The Declaration of Our Founders

"State of the Nation" is posted regularly on DeskofBrian.com, read this post here:  http://deskofbrian.com/2010/07/the-declaration-of-our-founders/

The scene is the Continental Congress July 4th, 1776 as the thirteen colonies announce they are now independent states.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The war between the colonies and Britain waged on for over a year before that glorious day in July.

Thomas Jefferson had said (Nov. 29, 1775):

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

This most cherished documented is the greatest symbol of liberty. The concept of individual freedom was not new, but what the Jefferson draft provided was self-evident truths.

I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will
cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance. - John Adams

Deliverance indeed.

Jefferson presented Natural Law instead of "natural rights theory" substituting "the pursuit of happiness" for property as an inalienable right. The emphasis shifted from personal choice to public service.

After listing the grievances with the King, the official Declaration is made:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.—And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The greatest document is forged.

So beyond the fireworks, parades and hot dogs is the birth of this country. As we look at the toils of the world we should recognize that these men sacrificed their reputations, fortunes and lives to make a dream come alive....America.

Why would Bill Clinton compare Tea Partiers to Timothy McVeigh?

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/whywouldbillclintoncompareteapartierstotimothymcveigh

Bill Clinton commemorated the anniversary of the horrific Oklahoma City Bombing by comparing Tea Party protesters to Timothy McVeigh, blaming advocates of small government for the bombing fifteen years prior.

Clinton is claiming that McVeigh and others:

"...took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them."

For the most point, the Tea Party protesters have been non-violent, vocal dissent against big government, endless spending, encouraging the principles of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Bill Clinton, along with the extreme left, the mainstream media want to stigmatize the group by associating them with Timothy McVeigh and his ilk.

Unconscionable.

One might jump to the conclusion that President Clinton is truly maligning the Tea Party members, strategizing with the Obama administration in the transparent campaign to marginalize the Tea Parties.

I'll take a different look and assert that Bill Clinton is behaving as Bill Clinton always has and always will, in his best interest.

President Clinton may want us to believe he's naive, but in fact, I believe is using the opportunity to re-write history.

Timothy McVeigh has revealed to the world why he bombed the Federal Office in Oklahoma City and that's the government's action in Waco, Texas two years prior.

"I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation. I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens. "

McVeigh equates the bombing to hitting a government location in Serbia NOT a protest against "big government" or massive government spending.

McVeigh's actions are heinous, criminal and deplorable on every level and Clinton's efforts to distort McVeigh's intentions to label Americans practicing their free speech is nearly as deplorable.

The Waco Siege ended on April 19, 1993 and two years later, to the day, Timothy McVeigh enacted his distorted and twisted form of justice. Fifteen years later, a former President attempted to politicize the horrors of that day to re-write and protect his legacy and slander protesters.

Pathetic day in history on every level.

http://www.digital-exp.com/doco/TimothyMcVeigh.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/19/ED5I1D1191.DTL

"Avengers" taking shape & Mostow speaks on "Namor"

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com:

http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/pop-culture-other-topics/avengerstakingshapemostowspeaksonnamor

A "Sub-Mariner" movie aka "Namor" made me snicker at first. The shallow character would be a super-hero version of "Species" or possible a "Frankenstein" tale, but never anything remotely interesting.


Well, then Universal hired Jonathan Mostow to write and direct the film.


Universal still holds control of "Namor" while Marvel pursues an "Avengers" climax to their growing universe. Collider.com just reported the latest on the film and Mostow's commitment to a great script.



Mostow, director of "Surrogates" and "Terminator 3" said on camera that it's tangled in a "shroud of secrecy" as it is in development.

Meanwhile Hayley Atwell (TV's "The Prisoner", Woody Allen's "Cassandra's Dream") joins the cast on "The First Avenger: Captain America" as Peggy Carter. In the comic books, Peggy Carter is a French Resistance fighter that
hooks up with Steve Rogers and his team of Invaders during World War
II. Carter is the aunt of Sharon Carter, an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and
Rogers' modern love interest in the current Marvel Comics continuity.






