment is worth mentioning…..
An acquaintance said … “I don’t want to be responsible for 50,000 deaths, but since I can’t do anything about it I hope it doesn’t happen first in the USA!”
It sure is a position!! …. But……??? ……. (By the way it’s called “opting out!)

Is there any sense in discussing anything if you have not chosen one of these two main “questions”? Should we engage in more time consuming, intellectual posturings? ….. Blah, Blah, Blah!!!

Make a “choice”!!!

The “listening world” has become involved in “great” discussions over the decisions involved in a “pre-emptive attack” policy decision.
“Pre-emptive” means …” before anything happens”!!!
As has been said before…”If you’re looking for a smoking gun, it’s already too late!!!” “Pre-emptive” means before the gun smokes … before it is fired! If you understand the meaning of “pre-emptive”, you never will have a “smoking gun”!!

If you reject the “pre-emptive” policy, you can require any type of conditions …. U.N., coalition, etc….. You can then begin all your “discussions”! But you must make a choice “first” of the two main questions. Or, at least, be responsible for the choice you made! Not only is this your choice but you must take the responsibility for the eventualities that come from your choice!!

If the U.S. is physically more threatened by the continuing technical advances of an enemy, you must bear the responsibility for this increased threat and its consequences.
If looking for “more proof” you engage in a delay of action, you must bear the responsibility for that decision to delay.
There is “personal responsibility” involved here!
This is not just “talk”!
You simply cannot have it “both” ways!

So there it is …….

“A smoking gun, more proof, wrong policy, coalition, U.N. etc.” …… OR …
“A pre-emptive policy …. (i.e. Prevent further possibilities of more danger”)!

Which one do “you” want to be responsible for?”

Current - #201 - #11 - “The stock market” -Valuation vs. Gambling

A “B.T.” letter to The Motley Fool

After reading the various "replies" I am struck with the use of words like "value" and "P/E Ratio" etc. You would have to be a magician to make accurate sense out of any of the data put out by a specific company in a "financial review". How their accountant figures "good will", expenses, investments, etc. is a matter for he and his client to decide (without going to jail, that is!) We'll never know if the profit is part from operations, and part from re-evaluation of property, inventions, etc., or/and , part from investments.
P/E ratio is suspect! But so is "valuation" or "revenue", or etc, etc.!
The previous "replies" include these undefined terms and are not much help in deciding what to pay for a stock. If I decide to invest my profits in more advertising this year to get more of a client base, it isn't that I've not made a profit but it is my decision to use that money to gain market share. This would lower my P/E ratio. But, is it a good plan for the future of my stock? As a buyer of this stock, how would I evaluate this decision? How do I evaluate the price I would pay for this stock?
The idea that something is overpriced or under priced depends on how you would evaluate this set of conditions. Also, you would have to rely on the numbers given by the company for any of these considerations.
I believe all of this is a definition of "RISK".
Are we making a decision of valuation or are we merely "gambling"!!!

I would respect your response.... glfstudent

Current - #201 - #09 - Chapt. #09 – Did these companies really make a profit?

Just now we are finding out that “accounting procedures” may have been used to inflate profits in many large and small firms!
These are “legal” accounting procedures. They may be “misleading” and/or “immoral” but they do not seem to be “illegal”!
You can sell an asset (a part of the company) and reduce your overhead costs by “applying the money you received from this sale” to reduce your overhead costs! Yep! You can show a reduction in the overhead costs; thereby, showing an increase in your profits. In other words, you can show a more “profitable” picture for the year. And, of course, your stock price will move up. It’s all legal!!

So what if you didn’t know this!!

You’re no accountant and you couldn’t read a company’s statement anyhow!
So you bought the stock because the year’s earning and profit picture looked better. You didn’t know that the company didn’t make an increase in profits from its normal business. It just showed an increase!!
Now, they tell you, that “brokers” and “analysts” are just “salesmen” (hucksters). Even if a company’s own “analyst” said to its own company that a certain stock was a “dog”, the company put out a “buy” recommendation on an increase in profits; knowing all along that the increase was an “accounting” trick! Yep! It’s a “legal” trick even if it was “misleading”. You were plain “greedy” to buy the stock. All you were looking at was the increase in business profits! The trading companies and their “analysts” recommendations be “damned”! The fault is “yours”!!

