Beyond the Cusp

September 2, 2017

Free Speech Has Real and Legal Limits

 

Most of us past the eighth grade understand that one cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded dark movie theater as doing so causes a threat to human life. Another example of restricted speech is one would be advised not to scream or even whisper in an audible voice “Kill the President,” even if it be the current President. Speech calling for the overthrow of the government or the Constitutional form of government would also get you placed before a judge rather quickly. One is not permitted speech which threatens to do physical bodily harm, cause irreparable harm to one’s personal property, to incite other forms of harm including financial, to make false accusations, make false crime report, make slanderous accusations or commentary, and a number of other forms of speech which have been specifically named as illegal due to damages or threats they relate. These are obvious forms of speech which are not permissible. But these are all spelled out in criminal and other codes and are not what all the screaming, yelling and protesting is all about now, is it. So, what idiocy can we add to these discussions? Well, let us see what we can come up with. Freedom of Speech is easily defined that universally, all sides and views will have equal access to the media and to all forms of communication with the same identical application of law prohibiting talk of revolution, violence, harm to any group, public safety and protection of the governing entities. That is the easy definition and it only gets complicated when a society passes from total free speech to limited free speech where they now disallow hate speech.

 

Our look into this phenomenon will use the United States as the basis for the attempt to use speech codes as a weapon. This has already been going on for quite some time but we will try and be brief. The attempt to use speech as a weapon has long been a known manner of taking over the political system. This type of takeover has been covered in science fiction with books such as 1984, where history and language were redefined in order to support the state and Fahrenheit 451 where all knowledge of books was banned and the title is the flash-point for paper where it will spontaneously combust. In both of these literary masterpieces, the governance was fascist though they would never admit it but were very happy to define their enemies as such. The limitations for the good of the people as to what speech is approved is a common thread in the imposition of a dictatorial fascist state upon the people and it almost always starts either with a military styled coup and the assassination or execution of all the political leadership which stood in opposition or with the takeover of the language and the history rewriting both to favor the new leadership and to exclude any and all other groups placing them beyond the protection of the language enforcers.

 

1984 and Fahrenheit 451

 

First, we will examine the wordsmith limitations where the dictatorial fascists start by defining terminology in order to limit and frame permissible debate. This is initially done once the elementary education has been placed in the control of the group initiating a political takeover. At this phase, the limitations on language are framed as making conversation polite and the removal of hate-filled words and terms. The teachers are taught a new and “better” teaching method which will make students learning ability improved and their education more productive. This new and better system replaces phonics where students are taught the sounds made by individual letters and then sound out the worlds using such sounds. The exceptions such as “enough” pronounced “ih-nuhf” are then taught by use of whole word recognition. This method the student learns to recognize certain exceptions and adds others as they are encountered and otherwise has a means to learn any word they see through the application of phonics. The new method is called Whole Word Recognition where every word is taught as a set of meaningless symbols randomly chosen to represent the word. Spelling is considered less important as it is only important that you have you own representation with which to identify each word taught. This method will limit the majority of students vocabularies to a large percentage of the words they are taught and they will have little if any ability to learn new words with any ease as they will be unable to sound out new words thus their spelling will have no real meaning or purpose other than to differentiate the word from other words. This limitation on vocabulary is the first and largest step to control of language as if certain words are not taught, they cease to be within the lexicon of the language and become unusable and, when used by more learned people, they are meaningless as either the spoken or written word.

 

A corollary to whole word recognition is that these words approved for teaching also will only have the definitions that are taught when the word is introduced. The use of these two simple steps accomplishes two of the goals of the language fascists, the debate can only be made with the terms taught if it is to make sense, and certain thoughts become obsolete if their terms are not introduced. How can one defend what many consider a simple and basic idea in governance, “liberty” if the word itself is never taught and no definition is given outside reference material? With the word not taught, as an example, then it will not find much use on social media, the place where the debates now are engaged. Once excluded from there the word “liberty” becomes a high word used only by the most erudite and educated amongst the population. When they use the word, they must then define the term if their readers are to understand what the term, a strange and foreign term, means for its use to make sense. Such a restriction on that one word will lead to even the educated avoiding its use because of the clumsiness its use entails. Thus, Whole Word Recognition has established a limitation on debate and a limit on knowledge. Now the rest of the debate and language modification can proceed.

