Comments for jannotes

Comment on It is the Victor who weeps – Lao Tze by Angie

Angie — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:55:06 +0000

Hate and anger are running rampant in this country. I was wondering how you chose this topic, and do you know many people who have hate or anger within them because of our political problems. I myself do not have either one, but what I do have is a genuine concern if GOP gets in office, what is going to happen to We The People. Who is going to support them financially, emotionally, physically?

I have two Facebook pages … one being a Political page. I haven’t noticed hatred from my many friends on the Political Page. I have seen some anger. But, my page does include more than Politics and all the lies and b*** that comes with it. That might be the reason. And it would be reminiscient of myself to include humor, music, pics, quote of the day, deaths and births and anything else that would bring a laugh or just a break in the hum drum of the day.

Man was not meant to wallow all day in the mire of the day. This man, anyway. I have to admit I believe many Republicans and maybe some Democrats do that. I’ve seen hatred from individuals on TV that literally scare me. I’ve seen talk of guns on Facebook Pages, that freighten me, I take that seriously. It doesn’t seem like anyone else does. I worry about the crazees. You call it Primal, I say we’ve gone back to the jungle…or we’re still in the jungle… if we resort to violence over this election. I am equating this essay with the Politics of the day…not primarily the difference between anger and hate.

In that case, I see anger can turn into hate. If the passion is great enough I believe it will turn to hate. I grew up in a house of anger… the next day everyone was happy…this was pretty much daily, very confusing and unstable. How schitzo is that… many times I thought my parents hated each other and they also hated me.

Myself, I don’t ever get really angry and I don’t have the depth to hate. Hate is deep. It comes from deep inside your being. Nothing is really worth the pain of real anger or real hate. I’m usually pleasant…never hold any negativity very long. I believe anger is shallow, one can be angry but on my FB Page people seem happy. Hate takes too much energy, as does anger… i would rather use energy in a positive way. I’ve always maintained you have so much energy for the day, use it in a Positive manner.
Angie

Comment on Live and Let Live by Angie

Angie — Sat, 12 May 2012 23:00:05 +0000

I heard something today or yesterday on one of the News Shows…a psychiatrist/professor from Harvard, Jordan Saumers , his book is ‘Another Side of Normal’…something on that order, I didn’t write it down.
It’s similar to what you are doing with ‘Rights’..which has a vague definition, only he’s going in a different direction… he claims there is no definition of ‘Normal’ and there is a slippery line between normal and abnormal. It was very interesting at the time…but, now, after what has gone on today with Romney/Gay marriage, Liberty U…he could be a Conservative getting a defense set up…for ALL the Conservatives.
Now that I think of it, there is a definition for Abnormal and the Conservatives/GOP have all the symptoms. So much for the ‘Other Side of Normal’, imo

Angie

Comment on Live and Let Live by Jan Arnold

Jan Arnold — Fri, 11 May 2012 03:53:55 +0000

Great questions and pertinent. I have a project to write an extended essay on libertarianism, and this is based on certain 17th century philosophies that attempted to identify the basis of human rights. Hobbes found the ur-right to be self-preservation, from which all else derives; So it is the one unalienable right (or inalienable, the word I like). We give up freedom in order to prevent suicidal murder among us (the Warre of All against All). John Locke gave us an interesting way in which a society evolves from isolated individuals acquiring property and as they come into proximity of each other, the need for protection and boundaries bring them into contractual relationships from which emerges society in general. These are the root of our own founders’ ideas that went from Locke’s life (self-preservation), liberty, and property as basic, to that interesting variation, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable means the right cannot be removed from our very being. We are born with them, they are part of what it is to be human (“Ha!”, snorted Dr. Johnson, “liberty for the drivers of Negroes! – he had contempt for the American revolutionaries). That last right (pursuit of happiness) is interesting and I need to find out where it came from, whether it is pure Jefferson or whether he got if from someone else. Pursuit of happiness, unlike the other two, is very general and very semantically and aspirationally variable from individual to individual. But I am still working on it, doing a lot of research and reading – my own perspective on such political/moral issues begins in phenomenology, and thus it is on another plane of reference from most political analysis. But I feel there is something original to say, and have inchoate ideas that might have some value. One thing I do feel is that so much talk about rights and justice in the present situation is primarily using words such as freedom and rights in very different ways, thus rendering all debate unresolvable. Definitions must be mutually agreed on or there is nothing to talk about. I will be working out my ideas on this blog over time.

