Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, November 23, 2012

Allen Rehbein on Israeli protests


wrote in FaceBook on November 23, 2012

I don't think most of my fellow Jews quite GET IT. 
Some of us Jews are not lemmings...some of us THINK for ourselves. 
Some of us don't THINK that dropping 1,500 bombs on a tiny piece of land with 800,000 children in it will make ANYBODY safer. I think it's going to create a whole new generation of children that will despise the people who dropped all of those bombs on them and ruined their lives. There is NO WAY we can support that in good conscience. I already know all of the propaganda points that make you support it, so please stop sending me the same 3 videos about Hamas that everybody keeps posting...and PLEASE stop sending me Glenn Beck videos about Israel...last year you all thought he was crazy, not all of a sudden you think he's Israel's savior. The fact that some of us are against these policies doesn't mean we are against Israel, it means we are against the policies of the Israeli government...and NO, I will NOT "stand" wi th Israel when they do these things. I stand with the Palestinian CHILDREN at this time, who are victims of being born in Gaza, with nowhere to run to. We think that these bombing operations are doing the exact opposite of making anybody safer. Many people in Israel agree with us...they don't support their own government either. For God's sake, FOUR Israeli people have set themselves on FIRE 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c1LhUwgRXU&feature=fvwrel in protest of their own government just in 2012, and I didn't see a SINGLE one of you post an article about that. 

You can easily go to YouTube and watch the demonstrations and protests the Israeli people hold in opposition of their own government. 
Do you really care about the people of Israel, or do you just care about what you are TOLD to care about and WHEN you are told to care about it? We think these policies hurt the Israeli people much more than help them. We don't think the Israeli government works in the best interests of its people. Do you get it?

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Being Green -- Recycled

Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.
 
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
Photo: Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.
 

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

To be or not to be Conservative

As a life-long "liberal" in support of most of the political issues on the left side ... anti-war; anti-corporatism; in support of a "green" working and living environments; preservation of natural ecosystems; an early advocate of alternative energies to displace the harmful power-grid system through local, on-site production and use; in favor of boycotting violence in movies and mass-media; advocating for states' rights rather than federal dominance in laws; opposed to incarceration of persons who use marijuana for recreation and or medicinal aims; resentful and strongly against the corporate dominance of our "food" industry that has poisoned soil, water and nearly all living animals; dismayed at the disease-care industry that has grown since the Nixon years to profit from keeping people increasingly ill; a strong preference for small, family-owned businesses rather than large corporations; the freedom to follow one's sexual orientation as it comes naturally, without harassment; and the freedom to practice or not practice any religion that one deems right and suitable without interference or ridicule ... I know it is exceedingly apt to ask the question: To be or not to be, or, to defend or not to defend "conservatism." 

It appears that a majority of voting Americans believe that a "conservative" holds views in direct opposition to a self-proclaimed "liberal" or "progressive." Not all "liberals" are "progressives," although all "progressives" are "liberals." 
  
Of these three groups, those who claim to be "progressive" reveal an egoistic arrogance regarding their assumed roles in human civilization, as if to proclaim, "the social and political progress of humankind depends upon agreement with me on most issues." Another way to put it: "Follow me so that human civilization can progress towards perfection." 

Fortunately, again, not all "liberals" are "progressives." 

Still, the enormous error persists: To hold views in opposition to "liberal or progressive" political/social tenets makes one a "conservative." And, as one relative repeats excessively, "Republicans and conservatives like you just don't get it." [For the record, I've never voted Republican.]

Thus is exposed the narrow-mindedness of those who habitually, vociferously denounce "conservatism" and "conservatives" as if they are humans of a lower development on an evolutionary scale. Yes, even adherence to unproven and partially disproven evolutionary theories reveals arrogance within some "liberal progressives." The less-than-subtle implication is that, as a "progressive," one has also become so due to higher intelligence on an evolutionary path, while "conservatives" adhere to ideas perhaps more relevant to the daily life of a Neanderthal. 

As if blindly believing in evolution is proof enough of its validity, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary.

If a "conservative" is not merely the opposite of an enlightened, highly-evolved, super-intelligent "liberal," what makes a true conservative?

A true conservative is someone who believes that nature provides the best possible model for preserving life for a species, thus, we should strive to emulate nature in our developed systems, our arteries of transportation and communication, and we should preserve, as much as possible, the natural world in which we live and upon which our lives depend.

A true conservative believes that some answers to our problems will come through science, yet it is far too early to say that technology is the answer or will be the answer to human problems applicable universally. The antithesis of this is found in the arrogance of "liberal-progressive" thinking: Science and technology hold the key to solving all the problems of human civilization, and this justifies Monsanto Corporation, as an example, to create new organisms to feed the world as if it is true that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for consumption.  

A true conservative is able to glean wisdom from traditional religious writings and beliefs. Yet, a conservative need not be religious in order to be right about the most prudent course to take individually or as a society. 

There are few atheistic conservatives, while many "liberals" or "progressives" are agnostic or atheistic in tenets or practice. It is as if "liberals" and "progressives" outgrow religious beliefs (and related wisdom) just as one outgrows childhood clothing. It follows that "conservatives" are described as if it were true they still wear their childhood clothes in public. 
 
