You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Thomas Jefferson’ category.

The main purpose of a political party is to get its members elected to office and then push specific objectives that follow a sustained line-of-thinking.

Although our current president (I used small caps, purposefully) Barack Obama, is clearly more interested in staying in office for the sake of just being in office. He is apparently in mortal fear, now, of being ousted after a single term – an ultimate form of humiliation suffered by tense denizens of the Oval Office (see the hapless Jimmy Carter). This is the only reason he petulantly gave up his efforts to over-tax the wealthy (under his own earthly father’s vision). But, let’s all of us, collectively, firm up our satisfaction in knowing the fellow and his government whore group have been routed (as in seriously ass-kicked).

Meanwhile… Parties are, otherwise,  made up of people who have the same general idea and goals about governing. Once in power, the purpose of the Party is to accomplish its goals for the city, state, or nation. While not in power, the Party acts as the “loyal opposition” until it can elect a majority of its members to power.

Look for Obama to devolve into a form of petulant terrorist if he finds himself wobbling towards lame-duck status under eight years. I’m currently of the belief that he thinks wealthy people, not of his design, don’t deserve their status, and need their assets reallocated to fuel his ideals. More on this later. However, we need to be ready. That’s both the Heterodox and Jeffersonian in me – as well as the Prudent and Optimistic Gentleman.

To be clear… The Founding Fathers disliked political parties, calling them “factions” motivated by self interest.

Historical footnote: Then President, George Washington, was so disturbed over the quarreling between Hamilton (Federalists) and Jefferson (anti-Federalists) that he famously devoted much of his Farewell Address to the evils of parties. You need to understand that the people who supported Hamilton and Adams were called Federalists (ironically supporters of the Constitution) but they were not, in fact, an organized political party.

The first recognized party in America was made up of the followers of Jefferson, who, starting in the 1790s, called themselves Republicans (or, I love this, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans). Hamilton and those who opposed Jefferson, kept the name Federalist and appeared to be content with a form of rabble-rousing.

Let’s be clear, Jefferson’s Republican Party has no ties to the current Republican Party. In fact, the current Democratic Party considers Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as the founders of their party. But, somehow, after Bill Clinton, the Democratic party forgot that they are public servants, and appear more intent on creating an environment that serves their own miserable means.

More later. Read between the lines. Talk amongst yourselves. Care.

There might be the gnashing of teeth. Possibly the shaking of fists. Certainly voices will be raised.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

It’s been a rather long, tumultuous, and educational experiential journey refamiliarizing myself with the PC (as opposed to Apples), Windows – by way of the Android Operating System – and technology in the form of upheaval; the kind that requires and creates change. “Experiential” is an interesting word for the purposes of this post. The word derives it’s meaning from a learning process at the feet of old philosophers, yet it’s also apropos to a dedicated process of learning something new by, essentially, immersion. And, here we are…

Along the way, I find myself constantly reminded that we’ve become terribly reliant upon the internet for information with it being the uncertain arbiter of truth.

So… It’s become my view that the Internet, or any technology can not, will not, and should not act as a proxy to achieve the dreams and social goals we lack the courage to propose, debate, and legislate.

Thusly, I stand firm the Jeffersonian and Heterodox.

And, not often enough, we’ve discussed what being Jeffersonian means, on this Blog. However, today I’ll add some thought around what it does not mean. There will most certainly be the shaking of fists – and, furiously, that. Possibly the gnashing of teeth. Heated words, to be sure. The portent of change, inevitable.

NOTE: Don’t be overly concerned if you are reading this and come to a bound conclusion that you’ve waded, possibly unsuspecting, into my thinking mid-stream. We must all begin somewhere, and it’s how we finish, and that likely, counts for the most.

In any event, I’ll offer this abstract to maneuver you along:

It is often claimed that Internet technology will revolutionize society by privileging the small and benefiting the individual. We term the utopian tendency to hail a new communication technology as an inherently positive, decentralizing, and democratic force. In a manner of speaking this might be referred to as an example of the: “the Jeffersonian syndrome (named in honor of my hero so often appropriated to identify the decentralized, democratic outcome – the predicted triumph of the many over the few).”

It’s not just me, mind you. Others started it…

“Life in cyberspace seems to be shaping up exactly like Thomas Jefferson would have wanted: founded on the primacy of individual liberty and a commitment to pluralism, diversity, and community” (Kapor, 1993).