 

Once the vocabulary has been modified and restricted comes the next step, a direct challenge to the definition of free speech. Now freedom of speech will be transformed into freedom from offence. This is where defining “hate speech” becomes the central field of battle in the war over language. With the usable words now limited, this debate will favor the leftist or fascist dumbing down of language, whichever group is committing this, in our minds, crime against the society. The initial entry into hate speech is usually initiated by those attempting to limit debate and redefine concepts making those they disapprove of forbidden or even made illegal for use. Initially they target obvious hate speech often going after supremacist groups, Nazis and known hate groups. They restrict terminology often defining terms using a single letter such as the n- word or the l-word. These words become unacceptable in society and with little fuss. Now that the easy to disallow words are ostracized and cut from acceptable use, they will go after other words and make them unacceptable until they reach a point where they have entire concepts refuted from use. Such terms today would include “Islamic terrorism” which must be removed, as it is Islamophobic and hateful to peaceful Muslims.

 

Why it is offensive to people ,as it is obviously not being applied, is never explained; the thought police simply make the claim and scream from the highest heights making any use of the term unacceptable even when it actually applies. This removes entire thoughts from acceptable debate. How does one debate even “radical and extremist Islamic terrorism” if the entire thought of Islamic terrorism is disallowed. If there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, then there actually cannot be radical or extremist Islamic terrorism as that would be a form of Islamic terrorism. Now it must be considered to be radical extremist terrorism and no singular group is responsible, just radical extremists. The next step is to define those groups who are opposing the leftist ideas as radical and extremist such as has been done to religious Christians and evangelical Christians. Now when there is an act of terror, those making excuses for Islamic terrorism can shift the debate to which group is likely to have committed each individual act of terrorism? By the time an actual group has been identified, if it is not to the likings of the leftists, meaning it was committed by one of their protected groups, then that act of terror is old news and no longer needs to be discussed. If the terror was committed by one of their target groups then it remains news of the day for as long as humanly possible and is brought up then every time there is any reference to their protected group as proof that there exists other groups amongst the unprotected who do the same thing.

 

This type of debate framing and representative exacting is a form of deception that has long been used against Israel. There are, and we are not going to give them the dignity of reference, a relative few number of Israeli Jewish terror attacks which have been perpetrated over the years. Unlike the heroes martyrdom welcome that the Arab Islamic terrorists (we are anything but PC here at BTC) receive after their murder sprees, we do not name youth camps, streets, parks or soccer tournaments after these criminal elements, we try them and place them in prisons for extensive lengths of time. We disapprove of such acts and they are known to be an anathema to our society. Still, in any discussion with the protectors of the Arab murderers of Israelis, and not all their victims are Jews despite their care to make it such, these few exceptions are almost always waved as evidence that the Israelis, often simply referred to as the Jews, commit terror as well. These exceptions get so much play that they become well known acts while the terrorism against Israel becomes so common that it stops being news and is accepted by the left wing media as normal. That is how this part of one debate has been stretched into absurdity.

 

The next step is to control the media such that reporting is limited to the useable word list. What many do not know is that there is an actual word list of approved terminology for use by print media and is also applied often to spoken media. This list is compiled by our good friends at the New York Times and is utilized almost industry wide. With the media now toting the new speech codes which disallow hate speech, reporting becomes political. Now no terror attack can be considered to have been perpetrated by a Muslim but must be attributed to every other extremist group until proven to have been committed by a Muslim. So what if the assailant is seen on YouTube screaming “Allah Akbar” while stabbing people in a mall, this is not proof of anything as the perpetrator could be a fanatical Christian trying to make Islam appear violent. After all, we all know that Islam is the religion of peace and presumably, Christianity is the religion of violence, Crusades being the proof we hear incessantly. Once the media and entertainment have been brought on board with the new language, it is time for the final battle for speech regulation, forbidding hate speech.