A true conservative believes in thrift but not in debt as the prudent way to finance our present and future projects. 

A true conservative is frugal, believing that conservation of personal and community resources is prudent and wise. These resources include natural gifts of the earth, its minerals and life-supporting ecosystems, but also the resource of knowledge, traditions and wisdom accrued over countless generations. And, yes, sometimes wisdom is found in the writings of major religions, some traditions held as a resource to be passed down to later generations. 

A true conservative understands that religion functions as a school through which knowledge, wisdom and moral lessons are to be transmitted to younger generations. Those who understand this also discern the difference between this essential function of religion and how it is represented, quite falsely, by "progressives," who represent religious teachings as equivalent to lessons of a dog-obedience school. On this point, conservatives earn a right to say accurately of "progressives" and "liberals," ... "You just don't get it." 

And yes, there are many who call themselves "conservative," adhering to a very limited understanding of their own religious tenet of free will, who as a consequence also accept their own religious teaching as if it is comparable to a dog-obedience school. They just don't get it.

A true conservative believes in preserving life and freedom for all, not merely for those who come first. That is to say, a conservative is able to discern the contradiction of being opposed to harmful substances in food, in baby formula, in water, and opposition to weapons of war used against unarmed civilians nearly everywhere they are imposed ... and a "liberal-progressive" advocating for abortion as a convenient method of birth control under the delusion/deception of "a woman's health." 

To be or not to be a conservative? 

I believe in free will. This is not the same as believing in total freedom to do whatever one chooses to do, or as some liberal progressives will advocate, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." Those who profess this as "true" may or may not know that it was Aleister Crowley, who proudly proclaimed himself the most evil man alive, who made that assertion. 

I believe that adults should be allowed to freely grow and use "recreational" or medical marijuana as a conservative exercise of free will. 

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to fully practice a religion without interference or intimidation from institutions or ridicule from the increasing social networks of the general public. Of course, it follows that all should be free to express themselves at any time and place unless the mode of expression interferes with reasonable peace of others. 

I believe in collective effort to resolve social problems such as hunger and homelessness, but not in collectivism in any form as means to the same end. 

Blind are those on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide who persist in demanding that our largest institutions, corporations and federal governments, resolve the high-unemployment phenomena by "creating jobs." The solution to this problem lies in restoration of past practices, the same past practices that "liberals" are in a hurry to "progress" away from: those that made small towns in America prosperous hubs of commerce from the local vicinity of small family-owned farms, local "savings and loan" banks, owner-run small businesses, cohesive families, and church-based charities that met of the needs of a community's down-and-outs through communal care. And importantly, most counties required doctors to provide assistance to county-run clinics for indigent persons in need, pro bono.

The majority of people who agree with these definitions are excluded from the ranks of the upper-middle class and the wealthy elite in this country. The great majority of truly conservative people are poor, or are struggling to maintain a stable position in the economic quagmire of this decade. 

To be or not to be a "conservative" is best approached by first expanding one's view of what "conservative" means beyond the confines of the popular yet exceedingly misleading definition written and broadcast by enemies of the merits of a conservative lifestyle. Among these ranks are atheists, anti-family advocates, a growing population of narcissists (see a future blog on narcissists) and hedonists, an increasing number of poorly educated victims of the dumbing-down of American education, and a swelling population of "entitled" persons whose maturing process has been retarded by excessive satisfaction of desire combined with lack of accepting personal responsibility. {If you have contributed to unemployment insurance or social security or Medicare payments and need these, or qualify to draw down from them, these are not parasitic entitlements, but your due. Corporations receive the vast majority of "entitlement" payments, tax breaks and "profits" through deceptively favourable legal means.} 

The demise of the concept of sin applicable to human behavior, an atheist-modernist modification, has significantly contributed to mass-denial of personal responsibility

It follows that a large majority of abortions performed as a convenient means of "birth control" are motivated by a woman's (or other family members') desire, or demand, to avoid personal responsibility for a child. It is no surprise that "progressives" equate a "woman's health" with her "right" to obtain an abortion on demand. Taking personal responsibility for a baby, even very short-term until an adoption may be arranged, is an inconvenience that conflicts with the "progressive-modernist" redefinition of the gift of free will. {"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law."} And, the use of the birth-control pill has proven to be disastrous for a great number of women whose health has severely deteriorated as a result of The Pill. The deception is monumental. 

Taking personal responsibility is the crux of the matter of deciding, if it is indeed an option, to be or not to be a conservative. The human herd is stampeding toward avoidance of personal responsibility. The recent and growing demand that big business and enormous government "create jobs" or provide for the needs of tens of millions of people living (existing, often) on the margins is evidence of this trend away from personal responsibility. Both corporate "persons" {the designation of which by the United States Supreme Court is a heinous crime against humanity} and governmental organizations lead the world in the failure to take responsibility and to be held accountable for actions detrimental to human beings. Those who plead with these organizations for "jobs creation" and "economic solutions" directly abdicate personal responsibility and free will applicable, and significantly essential to equitable resolution. 