And,

“…the social liberalism of New Left and the economic liberalism of New Right have converged into an ambiguous dream of a hi-tech ‘Jeffersonian democracy’. Interpreted generously, this retro-futurism could be a vision of a cybernetic frontier where hi-tech artisans discover their individual self-fulfillment in either the electronic agora or the electronic marketplace” (Barbrook & Cameron, 1998).

Huh? “agora”?

Social critics dislike paucity. For example, society (that collective you), they (the social critics) complain, suffers when there are too few firms in a market, too few political choices, or too little communication. Small numbers of firms coordinate actions to stifle entry and innovation, largely at the expense of consumers. Concentration at the most extreme results in rapacious monopolies that produce inferior products at high prices. Likewise, a small number of political parties limit voter choice, stifle policy change, and produce voter apathy and special interest politics. Society would clearly be better served, so the critics argue, by greater political choice and the accompanying increased voter participation. Too little communication is also bad for society, as limited communication precludes understanding, diversity, and community.

Weep not for the minority, although, it is that collective “they” that hold most of the power, and the wealth, under many definitions, that is part of it.

Social critics often place their hopes in technology to erode the dominance of the few and foster diversity. Many view the internet as a liberating technology. Indeed, they embrace the internet as subversive, a technology that will pry power away from the few – tyrants, censors, robber barons and phone monopolies (let’s not forget Obama, Obamacrats, and that insidious media) and return it to the people. The internet, so the critics claim, will usher in a new era of perfect market competition, more direct democracy, and greater community-building (cf. Dyson, 1997). Ultimately, it will undermine the dominant few in many segments of society, and usher in a more democratic and heterogeneous political and economic system.  A system that will produce infinite consumer choice in the marketplace, deliver true democracy in the political realm, and provide unlimited and enhanced communication in the cultural realm.

This view leads to fallacious expectations about the impact of technology. And, these misguided expectations are cyclic and predictable. Corollary to this might be  a brief historical discussion of earlier communication technologies. Jeffersonian claims about the Internet are rebutted by the three propositions:

1.  New technologies do not operate in isolation from existing organizations and systems;

2.  Valuable information is never cheap; and,

3.  The economics of information markets imply concentrated structures.

And, so… The Internets non-Jeffersonian impact on economic, political, and community structures is discussed using three cases:

1.  The online market for books;

2.  The claims made about direct democracy; and,

3.  And, political parties, and the hopes for computer- mediated communities.

It’s not that I wish to promote an opposite, dystopian perspective, nor do I consider the Internet impotent in terms of societal change.

Instead, I wish to call attention to the Jeffersonian-esque view of technology as a very predictable mis-perception that is a waste of our energies.

First, as a society we must, in reasoned deliberation, conclude that we are in need of one or more of the goals we have discussed here; be it less concentrated markets, greater economic efficiency, more direct democracy, a more decentralized political system, or more participatory and emancipatory communities.

Second, after a rational analysis of our goal and the changes needed in the social, political, and economic domains to approach it (addressing also the question of if and how “the” internet has the potential to aid us in these ends).

Third, and perhaps finally, we need to advance that goal through policy.

The hype surrounding technology is also predictably old: the introduction of the PC ushered in the “PC revolution” quite simply because many analysts expected the technology to usher in just that – a revolution (a revolution of what and how the revolution was to happen was never quite specified). The hype and bluster of the internet and in particular electronic markets is thus just yet another round of new technologies and anticipated revolutions.

Think in terms of what the catapult meant to war nine hundred years ago.

These technologies have had, and may yet have, a broad range of important and far-reaching implications. The question on the table is whether these technologies will deliver on the promised Jeffersonian expectations of decentralization and democratization, or whether this revolution will yet again fail to materialize. As I’ll struggle, here, in my own inarticulate manner, to have made clear, the weight of history leads us to doubt, the present conditions in electronic commerce lead us to doubt, the claims made about direct democracy lead us to doubt, and the idolatry of the computer-mediated community lead us to doubt.

This makes me perhaps not fearful, but certainly watchful of the idyllic, sophomoric generation that sees computers and the internet as the “easy button”.

While this post has approached these domains largely using an economic perspective, I’ll grimly suspect that judicious analysis from other perspectives would also cast the Jeffersonian expectation in an unflattering light. But, stay focused on me. But, as my own Mother expounded: Question everything, and accept nothing until the truth of the day is best known.