 

Should hate speech be illegal? Well, actually it already is but the definition is to narrow for our friends on the left. It is against the law to threaten other groups with violence, damage to property or other extreme harms. Basically, one may not threaten an illegal act. There is your objective and straightforward definition of hate speech. But we can do better say the purveyors of approved language, we can make language so benign that it will never offend anyone, and there you have the switch from “Freedom of Speech” to “Freedom from Offense.” This is where things get tricky as now we need to define what exactly hate speech is. We soon learn that Islamic terrorism is hate speech and Jewish terrorism along with Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and virtually every other religious terrorism is not hate speech. That is an extreme example and of course should it be proven that an act of terror was committed by a Muslim, then the person will be described as mentally unstable and not representative of Islam. President Obama often explained that the Islamic State was not Islam. President George W. Bush initiated the widespread use of defining Islam as the religion of peace. Both of these instances were examples of how to frame speech to control thought. It is also an example that leftists come from both major political parties in the United States. One needs remember the political lines which can be used to represent political thought, the falsified “left vs. right” against the more honest “statist vs. individualist” as shown below. The formal name used by many Republicans is “Compassionate Conservative” which means Progressive individual or leftist.

 

Political Spectrum Taught Versus Actual

 

The problem with banning hate speech is, who gets to define what is and is not hate speech. The leftists tend to reserve that right to themselves and will suggest a panel of academics from respected English Studies departments. This is a fraud as these departments are almost without exception leftists themselves and has been proven in study after study that college and university professors contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat Party and not the Republican Party. The only exception is often in the hard sciences where occasionally balance can be found, if such actually does exist. The controversy in the United States only recently was brought to a head and by the person at the center of all the controversy, President Trump. The new President unlike anyone before him has torn the lid off of the partisan media and academia and thrown open the debate on whether or not these leanings are healthy for the United States in specific and the Western World as a whole. President Trump revealed how the news was massaged and often completely turned upon its head to support a leftist worldview and how the media would go so far as to invent stories to support their leftist politics. The problem is after President Trump this tear in the disguise will be sewn closed and made to appear that what occurred was but a hiccup, a blip in the reporting and the world will be lulled back to sleep. Well, that is what these leftist controlled groups are praying will happen, we will need wait to see.

 

In the end, once one side controls the media, entertainment, academia and social media then they have the youth and thus the future. There is a flaw in their plans and it hits every protected and coddled youth eventually, it is called life out in the real world. The initial shock to these coddled youths come when they find out their college degree will often only earn them a starting salary of $35,000 per year. Many were expecting a much larger payout as their professors painted for them a world where their special nature and specific wonderfulness would be treasured and their special nature would be seen by all and they would be lauded with money receiving a six or even seven figure income. What a shock, and then there is always that first paycheck where there are all these terms such as FICA and other taxes and healthcare deduction and the paycheck has a net salary which is quite distressing. This shock comes to those who did not hold summer jobs or need to work after school as many did from my not so exclusive neighborhood. We had seen our pay eaten up by government asides and taxes. These muggings can make one think that maybe there are other things the professors lied about. Life is a great wake-up call which eventually gets to most of us and makes some of us think, often for the first time.