Joss Whedon will direct "The Avengers" and has been given unilateral control to tweek Captain America, "Ant-Man" and basically anything tied to the franchise. Edgar Wright, director of "Ant-Man" tweeted this week that he and Whedon have met:

“I just met Joss Whedon for the first time. Speculation commence!”

"Iron Man 2" director Jon Favreau speaks out that Cap and Thor make a cameo in "IR2":

"I want it to be completely self-contained because a lot is going to happen between now and the next chapter. You've got 'Thor,' you've got 'Captain America ' and you've got ' Avengers.' I
don't know how all of that is going to impact this little handmade
story of ours that we've been doing over the last two films…  You want
to leave some things open, you know, to be like a food cache for them
to set things up that can be paid off later and lean toward where we think
things are going… But we can't leave it like 'Empire' where you're
waiting to see it resolved. It's not a cliffhanger. We had to tuck this
whole story in. And that be said, we had like eight different
storylines going and opened up the door, especially with both the good
guys and the bad guys, for a larger story to be told. That's just
responsible filmmaking. But if you just watch this movie, it's
self-contained. It's not like 'Two Towers.' " - Favreau

An Italian website "BadTaste" confirms:

"One thing that will excite the public instead of enthusiasts is the extra scene that appears after the credits of Iron Man 2,"
says the site, based on their source which they consider "100% secure."
But what will the scene consist of? "Well, we say that the scene will
cover Captain America and Thor!"

Chris Evans as Captain America and Chris Hemsworth as Thor -- it's becoming a reality.

http://www.collider.com/2009/08/12/director-jonathan-mostow-provides-an-update-on-namor-flick-the-sub-mariner/



http://movies.ign.com/articles/108/1083707p1.html



http://www.comicvine.com/news/thor-and-captain-america-in-iron-man-2/140920/

What Can We Learn From Aldous Huxley?

THE MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW
Guest: Aldous Huxley
5/18/58

WALLACE: This is Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell on earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that some day the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We'll find out why, in a moment.

(OPENING CREDITS)

WALLACE: Good evening, I'm Mike Wallace. Tonight's guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters, as disturbing as he is distinguished. Born in England, now a resident of California, Mr. Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century.

He's just finished a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” in which he outlines and defines some of the threats to our freedom in the United States; and Mr. Huxley, right of the bat, let me ask you this: as you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?

HUXLEY: Well, I don't think you can say who in the United States, I don't think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom, but I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.

WALLACE: Well, what are these forces and these devices, Mr. Huxley?

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er... the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh... this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world's history before, I mean, let's just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the... the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;

and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power... the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er..., it's an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we've done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er... As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It's now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er... methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er... take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler's methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er... he was using every modern device at that time. He didn't have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we're aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler's use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er... the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler's method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology's advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn't foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn't want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what... what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don't know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you're making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it's being used, I think, I would feel, it's being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it's always driving along.

It's not creating a wide front of distraction it's creating a one-pointed, er... drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It's obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you're talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course... all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You've even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er... I postulated it a substance called 'soma,' which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don't think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it's quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the... the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca... cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various "Enemies of Freedom" are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it's awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we've been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell's “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!

WALLACE: (LAUGHS)

HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn't to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You're talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let's become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er... could, let's say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er... that's why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the... the new advances in technology. I mean the... for example, in the regard to the use of the... of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, "All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter."

HUXLEY: Well, this is the... during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were so-called two-faced and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political... positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er... all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the... psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you've established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we'll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies...

HUXLEY: Well, no I... I think that, er... advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this... I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe... I... you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, "Today's children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials." And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have... or do you feel you've done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er... that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and...

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called 'cannon fodder' and here in the United States they are 'television and radio fodder.'

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the... the advertising method. It's a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I'll put your own question back to you. You ask this, "In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?" You put the question, now here's your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously... first of all, it is a question of education. Er... I think it's terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a... there is a tendency as a... you probably read a book by Whyte, "The Organization Man", a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I'm concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it's extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it's also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of... and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what's being done.