Where the drive of the heterodox crosses paths with the passion and intellectual nuance of the Jeffersonian, you’ll find that truth in the light of the seeking heart.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

so… if Barak Obama had even an inkling of how to understand business, conduct business, run a business, or what business means, I suspect he’d find himself on the Microsoft Board of Directors. Obama and Gates could then give each other insight as to how best to point fingers at, well, everyone else for their short-falls. remember, Gates stole his original idea from Steve Jobs, and Obama just short-“changed” everyone else.

I’ve always been a bit surprised that the Obama’s didn’t name their dog “Thomas Jefferson”, because Obama always seems determined to kick that legacy to hell, and daily.

Obama is mostly focused on just trying to stay in government. his actions are centric to keeping his job as opposed to doing his job. and, that makes him look like Microsoft which is surrounded by lawsuits for all manner of diabolical and insidious behavior.

we’ve, collectively, taken stock of Obama; we want none of it; and, it’s probably a good thing if you don’t own any of Microsoft’s.

by the way… it’s pretty clear to me he is following the example set by Tony Blair and positioning himself for a United Nations post after his (hopefully short) tour of duty through (as in burning) the Oval Office. he could then go back to his roots and act like he’s king-of-the-world.

peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

brian patrick cork

follow me boys. it’s glory or death, then.

dramatic words, to be sure.

however, we’re realizing another period in our nations history where drama and action are relevant and required. Aubrey Nelson said it first (as far as I know), but Neal Boortz repeated it – and, with great emphasis. We may well be facing the single greatest challenge to our country since the Civil War. mind you, war has a unique way of catapulting a society to another level. that can be a higher level, or a lower level.

I don’t know if shots will be fired, other than from debating floor. but, I’m convinced that change needs to be the result.

our national deficit, which means debt, may be creeping towards unprecedented levels. back when England, France and Spain were much younger as nations they also owed a lot of money so they set out to discover new territories. we may not have that option, other than Mexico. more on that later, but annexing Mexico makes a lot of economic and strategic sense.

England has committed to reducing government spending by twenty-five percent (25%) until their deficit is “manageable”. trust me, they mean it. and, few people can knuckle down better than the English. I’m married to one of them. the French on the other hand are rioting in the streets. I don’t know if it’s because they have embraced a Muslim culture, or if it’s because they can’t survive, as a people, without direct government distribution of broader fiscal management.

historically, our own (more) direct ancestors faced some tough decisions and then challenges in terms of whom they might follow – the English and/ or the French.

by the way… the French are not as self-entitled as our media would have you think. it’s mostly that they have become dependent on a government that tells it’s people what to do as opposed to leading by example.

as it turned out, from the historical rear-view mirror, we learned vital lessons from both and followed our own destiny. now Barack Obama and his total lack of both business acumen and disregard for anything other than his personal desire to stay in power, threaten everything that a Capitalist-oriented nation with appropriate oversight and checks and balances should stand for.

broad statements, I know. and, the debate, with salient details, will take better form elsewhere.

but, the question, here, is whom shall we follow? England or France?

lessons both learned and taught from my own experience with standing armies, and in business, is if you don’t like what is happening you change the rules, or you change the circumstances. so, perhaps I run the risk of being called a dissident or a heretic – depending on your historical perspective – and, think like the English or the French. but, we must needs realize change.

so… getting back to that drama… it really might be about glory or death. I am a patriot. I am also an influencer. and, I think first, and foremost like a Jeffersonian and the heterodox. let’s go ahead and toss in some Ayn Rand for good measure. Barack Obama would fear, and also hate, both of them – just like Golem despised the light (Lord of the Rings). fight the evil. let’s not be like the French and allow an insidious and ill-conceived agenda inspire rot in our culture that will disallow our children to realize what this nation was founded upon, and can be yet, in terms of a global beacon of truth and light.

I have a torch, in hand. and, I’m lighting it here. follow me boys. it’s glory, or death.

more later.

meanwhile, lets listen to “its the end of the world, as we know it” by REM (this tune never had a dedicated music video of it’s own. but, this offering is relatively apropos.

peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

brian patrick cork

Apparently “the” Democrats believe “change” will carry them through elections. I guess it’s all about the (new) slogan and logo. New, in this case, is just sort of different. Maybe it’s just not so bad as the worst case. So, let’s talk about some “change that matters”, and this according to a relentless revision of Obamacrat, I mean Democrat marketing, I mean doctrine.