 

Still, if the leftists can force making their definitions of hate speech stick and be illegal, which they are very close to succeeding, then the war will be almost lost. With limits on permissible speech placed by law, then conservative talking points will be defined as hate speech. This has already begun as we see every holiday season where it is not Christmas but the winter holiday and similarly it is not Easter but the spring holiday. St. Patrick’s Day has been made into a fun study of Irish history, and a pleasant glossing over of the reality behind the holiday which celebrates the bringing of Christianity (Catholicism) to Ireland and the presumed taming of the land and bringing forth from barbarism and paganism. Again, the presumed advancement of civilization by Christianity in Europe and Islam across the Middle East, North Africa and into Europe and Asia were both conducted by the definition of language to depict all who were not of the faith as evil, uncivilized and requiring saving by bringing them into the religion unquestioningly. From those times to the present both religions have attempted to frame the debate in their favor and with the current adoption of the Islamic line by the leftists, they are feeding their own destruction in this war of the words for eventually the words are dropped and the sword deployed.

 

St Patrick’s Day Montage

 

There is one final point which need be made. That is the definition of Fascist and Fascism. The first definition given in a dictionary was, Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The one addition we would add is that such a system can also have elections as long as the fascists control the vote counting, which they would in almost every case where they have gained power. Often the appearance of choice is required to enslave, North Korea or Venezuela are two prime examples. These leftist we have been referring to in the article claim they are fighting fascism and against fascists. This was why pegging their opposition at Charlottesville as Nazi fascists was necessary before this assault on language and the society of the United States could be executed. They are now in a frenzied approach because they know there is a limit to the time that the hate in Charlottesville can be used as a bludgeon to silence their opposition. Once they succeed, and they will, as they will continue to try until they win, one of the tools of Progressive Fascism is determination never quitting, as complete power is the only acceptable result. This is why the loss by Hillary Clinton has been such a detrimental blow, as they cannot permit power to slip from their grasp, so for now they must do whatever is required to disembowel Trump and prevent him fulfilling his campaign promises as that would set them back a decade or more. Fascist target language as a means of control and hate speech is the most convenient of terms as all they need do is hold protests against any phrase or idea until it becomes classified as hate speech as why else would people take to the streets over a phrase? This is the secret behind the enormous efforts against President Trump and to paint all conservatives as Nazis or white supremacists despite knowing that this is a lie, a fabrication to silence the right. The rioting on campuses to prevent right leaning speakers from presenting ideas to their minions attending college, and that is how the left sees these college age kids, as mere minions to serve their cause. Immediately as any student shows signs of thinking freely they are ridiculed and derided hoping to intimidate them back into the fold. It is all about power and control, nothing more, nothing less. So, our suggestion is learn phonics and watch your word lists and vocabulary grow and along with it, your mind and your understanding of life and everything it will throw your way.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

June 10, 2017

September 10, 2015

When Change Comes Merely For Change, Hope Can Only Follow

 

While it is a given that leftists, progressives, liberals or whatever one chooses to call those from the left of even the socialists demand change for the sake of change. Their rallying cry is and always has been we can do better and we can only get there through change, often, as was with President Obama in his 2008 campaign, radical changes. What people should ask themselves, and in turn those demanding change, is what we have working or has it failed us. The easiest way to remember this is to ask oneself as soon as one hears the mantra of change, especially change for the sake of progress, another way of saying change, is whether change is necessary or is the present system actually working. Even if we decide the system in place needs change, or simply some adjustments, then one need ask of those calling for change would be for them to spell out in specifics which parts of the system they believe requires change and what exactly is their change and how will it be an improvement. Usually if one simply claims change is required because we can do better, but they do not define the change, they just scream we must change everything that is not working or is broken, then this person is a danger to the society. Change is not in and of itself good. The concept that all change is inherently good because change will bring innovations and the latest new ideas into play and these new ideas are change we need is dangerous. Changes and new ideas should be approached with great caution, tried in selected places where if this change is an improvement, then this test group is the most likely to understand and gain from the change; and if they fail when trying change then one need return to the previous method and simply state that they gave the changes a fair assessment and they did not produce desired results thus these specific changes are harmful and will not be implemented.