What this has done is to weaken the public’s faith in the “stock markets”, the Mutual Funds, the whole financial structure!! What can you believe? … Who can you believe?
Are your pensions safe? Are the companies you’re invested in “making real money”? Where are “real numbers”?

Not only are there investigations of accounting firms, but “analysts and their companies are being looked into. And how about restating “real earnings” from the companies they audit? What is the “real” price times earnings number? How much of the earnings are gained outside of the companies normal business? Gained by “accounting procedures ….. the sale of assets to outsiders at a competitive price .. the sale of assets to wholly owned or offshore entities at inflated values …. And even to wholly owned subsidiaries that have company employees as investors and whose performance is guaranteed by the main company itself!!

This is not only “tricky” but very “unsettling”. Again, it may all be “legal”, but it sure is immoral, to say the least.

It will be a long time before this whole mess is straightened out, but in the meantime, it might be a good idea to find out what is happening to your investments and to your future “security”.

It doesn’t sound “good”!!

Current - #201 - #8 - I’m at a loss as to the difference between.....

Soldiers, Terrorists, Freedom Fighters........

A lot of conversation and argument is involved in the use (or miss-use) of these words. Legal discussions take place. Rabid political discussions take place. But “What’s the difference?”
Is a “soldier” a murderer? Other than the fact he/she is dressed as a particular National, and supposedly only firing at other “soldiers”; is he supposed to “kill” …. to murder? What about “collateral damage”?
What’s the difference between “killing” and “murdering”?
If a “soldier” decides to stop “killing” and holds up his hands in “surrender”; does his “murdering” suddenly stop? Is he held “accountable” for his actions just prior to “holding his hands up”? Is the fact that he is in uniform suddenly give him a certain “legal status” for his prior actions?
Boy! This already stirs up a controversy!!
Let’s continue…..

What makes a “terrorist”?
Is the fact that he/she wears no National uniform, will “eliminate” anyone (combatant or civilian), and has no National purpose make him/her a “terrorist”? Is the reason for his “mayhem” important or does any cause or purpose make him a “terrorist”? Is the fact that one of the reasons he /she doesn’t have for this mayhem is the acquisition of another’s land , make him a “terrorist”?

How does this differ from a “Freedom Fighter”?
Is the fact that a “Freedom Fighter” represents a faction in a particular land, operates his mayhem in that land, represents an opposition to the existing Government in that land, and has a cause in that land make him a “Freedom Fighter” as opposed to a simple “terrorist”? Does the “killing” or “murder” by a “Freedom Fighter” have a special legal significance as opposed to the “killing” or “murder” of a “soldier” or a “terrorist”?
Let’s continue…..

What makes a “non- combatant”?
Is the fact that a “non- combatant” wears no “uniform”, makes no attempt to “kill” or “murder” give him/her a certain legal significance? Suppose the “non-combatant” hides, supports, spies for or actively misleads for a group that is actually doing the mayhem; does this change his status or the legal significance related to his “non-combatant” status? When is a “non-combatant” actually a “non-combatant”? What is an actual definition of “combatant” or “combating”?…. Interesting point, eh? What if he/she figuratively “holds up his hands” and surrenders? Is all forgiven? What then is the legal” status?

Let’s continue……
Is “killing” or “murder” the only action that is legally recognized as “actionable”? Of course not!!! Aiding and abetting are also “actionable”! But what is the “status” of those caught in the act of “aiding and abetting”. Are they “non-combatants”…. indirect “soldiers”….. freedom fighters …. terrorists …or what?
This hue and outcry over the label and legal status of the name given to various types of people engaged in a struggle are both confusing and, sometimes, quite misleading. Is the clear definition of these words so complex that no one in authority wants to make a direct, explicit definition? Or is it “politically” awkward to commit oneself to anything clear and explicit?

Before one tries to oppose or ratify a point of view in regard to the actions or beliefs taken by any of these “words”, it would be a great idea to first announce your own personal view of these differences before starting out on any personal statements or beliefs! … (This goes for reading about these things!)