This might not be exactly how Rush Limbaugh might phrase things… However, here are some examples of the changes that the Obama administration and the Democrats have inspired to certain lexicon:

1.   The War on Terror became an: “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

2.   Welfare checks became: “tax cuts.”

3.   Illegal immigrants became: “undocumented workers.”

4.   Economic stimulus became: “investments.”

5.   Global warming became: “climate change.”

6.   Watch this one very carefully. The Bush tax cuts became: “the Obama tax cuts for the middle class.”

7.   Freedom of speech became: “hate speech.” Especially if it’s considered a slight against the Obamacrats.

8.   Protecting our borders became: “racist.”

9.   The financial sector became: “greedy Wall Street fat cats.”

10.  Unions became: “struggling middle class Americans.”

I don’t have an issue with the theory behind the Democratic party. Thomas Jefferson, himself, had the balance-of-power and checks-and-balance system in mind when he helped create the Constitution, aftar all. However, they can change how words work in certain combinations (I hint at this in another post that is apropos, here entitled: situational awareness) all they (or, is it “they’d”?) like, but the fact is that the too many solutions promised by (more so Obamacrats, and less so Democrats) haven’t created reasonable change. Thought Leaders are right when they argue there is an enthusiasm gap between Democrats and their voters (and, yes, I discussed that in my post: it’s Civil War, then), but a new website and logo isn’t the solution they were likely looking for.

Let’s be part of the solution. Pick up the phone (I’ll be using my EVO 4G on the Sprint network, thank you), dial your representative, and call for policies that encourage the private sector to grow and maintain jobs, for example. I understand the double-dip recession fears are abating. But, that’s due to the fact that corporate debt default is now below four percent (4%) and middle-sized companies are selling products to larger companies (more on that later). But, perhaps they should have spent a little more time designing that particular roadmap and a little less time designing a website. Especially when the looming tax code revisions cool-off small and middle-sized company growth, spending and hiring (a lot more on that sooner).

When coaching my Shockers I try to inspire them with messages like: “If you are going to a thing, why not always give it your best? This includes using your super powers for good”. It’s not unfair asking our government leadership to take up the same thinking. And, then they also get to lead by example, and inspire the next generation of leaders – just like Thomas Jefferson envisioned.

Look… We’ll discuss my running for Governor later than sooner. Just be ready.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I’ve been tracking government decision-making. I’m never satisfied with how people of authority come to conclusions and then take action that directly affects my standard of living, and ability to wage best practices in business.

Oh really?

Allow me to form an example:

A key difference between experts in the private sector, and experts in the government sector, is that government experts have monopoly-like power (authority), ultimately backed by force (also known as implied threat).

The power of government experts is concentrated and unchecked. Or, at best, checked very poorly (if you disagree, you can come over, here, and fight me). On the other hand, the power of experts in the private sector is constrained by competition, and checked by choice. Private organizations have to satisfy the needs of their constituents (I use that particular word because of it’s relevance to members of the House and Senate for corollary consideration) in order to survive. Ultimately, private experts have to respect the dignity, if not best interests, of the individual, because the individual has the freedom to ignore the expert. It’s supposed to work this way with Congressmen and Senators, but they focus more on staying in power. So, this means they enforce the government authority. This is an obvious conflict.

Just so we’re clear… Barack Obama has filled his administration with “experts” and academics. But what about the private sector where real-world subject matter expertise is formed? Just look at his cabinet: only eight percent (8%) of Obama’s current cabinet represents people with private sector experience. All the rest are professional government hacks (as in hacking the Constitution, and Jefferson’s best hopes). Of course, we should consider Obama’s own professional resume. Our Commander and Chief’s “Bible” is apparently the book: Rules for Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky (read it. do it now!); his “work” experience was being a social-worker, and then a Senator; and, his greatest aspiration might well be to realize his father’s (A Harvard educated Luo Tribesman from Kenya with a Muslim up-bringing) political vision (think along anti-colonialism).

Read a lot more than you bargained for in my next Blog post.