 

 

Seasons Change as Do We but Their's is Inevitable While Ours Need Not Be

 

 

The most evident and easiest to understand is in the field of education, all levels of education. The reason education is such a prime example is because there have always been improvements introduced which were radically successful and other changes have crashed and burned and should have been rejected but for the sake of ‘progress’ (this word actually means change when used in anything even remotely political and education is the most egregious example of these rantings and the programs they installed) were instituted across the board because they only failed because the entire system was not installed and full implementation is the only true test. Full implementation means absolutely no way ever of returning to the previous method because it will have been erased from educator’s minds by the changes in the curricula being taught at every level to teachers, and teachers are one of the few professions where additional training is required. The change barkers, the change merchants, the bringers of change armed with demands of this has to be better as it is change and that makes it innovative beyond any rational understanding so you must accept change, will attempt to overwhelm any opposition with long diatribes which have no clear meaning other than a simple idea that ‘change equals good’ and that is all the argument necessary just as long as you never state that clearly.

 

Go online and try to understand Common Core math as there are many sites to try and understand their version of subtraction or their forms for algebra which will eventually give one the correct answer provided the answer is a whole number, any mathematician or physicist or other professional who uses math will attest is a rare occurrence which usually only exists in the problems set-up to produce such a result. The reasoning behind this new math, as it used to be named, is that flash cards and memorizing tables is evil and does not explain to the student exactly what addition, subtraction, multiplication and division actually are and this new method does so by revealing every step taken in one’s mind. Therein lays the problem because no two minds will react in exactly the same manner except for memorization.

 

You want children to understand simple math just give them one hundred dollars in a savings account and tell them that they must never ever allow the principle to drop below that one-hundred dollars. You can then explain how the interest is applied and once they have mastered their savings account they will have a grasp of every function including some simple algebra. Actually, handling money will often teach children what math means faster than anything else. Further, if you ever want to see if the math teacher fully understands addition, just ask them in math what is the definition of a successor. Their answer should start out like this: a successor to any whole number is the point one increment higher on the number line. Every number has a successor thus there is no highest number thus we represent that concept as infinity. As every number has a successor, ever number is the successor to the number before it on the number line. Addition is repeated successors such that five plus three you are looking for the number that is the third successor of five thus the first successor to five is six, the second is seven and the third is eight so five plus three is eight. Subtraction is exactly the opposite so you count in the other direction to find what had the number as its third successor. Multiplication is repeated addition and exponentials are repeated multiplication and once you master that, welcome to the sixth grade and word problems; you will simply learn to hate two trains on the same track. That should be the gist of the teacher’s reply to your question, a deer in the headlights eye lockup is not the desired answer from a math teacher, and yes, my major was theoretical math at some fairly reputed universities.

 

Another example which I feel has been unbelievably damaging to children’s education was a change for the goodness of change in how reading is taught. The departure from even the most basic of concepts for phonics being dropped and replaced with whole word recognition has a very nefarious and not simply damaging effect on reading, robbing from the child the ability to learn new concepts and ideas on their own. The use of whole word recognition makes it impossible for a child to know what the difference might be had they yet to be introduced to the two words of banana and umbrella as they have no manner to read these words for themselves by sounding out the words using phonics. They do not even understand that just by saying the name of the letters rapidly might also give them sufficient recognition to realize what the written word means. The child has likely run into the two words, banana and umbrella, in their daily lives but solely in conversation and thus knows bananas are food and umbrellas are used for rain or shade from the sun, but never having had the words themselves introduced under whole word recognition, they will not realize what either word is and will be at a loss for understanding.

 

This also comes in handy in controlling discourse or the ability to self-actualize and educate beyond their taught concepts let alone other more esoteric or ponderous political concepts outside those that may have been instilled by their educators. As is well established, control the language and one has controlled the discourse and the paths leading forward. This was well established in the novel 1984 with items being classified as good, plus-good, double-plus-good, ungood, plus ungood, and double-plus-ungood substituted for all emotions across an entire range such as envy, pride, satisfaction, hatred or any word dropped from the approved lexicon and also lost is the concept of having no opinion or neutrality thus one is forced to have an opinion even if one does not care thus everything at a minimum are either good or ungood, no such thing as ‘non-good or ungood’ as that was unacceptable speech thus a thought crime, something everybody knew was double-plus-ungood.

