philosophy, physics and politics

philosophy is not a branch of science, it's not a type of religion.  
It appears to defy definition, and that frustrates many a young 
philosopher, at a loss to explain what they are trying to do.
Yet the answer is in the word itself, the love of knowledge.  
philosophy is the human brain's attempt to grasp the surrounding 
universe, to understand and explain all aspects of it.  

It necesarily leads to religion, to politics, to physics and to 
biology.  For these are aspects of philosophy that have developed 
so far that they need to be studied distinctly, with no time to 
concern ourselves with how they correspond.  

So philosophy has degenerated from the study of all things to 
the comparison of the various studies of a bunch of things.  
Questions asked in philosophy range from "Does Hitler's biology 
mean he is not culpable for his actions?" to, "does a quark think?"

With this in mind, I have sought to frame a great many questions.

for the of questioning is where the most interesting developments 
take place.

Whenever a sports figure arises from the ranks of the norm 
and throws a ball further or punches a face harder, coaches 
go on record say they have "great potential."  And they always 
seems so excited about what might happen, rather than looking 
at what has already been accomplished.  This seems funny, 
this celebration of something that has not happened.  
Counting chickens and all that.

Yet, it is the future that holds promise, that holds events 
and excitement never before experienced.  The past is dead, 
gone, bottled up and over with.  Perhaps you won a championship 
20 years ago, but what have you done for me recently?  
The future is the final frontier, not space, not the ocean, not 
the wild west.  We give a physical direction to that future since 
we are wont to use our eyes, but it is through time that we travel, 
not through space.

We all know what happened to Muhammed Ali, we can't get worked up 
and enthusiastic about watching a rerun of his greatest fights, 
because they're already won and lost.

The future is a question, the past is an answer.  Which one holds 
all the promise?

I call this, "philosophy for the masses"  because we make subtle 
decisions about what is good and bad, and then we use those to 
decide broad brush-strokes across nations and continents, to 
shape the entire world.  
Neitzsche's pedantic pondering is a far cry from the crude 
war grunts of the nazi, yet the connection is inevitable.

With this in mind, I venture farther afield.

liberal vs. conservative     
A liberal is literally one freed from social norms. Thomas 
Jefferson was a liberal, Marx was a liberal.  Jesus was a 
liberal, and Neitszche 

Yet in modern parlance liberal means one who buys into and accepts 
the standards laid out by middle-america. A man like Clinton, who 
never once defied the roles laid out for him since birth, is called 
a liberal.  Weaklings like Jesse Jackson are "liberal."  and of 
course, let's not forget Tipper Gore, mother of the "Parental Advisory" 
label.  These are liberals, OverMen, leaders who defy the rules 
and define standards for themselves.  Great leaders and freedom 
fighters, one and all.  Such folly is without bearing.

In contrast a conservative is one who avoids and hampers change. 
Abraham Lincoln was a conservative, fighting against the redevision 
of the American colonies.  Pontias Pilate was a conservative, allowing 
the salvation of all mankind.  

Conservatives are for the most part forgotten pieces of history, for 
only change makes it into the history book.  "There was this great war, 
and then the conservatives took over and didn't do anything, and then 
we were liberated by this other great war."  When nothing much was 
being written down, the conservatives were at the helm, holding to 
the course.

George W. Bush is a change-bringer.  Not in many years has so many 
aspects of American life changed so quickly.  The new Parlance for 
this is a "Radical Conservative" and "NeoCon," but this is just a 
bastardization of language.  George W. Bush is a liberal.  He 
looked at the rules, the boundaries, the way things have always 
been, and he rejected it outright.   His assumption that change 
will always bring improvement, (such as in Iraq) is a basic tenet 
of liberalism.  

He said there shall be a new paradigm, and there is. 

fascist gov.     
The law disallowing illegal immigrants to obtain a license to drive in 
California is a fascinating legal contortion.  Under the American 
paradigm, it is typically assumed that people have rights until a 
law is written especially to allow government to take it away.

I am not obligated to carry proof of citizenship with me, since the 
government must assume I am a citizen until they can first show cause 
to believe I am not.  This is necesary in a free society, for otherwise 
the government need only find me once without my passport to strip 
from me all my rights.  Anyone who has also experienced military rule 
knows that I am speaking literally.

Yet, the INS has merged with the DMV to demand that I show citizenship 
in order to own a car.  It turns out, the government can demand proof 
of citezenship without any justification whatever before allowing me 
to drive, and can take away my car if I fail to provide it.

This is not an issue of whether or not immigrants may drive, this is 
an erosion of my right to privacy.

If someone can demonstrate a public need that is met by this erosion 
of my rights, then we can discuss whether the exchange is worthwhile.  
But so far, nothing has been given to me, only things stolen in the night.

Now, many people ask, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you 
worried?"  Because, dear children, the truth is we all have 
something to hide.  We are all sinners with our sins laid bare to a 
perfect God, well enough.  Yet the government is no benevolent and 
wise God, it is a tortured and contorted work of human creation.  
Every time more power is granted to the government, more abuse of 
power becomes possible.  Only by limiting government power to the 
minimum necessary to maintain civility do we guarantee a minimum 
of government corruption.  

People mis-read my name a lot.  They assume I am here to shake things 
up, to challenge what is simply because it is.  In short, they think 
I'm a liberal before they even read my words.  This is unfortunate, 
the coincidence between the name my parents gave me and a feared word 
in the english language.  Yet, they are not the same, and the difference 
is significant.  

I am a moderate, in the purest sense of the word.  I don't care for 
change, I don't care for discomfort.  I am interested finding a better 
way when things are not going well, but I don't assume that replacing a 
bad system will automatically bring a better one.  I am looking for 
sensible, proven solutions.

Not too much, yet neither too little.