Meanwhile… I might discuss this briefly – maybe soon. I’m thinking about it… But, with six weeks to go before vital elections, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (government experts, mind you) have declared that the recession is over! And, they back-dated the news for June just to make it look like it’s not all staged (well geez Brian, if it’s in writing, it must be true [middle-class American]). Don’t let Obama and his Democrat mob fool you with that one – please.

You’ve asked me to consider running for Governor. I’m thinking about that too.

You get what you pay for in life. And, ironically, I have an uneasy feeling a lot us us are going to pay out the #@% if this tomfoolery isn’t managed.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I starting offering my views and opinons around a certain pistol packin pastor just yesterday.

I can’t condone the burning of any book (or, “Word Windows” as we’ve often referred to them since Haley Anne was four years old).

In any event, this story just gets worse.

In Pakistan, about 200 lawyers and civil society members marched and burned a U.S. flag in the central Pakistani city of Multan, demanding that Washington halt the burning of the Muslim holy book.

So… They burned a, if not the, symbol of our country to some how make a point that we should not burn their holy book.

It’s bad enough that this celebrity-seeking-pentacostal-point-pounding-pistol-packin-preacher /1 is willfully stirring the pot and maliciously putting people in harms way. He has scienter, no less. But, now we have the FBI visiting his Gainesville-based church. Although we don’t know what’s being said, there, we can suspect the picadell0-postulating-preacher is being warned. So, this means our own government is getting “heavy” and possibly impeding an element of our own Constitution that’s related to Free Speech.

What? There’s more?

To be sure. Just read on. Do it now!

Gainesville police will already be dealing with some ninety thousand (90,000) football fans Saturday, as the book (that shall not be named, but is often misspelled as Koran) and even more tailgaters for the Florida-South Florida game.

Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe has publicly condemned the church’s plans and asked residents to watch for “suspicious behavior” (apprently other than pastors packin heat and FBI agents crawlin’ about asking questions of “persons of interest”). At least one counter-protest was planned by a University of Florida student group.

So… Now you’ll have people in, or from trailers, getting involved.

City officials were increasing security, but wouldn’t go into detail about how many extra officers will be used, saying only that they were coordinating with other cities and “tallying expenses”.

“We are sending a bill for services to the Dove World Outreach Center. We’re tracking our costs,” said city spokesman Bob Woods. “I’m sure the cost will be substantial.”

isn’t that, well…. like a threat?

I mean, despite the fact that the Florida football game might be affected, does anyone see an ugly pattern here?

I’ll offer a hint: The terrorists are winning again because we are being as ugly as they are.

Allow me to be clear… I’d feel justified if we sent in a Special Ops team to take-out those protestors that burned our flag. But, otherwise, this pastor is an example of distorted material values, our own constitutionally-formed government feels so powerless that we need to use intimidation instead of mediation, a real important football game is pulled from the lime-light, and city officials are threatening punitive measures if a lone citizen refuses to bow to an uncertain civil rule or opinion.

Thomas Jefferson must be spinning so fast in his grave the earth may well depart from it’s axis.

Isn’t that what the Talibahn does while, ironically, pointing to the the Qu’ran for interpretation and  justification?

It blows my mind that we end up making this lunatic preacher who should be standing on a New York cross-street look like he could be right, after all.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

1/ Understanding what being Pentacostal means might help explain naught a few things.

what’s all this about?

I can’t explain what that damn tree means - or, if it might stand for something.

However, here I do discuss events, people and things in our world - and, my (hardly simplistic, albeit inarticulate) views around them.

So, while I harangue the public in my not so gentle way, you will discover that I am fascinated by all things arcane, curious about those whom appear religious, love music, dabble in politics, loathe the media, value education, still think I am an athlete, and might offer a recipe.

All the while, striving mightily, and daily, to remain a prudent and optimistic gentleman.

brian cork by John Campbell

Current Quote

"Perhaps victory can be realized best when the heart changes."

Share This Blog! Do It!

Bookmark and Share

Follow brian on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 111 other followers

Archives

Categories

blog calendar?

April 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Top Clicks

  • None

LinkedIN



View Brian Cork's profile on LinkedIn

about this particular Theme:

I'll warn you now that Tarski is theme of this blog created by Benedict Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. It is named for the logician Alfred Tarski. I'll recommend his papers ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’ and ‘On the Concept of Logical Consequence’, both of which can be found in the collection Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics.