The Freedom To Succeed

"To stop dead in your tracks" is a figure of speech, an idiom that has long been used to describe a sudden stopping of momentum.  Dead in your tracks, or his tracks or in their tracks has nothing to do with guns or dead people or people that have been shot by a gun.  Here is an example as to why and how we have "fake news" and the press actually creates a story out of nothing but idiomatic rhetoric.  Here is an excerpt from an MSN article regarding Kelly Ward's recent fundraising letter using the idiom. PHOENIX (AP) — "The head of the Arizona Republican Party faced a backlash Friday after sending a fundraising email that said Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kelly, who rose to prominence when his wife was shot in the head, will be stopped “dead in his tracks.”  MSN.com As I pointed out above, to stop dead in one's tracks has nothing to do with guns or shooting and yet the article ties the two together to give the impression that Kelly Ward wo

Posted by Charlie Brown We live in a world of opposition.  Such is the nature of living with the knowledge of good and evil. Without it there is no freedom, there is no choice.  This is what gives us the chance to determine who we will be, what we will pursue and eventually become.  Through forces more powerful than our own whims we will one day be held accountable for this freedom. What eternal destiny awaits us?  I sometimes think of extreme examples as I sit and ponder about the ridiculousness of the contentions that exist in the world. Somehow we need to become aware of the position in space that we occupy and our insignificance as occupants of planet earth. What situation can demonstrate the silliness of not trying to get along as human beings?  Next time you go to the beach, try to imagine a ping pong ball in the ocean floating away from you with the current. Now suppose that it is inhabited by a colony of germs that started out as just two germs.  The ball is now cove

Trump, Racism and Some Fallacies of his Opponents  I came across a Facebook post by a history professor at the University of Utah shared on a page. Some thoughts crossed my mind as I read it. I am happy to hear where I might be wrong. My observations are in blue. His essay/commentary is an interweaving of historical events that attempt to set a false premise that Trump is a racist.   It is a combination of fallacies, speculation, and conjecture.  While history is replete with much to learn. Applying its lessons with a bias towards an opinion does not make the argument valid. There is no evidence of history in this opinion that will repeat itself.  He is trying to fab ric evidence that does not exist. For the most part, his essay is crafted as an ad-hominem attack of Trump. "Racism 101 for those who pretend that President Trump is not spewing racism from the White House: Recall that race as nationality was used in the 19th century to discriminate against Irish and Italian

Contrasting Philosophies The secular side of our society with the scientific method seeks to demonstrate that mankind ascended from some kind of slime or cell and therefore that amorality is a perfectly acceptable philosophy for worldly culture.  The philosophy of scientism, the idea that what science turns up is the sum of what there is doesn’t necessarily come from scientists, however.  It comes from amoral activists seeking to promote their philosophies. What we get from science is the vastness of what we don’t know and these activists don’t care to acknowledge that their lack of knowledge might have some effect on the ideals it takes to have a cohesive and peaceful society. They basically promote the ideology that there is no God unless science can prove it and that will never happen because they ignore the evidence. The theistic side believes that we descended from God. The first seeks through its philosophy to eliminate the godly perspective and power even though science de