 

These have been some very basic observations on changes over the past half a century in the education profession where the goal of teaching was just as much, if not more so, to place barriers between the student and self-defining such that they could be molded in their thought to come to a uniformed result with all belonging to the groupthink and where individualism was discouraged. As an individual who attended a progressive school which was a test institution for the new reading and writing whole word recognition where I failed miserably as I seemed to continuously write and use words which were, as near as I could tell, unappreciated and there was a strong desire to press upon me the disapproval such words would have on my life should I persist in speaking using such terminology and that I should restrict my thoughts and expressions both written and spoken to appropriate language. As those of you who visit here probably have figured, I hardly ever restrict my choice of words to the meager vocabulary my school teachers of my youth desired I restrict myself to using. I was blessed with a mother whose patience rivaled that of Job who taught me at great pains, largely mine as she believed strongly in corporal-punishment, to use phonics starting with learning to sound out a word by simply saying the letters very quickly slurring them together and if that failed to use the more traditional sounding the word out painstakingly using every conceivable combination of long and short vowels and different emphasis and syllable break-points. I eventually learned sufficiently well enough to become self-sufficient in reading and learning new worlds though never quite to my mother’s, Baruch Hashem, complete satisfaction. My mother was to be blessed for teaching me to think and express myself adequately though after I realized my own path she did not exactly agree with my politics though she could rarely find fault with my positions, she just could not appreciate the manner in which I expressed my views when voting. I would always tell her that she need not worry as whomever I would vote for would be the candidate who would lose so she should be glad I did not vote as she preferred as that one vote would cause them to lose. Enough rambling and perhaps I might get back on track.

 

I find that I agree that certain things require changing and require such on a regular basis. Many pieces of clothing require changing each on its own schedule, though many choose to change all at the same time, to each their own. Traffic signals changing are a good concept. I have found that except for things which are cyclical that slow and steady change is not a bad idea as should any single step prove unproductive or worse, counter-productive, then it can be altered or even simply undone and discarded. That is how evolution works, or so I have been told though the skeletons of the individual animals which grew eventually into ducks and chickens from a singular ancestral bird have yet to be found; I will not condemn the entire theory as of yet. Somewhere there is an animal where one is a Ducken and another is a Chuck but thus far no such has shown. We are shown an animal’s skeleton and are told this is the ancestral animal from which we get the duck, the chicken, the swan, the emu, the Ostridge and etc. and etc. That had to be one proud bird-like creature to be the forerunner of so many different birds and yet I have trouble seeing the similarities and especially the differences.

 

 

Yard Filled With Choices Like Life You Chose the Road You Travel

 

 

Many of the ancestral animals I am particularly glad are not on Earth today as many were downright frightening in size and probably equally capable in defending themselves. I will always remember this one bird which they claim the Ostridge family arose that could kill a modern day buffalo with one strike from its beak by breaking the buffalo’s neck. That was one mean and nasty well-armed bird even if it could not fly. Yet, similarly the same biological-anthropologists, I think that is what they are called, tell us the cockroach has survived from before the dinosaurs almost unchanged over time as it has found itself well-adapted for its niche though some claim it has differed in size from time to time and even place to place. The difference in size from place to place I personally am able to confirm. These changes are necessary and led to our emergence so we do owe our very existence to change. That alone does not make change necessarily good. The flu virus threat changes every year, or at least the injection procedure and medication changes every year and this is definitely a bad thing, especially if the physicians guess wrong and a different outbreak were to strike which actually was favored by their flu shots, this would be a calamity, a world-wide calamity. So here change happens and unless the doctors get the correct change we can lose and lose big. But change in the manner in which we do things such as education, growing crops, raising herd animals, anything to do with the food chain should not be altered drastically or completely across all borders just in case one particular path proves devastatingly wrong. As long as there are crops or animals which were left unaffected by progress, then there would be a chance to return to a path which we know to be solid and proceed, making certain we do not go down that ill tread path ever again.

