It has happened again.This time San Bernadino,a mere 40 miles away,has been the scene of an abomination.The names of the two deceased perpetrator’s indicate Muslim origin.The presence of a failed detonator at the scene of the crime,the presence of guerilla type battle gear and the presence of a battle clad female corpse suggest radical Islam.The significance of the target appears to be only that it was soft,advertised in advance and on the opposite coast from that which had been openly threatened.While not likely to have been ordered by Isis or AlQaeda,it may represent the presence of a number of radicalized individuals or groups ready and willing to respond to world situational cues in dire manner.This probably means more of the same.The worst possible response would be to create a lock down society,divesting ourselves of our precious freedoms and if anything increasing the number of alienated.A more cogent approach to gun control is still to be recommended.The size and nature of magazines is a place to begin.Working to meet and integrate the not yet radicalized is also essential.Republicans want to invoke state’s powers against admitting Syrians to individual states and thereby once again to defy federal law and the President.Is there a risk?Of course there is,but probably less than that taken with the Cuban exodus.We will have many opportunities to confirm or deny what we claim to be as a nation.It starts with the ballot box !
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
Beliefs are powerful. Our collective belief as to what we want our nation to be will have powerful consequences (for both good and for ill). Daedal2207 is correct. Our collective belief selects its representatives at the ballot box (for both good and for ill). History illustrates that man’s imagination allows him to cultivate diverse beliefs, many of them demonstrably incompatible. I consider this to be the critical question: How do we justify our belief as being the best among the possibilities for advancing the good of humanity? Is it at its core rooted in comparative measurement and adjustable as new evidence is presented? Or, are its roots clinging to spiritual-like sources, a vast range of emotionally satisfying sentiments? Many such sentiments allow a person to FEEL eternally on the side of the angels. Many may be fleetingly fashionable. We see here the power of organized religion and the power of political/social correctness. Such emotionally satisfying beliefs may acknowledge their faith origins (organized religion), or the faith may be unacknowledged, as in many secular ideological movements. Religious or otherwise, faith is generally recognized as being ANY belief that claims more certitude for its truth than all the evidence would justify.
If our collective belief leads us to think that (a spiritual-like) “dignity” should be extended to all our fellow humans, we may be slow to recognize that some of our fellow beings have imbibed beliefs that cause them to exude contempt at those exhibiting such naiveté. If guns are believed to be more evil than the individuals who misuse them, we tend to disarm the good and thus empower the evil. A belief that diversity is more important than unity generates social friction. A belief that government allocates resources better than the individual leads to more laws dictating how individuals are to spend their time. We have seen much evidence that extreme Islamists will take advantage of our (faith-based) beliefs to advance (while filled with the joys of deep purpose) their deeply felt need to destroy us.
At the ballot box a majority of voters selected leaders who represented their values, the beliefs they wanted our country to embrace. Elections have consequences. “Beliefs” have had consequences. Having now experienced those beliefs in action for seven years, is the world today a better place?
Guns more evil? 7 years? Beliefs more consequential than actions or inactions?Something is amiss;perhaps it is the temporal frame of reference,or possibly it’s the scale of events referenced.Diversity more important than unity?Isn’t the issue “how do you get from one to the other and if you can’t get there how do you dispense justice,maximize opportunity and maintain “belief” in what is clearly an asymptote.
Thank you Daedal2207 for raising the “issue(s)”.
The use of words makes a difference. How often has one read about the number of deaths “caused by guns” instead of deaths caused by people misusing them? This fosters the idea that people are victims first and responsible second.
Unusually “left leaning” ideological beliefs have dominated our government at the Presidential level for the last seven years. Those BELIEFS have brought about changes, many of which I BELIEVE will bring lingering levels of conflict and suffering – suffering that would have been avoided had different beliefs prevailed.
I have no idea what the following is about: “Beliefs more consequential than actions or inactions?” I couldn’t find it, or any reference to it in my comments.
I agree completely with Daedal2207’s statement that “how you get from “here” to “there” is the important issue. I BELIEVE that we move more quickly and thoroughly toward the goals of harmony by focusing on our similarities, both in law (particularly in law) and in social interactions. I want to get “there” by diminishing as much as is possible the “us” and “them” mentality. Content of character should be the prime criteria for judging our fellow man.
The political left BELIEVES that group-measured differences are so great, so unjust, so hatefully racist-based, that our government should force us to engage in whatever levels of “acceptance” and redistribution it takes to achieve the levels of “equality” it BELIEVES will represent “justice”. Groups, to the degree that they BELIEVE themselves to be victims of other groups will rebel and create great chaos and destruction. The left’s concept of justice is based in a racist premise, the BELIEF that race is intrinsically important. It is the BELIEF that racism is a problem that fuels the problem. For the left, “justice” and “equality” acquire the meaning they want by linking them to an act of division. Their meaning is predicated on there being an “us” and a “them”. If groups are by nature endowed equally with important aptitudes we could logically conclude that social constructs may truly be responsible for important differences in relative group performance. Struggling groups may then legitimately claim to be victimized by other groups. But another possibility has presented itself. We now have over one hundred years of world-wide psychometric testing. The results have been correlated through the years with many forms of human success and failure. These studies consistently show us that nature does not distribute important aptitudes equally among individuals nor among groups. Indeed, average differences can be considerable. This shows us that nature does not believe in “justice”, or “fairness”. Justice and fairness are man-made concepts that depending on their use can lead us well, or lead us astray. I BELIEVE that those reading these words do not want to be unfair or unjust to any other person or group. To the degree that the differences we see in group performance are caused mainly by an uncaring nature, it must be unfair and unjust to blame individuals or groups of people for nature’s uncaring consequences. If the aggregate findings of psychometric testing are accurate, the BELIEF that “justice” requires that we achieve near-equal results when comparing diverse groups spurs us into attempting not only what is likely impossible, it has the potential to be disastrously frustrating and wasteful. If the psychometric findings are accurate, it is a system in which every individual (no matter group affiliation) is afforded equal treatment under the law that provides for us a use of the concept called “justice” that could get us from a more accurate understanding of what “here” is, to achieving a “there” that is as close to harmony as possible.
The San Bernadino assassins left a six month old with grandparents,with no certainty of returning to the child.If the origins of the mother were Saudi Arabian, one has to wonder if the Wahabbis sect is involved directly or indirectly.If so the path of radicalization is clearer.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.