Who and What is the Happy Warrior
This blog is a representation, in conversational form, of my voyage to wrap my arms around the world in which Mr. Worsdworth's warrior finds happiness.
(Standing disclaimer: Luckily tests of spelling accuracy ended in 4th grade otherwise I would still be in Elementary School. Be forewarned, spelling errors ahead. I subscribe to the wisdom of a great man who said, "I have utmost disdain for a man who can only spell a word one way." -Benjamin Franklin)
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
WARNING: clip contains vulgarity and language that will be offensive to some (sorry but I could not find an edited PG version).
Friday, November 19, 2010
1. to show that it is OK not to take up residence in the pro or con camp on every issue. I think we are sometimes too quick to stake our claims on every issue that comes before us. This continual division-making is not good for society. There are many things that do not matter a whole lot. And even those things that are important, why do we think we have to have our minds 100% made up. If history teaches us anything it is that some of the greatest thinkers (Capernicus, Galileo, Martin Luther just to pick from the western tradition in the narrow time frame) were willing to question the prevailing patterns of thought and challenge their own beliefs even at the peril of their lives. We should be less rigid and more open to competing ideas (that does not mean we have to accept them or even endure them if they prove to be harmful but there are few ideas that demand absolute expulsion from public discourse).
2. to illustrate that many of our political and social debates center on side-shows instead of the "main event". To me the central question regarding scanners and pat-downs is: do these measures significantly increase safety? So much public policy is build on smoke and mirrors. They are shams and facades. Air travel security measures have been designed to make us feel more safe rather than making us safer. I could care less if I feel safe, I want to actually be more safe. This type of thinking permeates so much of our socio-political reality. It applies to education, the penal system, the economy, medicine, etc.
3. to demonstrate one of the social laws of life which is as valid as the law of gravity is for the geophysical world: that there is a price for everything. If we as a society want to be more safe we will have to pay a price. That price may be giving up some of our liberties (i.e. freedom to arrive at an airport 15 minutes before our flight, enduring inspections before embarking on an airplane trip, even allowing our government to listen in on a phone conversation if we use words like "bomb", "suicide", "Allah" or similar). The price for resisting such meaures will be a liklihood of increased terrorist attacks. Either way, their is a price.
4. finally, it is important to admit that I do not have all the answers. Likewise we, in the aggregate, do not have all the answers. A little humility is a good thing and it often opens an unnoticed door that reveals a better way which we may never have seen if we were so invested in the "does to" - "does not" - "does to" debate.
So while the rest of you (speaking generally) are arguing about this, I'm going to be on the sidelines thinking about it a little more.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
They do fine without a manual, can you imagine the amount of human peril if they actually operated with more than a "bird brain"? Although we are the ones with an entire library of books called "________ for Dummies".... Makes you think.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
During the past two years our economy has suffered and many of us have lost jobs. Wages have been slashed or cut all together. Salaries and new hiring has been frozen. These conditions apply to the real world where profits and productivity reign. In the fairytale world of government (where nothing is created, no profits are generated and productivity is of minimal concern) wages have skyrocketed.
How can this be? What kind of bizzaro-world existence is in effect? For an institution so concerned with sustainability, this is entirely unsustainable!
Now let me tie the obsurdity of our current federal bureau-monster as evidenced by the article above with a previous post -specifically with my conversation (see previous post below) with "Charles D":
Government has one primary job: to protect its citizen's freedoms and rights from thos who would usurp the same (and yes I know about "ensuring domestic tranquility"). To me that allows for the expansion of certain powers like the Patriot Act or even suspending the writ of habeus corpus as has been done by those whose understanding of freedom far exceeds yours and mine (a la Abraham Lincoln). It does NOT permit the governmental entangelment in matters that are best left to the intelligent choices of individual citizens: things like whether or not a fast food chain can include a toy in a meal or how much sodium is permitted in a plate of french fries. When government's arm has grown to reach this level of micro-management then it has far since overstepped its primary job. I do not need government to save me from my own eating habits... I do need government to save me and my children from the threats of Islamic terror, from faulty and negligent automobile construction, from predatory monopolies (of which government is the scariest one) and from substances that might be peddled to those too young to make an informed decision (i.e. selling alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pornography, TNT, hydrocloric acid, etc.). If we cannot see the differences between what government should or should not be involved in then our republic will fail. Our root problem is (do I really need to say it again) that government is too large and too involved in the details of our lives that we should govern by applying a little self-discipline rather than by governmental dictate. Cut their funding = cut their pay = cut the size of government.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
2. taxes must be paid.
3. the motivation for eating at McDonald's is not an overactive obsession with health.
So I ask you, who is the more dangerous, more restrictive, less inclusive, party:
People of San Francisco,
Do you now have more freedom? Is your "enforced" health worth the price? Are you breathing easier now that you don't have exercise your brain to make eating decisions but rather you can rely on your government to make these for you? Aren't you a little embarrassed that they think so little of your intelligence? Are you not a little afraid that they next law might curtail some behavior that is more substantive than eating a Happy Meal?
-The Un-happy Warrior