A wiser population would be raising a voice for independence in thought, words (mass-media) and actions towards a free society in which personal effort and ingenuity can and will be applied to resolve individual and collective problems. Then, the merits of conservative lifestyles would become universally evident. 









       

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Dam shame of it

On Mon, 10/15/12, Helen West in Alaska

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter, you won’t stop once you start. 

This is an actual letter: State of Pennsylvania 's letter to Mr. DeVries: 
SUBJECT: DEQ ... File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations.. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2010.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action..

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely, David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.


Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries: 
Re: DEQ File
No.. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 11/17/09 has been handed to me. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at
2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania .

A couple of beavers are in the process of constructing and maintaining two wood 'debris' dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials 'debris.'

I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.




These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) Do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)

I have several dam concerns. My first dam concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.

If you want the damed stream 'restored' to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2010? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice by then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your dam step! The bears are not careful where they dump!

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU,

RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS 
 

4 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images   Share all images  
ATT00001.jpgATT00001.jpg
15K   View   Share   Download  
ATT00003.jpgATT00003.jpg
18K   View   Share   Download  
ATT00004.jpgATT00004.jpg
10K   View   Share   Download  
ATT00002.jpgATT00002.jpg
9K   View   Share   Download  

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Liberal intellectuals and the Obama election

The following is a passage from The Ultimate Frontier by Eklal Kueshana, first published in 1963. 


    "Most people who arrogate to themselves the status of 'intellectual' are seeking a distinction among men to compensate for their social ineptitude. A deep sense of inferiority compels them to proclaim their superiority over intelligent men of good sense.  Intellectuals like to believe that they are so far above the rest of society that common men can't understand them or appreciate them. To prove this contention, they have an esoteric jargon of their own. When intellectuals gather, they spend the time impressing each other with their culture and education. Such intellectuals form a sort of lunatic group of writers, artists, poets and bizarre nonconformists, who parrot clever things they've learned from published intellectuals. Because they really try to believe they are above men, they will go to any extreme to demonstrate their contempt for society's hard-gained concepts of proper behavior and morality.
    "Intellectuals behave in a bohemian manner not so much for the sake of enjoyment but because it is the very opposite of prudent convention. They flout religion because they feel their intellect is beyond such opiates. They contrarily profess radical, revolutionary movements and would secretly love to gain control over their country in order to mold it to their own liking. Inasmuch as they cannot fit into society, their antagonism toward it makes them want to command all who comprise it. They would force everyone to acclaim their kind as exalted beings. Intellectuals are notorious for having promoted revolutionary ideologies which have resulted in the overthrow of established governments, and in effect, they have carelessly and unconscionably delivered whole nations into the hands of dictators. this they may do in hopes of reward from a new government, but almost without exception they are removed as dangerous inciters of revolution by the very scoundrels they afforded power. 
    "Most intellectuals are prone to harmless self-pity, retreat and erratic behavior; but the liberal is a real villain. He will take no firm stand on anything even if his very survival depends on a soundly reasoned plan of action. He will tell you that one must be open to both sides of every question at all times. He will bend over to demonstrate, for instance, that Nazism and Buddhism are similar or that the concepts of good and evil are wholly relative so that no absolute moral laws can exist or insist that the notion of the sun revolves about the Earth can never be entirely disproven. Under the guise of open-mindedness and intellectual fairness, we have a person who will not think constructively or conclusively. Ironically, he usually is college educated, smoothly persuasive and well-polished socially, and these attributes aid in his appointment to positions of trust and respectability. But his devious, unanchored morality and his adeptness at evasive double-talk make the liberal an easy turncoat and traitor -- after all, his loyalty is only relative to his nonabsolute code of morality. He can rationalize any immoral behavior by his shifting standards which allow him, above all other men, the ability to live any way he pleases and never sin in his own eyes. This he can do without inner conflict because the liberal can argue that his intellect may in some respects exceed God's wisdom -- if indeed he even recognizes a God. The liberal, as you can see, is without common sense, logic or morality. He is creation's most dangerous fool." 

There is a direct link between the above passage and the reelection of Obama to occupy the White House. In both 2008 and 2012 Obama was the overwhelming favorite of "intellectuals" that hold positions of influence in this nation's universities, a group eerily consistent with the above definition. In addition, also consistent with the positions of influence held by the "intelligentsia" in mass media within nominally "Liberal" or "Conservative" venues, a great number of people have accepted the pronouncements of these groups "on both sides of the aisle" as if their arguments have merit. Thus, the recent "election" has been been given credibility in the minds of most voters. 

Style has overruled substance. Superficiality has risen to preclude examination of content and meaning within the political spectrum of this country.

This is a dangerous position for this nation to be in, while the great majority of Americans face uncertain futures. The consensus accepted blindly is to "elect" officials and trust the future well-being of more than three hundred million persons to them, hoping that they will act benevolently and wisely in the interest of us all. History has proven time and again that this expectation is never fulfilled, and that those who are granted such power inevitably abuse it in their own self-interest.