 

The same should apply to education, and even political change though that often comes only from violent and complete change, all too often resulting within a short period of time, an all too short a period, to result in the same dilemma though with a new tyrant replacing the old tyrant. Then there are the merchants of hope who claimed that Bashir al-Assad was a reformer and would bring democracy and an enlightened path to Syria because, after all, he was educated in Britain and had been shown the advantages of Western culture and a whole long list of positive enforcements which would serve as a bulwark guarding against any temptations to resort to the kind or actions his father had used when he nearly wiped out an entire town to put an end to demonstrations. Unfortunately for the Syrian people and the entirety of the heartlands of the Middle East the Bashir acorn did not fall far from the tree and we had an exact same response to the demonstrations and then some, leading to a dysfunctional devastation spreading across the heartlands of the Middle East from Lebanon across the Syrian borders through to Iraq and even sprouting offshoots in Libya, Sinai Peninsula, Nigeria and beyond known as ISIS and claiming to be the Caliphate. That too is a form of change but not exactly constructive change.

 

I am not calling for an end to change as to do that is to claim you are against all progress. I am also not ever going to claim that all change is progress and therefore inherently good. Measured change which has been tried and proven to be an improvement by a wide consensus comprised with people from as wide an array of perspectives, experiences and all other criteria which may be either favorable or unsympathetic to the planned change is careful and responsible change. The results should be measured by disparate methodologies and across every field which may be affected and these results repeated in second, third and even fourth separate studies using different situations and mediums as may potentially be affected as well. Once a change has proven effective and superior to the previous known and generally accepted methods, then it can be fully implemented. Change must be performed in incremental and deliberate stages such that any and all ramifications as well as any difficulties can be addressed and rectified before the next stage is implemented. Change which is undefined is and always will be a threat to the wellbeing of the society.

 

Whenever somebody, especially a person attempting to take a meaningful position such as principle of a school or President of a nation, they must be forced to define every step of what it is they plan to change before their call for change can be judged and then approved by the people. Change which is undefined and the actual changes kept from definition is truly Hope and Change and that can prove to be very detrimental, something the full effects of which are being and are going to continue to be felt unfortunately far beyond the borders where the people claimed that they could sign on to Hope and Change and all that went with it. May the full effects be able to be repaired before some of the change delivers some nasty results, the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons within the decade being a prime example. Hopefully the human race has had enough Change where Hope was the underpinning and will now know to force any politicians claiming to be the bringer of Hope coupled with Change will demand as to what it is they Hope for and what Change they intend to use to get there, and then limit their enthusiasms as much as one is able. Change will happen even if a Luddite gains office and his entire Luddite Party gains both houses of Congress, even with such a resistance elected, change will come because some changes just cannot be held back.

 

Once the steam engine was invented and modified for industrial use with the centrifugal governor regulating its speed there would be no going back to oxen as the power for industry, the industrial revolution became unstoppable. Change that is worth keeping will eventually come into being but even as that may bring in change, it must be allowed to bring certain changes to an end when they no longer serve any purpose. One need not install any centrifugal governor to a step dc motor because it cannot enter a runaway mode, thus requiring such might have been a great idea during the steam age but would become an unnecessary part in the electronic age and requiring one would serve to keep the copper ball manufacturers employed but that would serve little other use beyond needlessly increasing prices. Still, one would be astonished on how long people have been kept in the employ and even hired to fill a position even after their position was no longer required. The fire stokers were required to man stations even after the steam locomotives were replaced by diesel electric engines despite there being no fire to tend nor coal to shovel, but that position was kept as required to man any engine for almost two decades after they became obsolete. There are those who claim this is what led to the end of passenger rail service in the United States but at the same time made air travel so successful. Eventually necessary change will happen and when resisted it can have some very interesting consequences.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.