Comment on Live and Let Live by Angie

Angie — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:36:06 +0000

Can you define our rights, I don’t know as I can. I know when i am lacking something, shelter, food… that I believe I should have. Something that sustains me..keeps me well, nourished, safe place to live…and these are the exact things that are provided…such as shelters, food pantries…employment centers.
I really am not sure our Founding Fathers knew what they meant because they talk in riddles where they don’t exactly itemize what our rights are. The Bill of Rights does name certain Rights…
What does this mean…’unalienable rights’…I have a Wiki link. It defines the word, but doesn’t name a particular act/activity/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_unalienable_rights_mean_in_the_declaration_of_independence

Do we have the Right to health care..that has been questioned by GOP and what category does it come under? unalienable rights? I just assume since we have the Right to Pursuit of Happiness…we have to be healthy. I do know when I sense our ‘Freedom To Be’ is in jeopardy. I’m pretty sure I know whar freedom is. I know what unfairness is…only because it’s ‘common sense’. I know the difference between earning something and being handed something.’Bush tax cuts for 30 years’… I understood this to be Part of trickle down…that is the only wayhe tax cuts should take place. How they get away with tax cuts whether it trickles down and jobs are created or Not…i think that is infringing on my Right to succeed. And I do have a Right to Succeed?
It should be an interesting essay.
Angie

Comment on Live and Let Live by Jan Arnold

Jan Arnold — Fri, 11 May 2012 00:07:02 +0000

The GOP has a Golden Rule: Gold Rules. I am working on an essay on rights that I hope to post here shortly – too busy grading at the moment, what a drag having to work for a living – if only I had had the entrepeneurial spirit to inherit a Romneyian or Kochian fortune; oh well, we parasites always wallow in self-pity. The problem though, which I hope to clear up, is the generalized use of words, such as Rights, without a strong conception of what those things are. What you and I call Rights are both convergent as well as greatly divergent with what a Republican calls Rights. The dissonance is in the different entailments we percieve in those terms, and thus most argument does not go anywhere since we are not really using the terms identically (Aristotle called it the fallacy of 4 terms). We must know precisely what freedom really means to a Republican and see whether that is also identical to our own understanding of freedom. The same goes for rights and justice and other moral terms that are bandied about carelessly. I have been doing a lot of research into the concept of rights and how that is understood in modern society and hope to write a lengthy piece on it in due time. Meanwhile, we must continue to keep up the fight. These people cannot be allowed to win this war.

Comment on Live and Let Live by Angie

Angie — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:56:44 +0000

‘Live and Let Live’..what a concept. If only everyone would embrace it. This is a good article … where can it be Posted? How about on the Walls of the Supreme Court since the 10 Commandments are not there, and everyone should know those already…they just want something Christian to complain about. Afterall, the Dems and their leader are having a War on Religion.

To get back to ‘rights’, we have not done a good job speaking up. We’ve allowed this to happen. GOP is having a field day passing all our rights away. It was a plan…win 2010, attack the states.

Now our President is making a laughable Game with GOP and he Is speaking up…and the people are pumped up. This is what bothers GOP…we are not as submissive as the 15th Century. So it is important for GOP to bring us backwards…we are out of Control.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” … that is what GOP is afraid of. A second term, a Democrat Congress…boy, could we undo a lot that was done to us. We could start by taking back our Pre-natal Rights and our Pre-natal Freedom.

GOP has stolen our rights. And We’re Taking Them Back.
Angie

Comment on National Anthem of Mudville? by Angie

Angie — Wed, 09 May 2012 04:07:23 +0000

I see it , it’s beneath your first comment to Pat. Maybe like McArthur, ‘old comments don’t die, they just fade away’.

Comment on National Anthem of Mudville? by Jan Arnold

Jan Arnold — Wed, 09 May 2012 04:00:47 +0000

I remember getting that comment. I can’t see it now (except in this one). Where did it go?

Comment on National Anthem of Mudville? by Angie

Angie — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:53:03 +0000

There is another comment beneaths Pat comment, do you see this.. I copied it for you/
“Jan, , that is Kate Smith’s song and they should have buried it with her. I just hope they don’t start rapping to it or jazzing it up.”
Angie

Can you see this comment I copied., above waiting moderation..from 5/7

Comment on Fallacy of the Sinatra Principle by Angie

Angie — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:39:39 +0000

To not be in a monogamous marriage is implying a marriage devoid of all feelings, ..and because we are human … sooner or later it’s not going to work out anymore.
Someone is going to get emotional.
Marriage usually results in feelings, emotions…so those people should never marry if they want other partners.

I am sure there are people who think alike,and want as many as they want and both parties are in agreement, so there is no need to marry.. Live together and both have as many partners as wanted..

If it is for security sake, I say marry… but let it be platonic. Once a relationship gets sexual ( which BTW is Emotional) there will be problems. from either wife or husband.

I cannot imagine such objectivity when it comes to sex…that sounds more like a lady of the night.. I may be of a different generation…and I really am not an expet as I married young and dumb. And I never married again.

Only once , many years later, for 5 months..dissolved and we stayed together for 9 years, and prior to him, one companion died of cancer within 2 years. .. which I believe he was looking for someone to take care of him…as I didn’t know he had CA.

These 2 were much older men…only because I felt they would be more stable. These were more companionships and enjoying activites more than anything else. They were also ads that I answered in a local paper. They were good men and i took a chance. This is a different type relationship, one of companionship…we lived together and we were not interested in others.

People are lonely. People get hurt. Men look for younger women today. i met someone younger and was told I was too old. That was received like a Breakup. I have to look for someone older than me…and I did that when I was in my late 50s, twice. .. because of exactly what you are discussing here. I wanted stability.

I do think this topic is geared to maybe a younger generation.
Angie