WALLACE: You're a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the... yes... if it... it's feasible. It's one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean... the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a... with a group which he can manage and understand... and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er... into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson's day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are... it seems to me that you... that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it's developing its art forms pretty well, er... it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It's not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don't poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er... a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the 'epsilons' down below...

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, "I told you so!" The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Republicans reveal their Big Government side for political gain

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/republicansrevealtheirbiggovernmentsideforpoliticalgain

Attention all you Tea Party members, Tea Baggers if you watch MSNBC, this is an update for all of the naive FOX watchers and Republican loyalists -- they are lying to you.

President Obama spoke again this week to support financial regulatory reform. Blaming "lobbyists" and corruption is always at the core of his lectures while proclaiming we can't allow "history to repeat itself"

You may have heard tough language of opposition, especially from Scott Brown: "Shame on the president" as Brown "complained that President Barack Obama was derailing bipartisan negotiations on Wall
Street reform for short-term political gain." (Politico article, see below)



I heard and saw clips as I surfed through the news. Of course, the Republicans hot air will fill a room if it will benefit their political gains.

Because the Massachusetts Senator said this:

"The bottom line is, where there are problems [on Wall Street], we
should fix them. I’m not
going to vote on anything or make any statements until I read the
bills,” (adding he'd take a hard look at the proposals and get up to speed)

Where's all of Scott Brown's Ronald Reagan language about "government being the problem, not the solution"?

All we have to do is look to the former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, who

"... formed an unlikely alliance with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to
propose reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which
separated commercial banking from investment banking. That law was
repealed in the late 1990s, and many critics say it allowed for the
growth of mammoth and risky
investment banks. Fully reinstating the law would be further
than the Obama administration has proposed."
-Politico

One aide said McCain's vote on Financial Regulatory Reform will "will depend entirely on his analysis of how it plays among Arizona
primary voters"


Politics...Politics...Politics.



“I’m looking at everything. I have not made any decisions.” - Olympia Snowe


“We need to prevent large financial firms from holding taxpayers hostage. I’m still looking at issues.”
- Susan Collins



“I think we all want to see financial regulation take place; I really do. These things
are very solvable. It just takes a little grind-it-out work.” - Bob Corker



The letter to Harry Reid from the Republicans stated:

"As currently constructed this bill allows for
endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and
unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and
community banks."

In Senator Richard Shelby's letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner we read how this is a slush fund for the Treasury to use as
they see fit, would encourage bailout over bankruptcy and explain how
this is the government running financial interests.



That is what the Tea Party and many motivated individuals are fighting to stop. Unfortunately, the Republicans are no different that their socialist counterparts on the far Left - power is more important and they don't care what we think.


Do NOT be fooled by the liars on the right. Look at their voting records, read between the lines and find the Constitutionalists that will fight to save this country.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gop-leaders-echo-luntz-democrats-wall-street-reform-bill.php



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041603436.html



http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100416/pl_politico/35887



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/04/sen-richard-shelby-r-al-lays-out-his-objections-to-dems-wall-street-reform-proposal.php?page=2

Farewell and Wake Up

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/pop-culture-other-topics/farewellwakeup

Coping with the loss of my 27-year-old Stepbrother has been extremely difficult for my parents, understandably. But equally as difficult is the reality of consequences for a lifetime of sinful behavior.

The reckless, sinless world where personal responsibility is often cast aside, basically consumed my brother as he failed to escape.

In the Bible, Paul speaks to these consequences in Romans 1:18-32 (NIV):

¹⁸The wrath of God isbeing revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 

²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and
reptiles. ²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of
God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the
Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to
shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion. ²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,
he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do
these very things but also approve of those who practice them.In moments of crisis and despair we set aside our lives and ask why?

Just as Paul looked out over pagan Rome, we look out over the modern world, especially America where debauchery is king. From Caligula to Nero, Paul had witnessed the Roman onslaught and persecution of Christians as the Emperor led society down the road of wickedness (as he describes)

How is that different than today? What do we need to wake up and see the parallels and therefore, understand the disappointment, frustration and ultimately, anger from our Creator.

My Stepbrother was always a good-willed kid, but seemed to always be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the "bad kids". Time and punishment never resolved his judgments and it ultimately cost him his life.

He made his decisions, will we learn from his mistakes and heed Paul's warnings?

Star Wars Uncut and the Haters

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/pop-culture-other-topics/starwarsuncutthehaters

"Star Wars Uncut" http://starwarsuncut.com/ is a project to have fan film short segments from the original "Star Wars: A New Hope" film, splice them together with the original sound for....well, amusement.




From the site:

Hello!

You and 472 other people have the chance to recreate Star Wars: A
New Hope.
Below is the entire movie split up into 15 second clips.
Click on one of the scenes to claim it, film it, and upload it. You
can have up to three scenes!
When we're all done, we'll stitch it all together and watch the magic
happen.

You can watch some of the clips of the completed segments.



Star Wars: Uncut Trailer

The Huffington Post report that the film is set to premiere in Copenhagen describing it as "going to be awesome" touting the "Do it Yourself" charm.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but it looks completely entertaining and a great time. So, with that said, cue the haters.

Sure I don't want to see another George Lucas incarnation of the "Star Wars" films, especially in 3-D. To Lucas I'd say: Let the legacy breathe and work on new material.

Recently however, the "Star Wars" hate squad stated the following on a local website:

I'll never understand the appeal of Star Wars beyond Lucas's ability to
sell the hell out of his brand for every last penny...

The world would be a better place had Star Wars never been made...In
my opinion its a gimmick movie but thats just my opinion...

I think the firs Star Wars wasnt made in mind as a marketing tool. in
fact it was so low budgeted that the studio nor the actors had much
faith in it. was it a gimmick? in a way. Lucas basically couldnt get
Lord Of The Rings or Flash Gordon (or was it Buck Rogers?) off the
ground and i think he knew that his claim to fame was American
Graffitti. so what did he do? easy make an old fashioned sci-fi film
that was one part Lord of the Rings (Obi Wans fate at the hands of Darth
Vader at the loading bay and Gandalfs demise at the hands of the Balrog
at the exit or Moria are exact.) and one part the sci-fi space operas
like Flash Gordon that the American Graffitti loving Baby Boomers used
to watch. that equals a hit. and it was. so maybe it was a gimmivk but
to me it was more of a calculated career move by Lucas.

Star Wars is over-rated, and it is a gimmick movie. Lucas does not have
an original idea in the movie, or in the series. I grew up with Star
Wars, though, so it is a part of my youth, and that is why I love it,
despite its flaws. Star Wars, not counting effects, would not do well if
it were released today.

My first viewing of Star Wars came when I was like...18 or something...I
had seen both Return Of The Jedi and Empire in the theaters when they
were re-released with the new and improved FX (barf!) and thought they
were ok...Its just...Considering the hype built around that movie it was
somewhat disappointing when I finally saw it...I'll always blame Lucas
for being the godfather of modern crappy movies...Or atleast the guy who
hooked it on steroids...

Maybe it's because I wasn't around for the hype surrounding the initial
releae of Star Wars, but the movie doesn't do much for me. I mean, I
like the bar scene as much as the next guy, but I've seen Star Wars
once, maybe twice and that's enough for me.

As I've also asserted: time and place. If you were a child during the "Star Wars" craze, you were consumed into the frenzy. It changed science fiction, it changed the toy industry, the marketing for films, merchandise in meals for kids - "Star Wars" really did change everything.
Gimmick?


I can understand the perspective in hindsight, but it was break through film with blue screen technology and model work that were unprecedented.


I really hope the "Fan Film" actually takes off and gets some sort of distribution because it really does seem like fun.


Seems like a better way to spend a few bucks than lining the pockets of an unrepentant, alcoholic drug addict dressed in a brightly colored iron suit playing a womanizing, alcoholic superhero.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/star-wars-uncut-fans-recr_n_536332.html?fbwall
Star Wars debate comments from:


http://www.crazedfanboy.com/npcr10/popculturereview523.php