Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Are magicians hypocrites?

Can we distinguish ourselves? Free minds notice; and they also can choose how to spend their time or what to focus on.

Ask yourself whether those you surround yourself with are those who allow your to assert your mind, or impose standards on them that they may choose to impose on others.

Long, long ago. . . in a blog not so far away . . .

I learned a very valuable lesson. That when someone is emotionally involved in a decision or outcome, they may have a hard time seeing the truth, reading information, or simply staying objective.

Lo and behold, today we learn the problem associated with someone being too close to the outcome or result.

Here were a couple of key points that caught my eye:

  • How does one define "too close" and "how close" is "too close"

    QUOTE: Mr. White's relationship with key Republicans appears “too close for comfort."

  • Need for objectivity in times when we do not have perspective

    QUOTE: "Generally, someone like this would step down and recuse themselves," Miss Kaptur said. "It sounds like he had a lot of close connections to principals who are being investigatedted."

    Sometimes, when we get information, even though we think it says X, Y, or Z . . . a reaonable person, who is not involved could come to a different conclusion.

    Know that the problem of "objectivity" isn't something that is unique to a particular party; rather the problem is one of a conflict of interest.

    Those who have an agenda, and do not like the message, will cast those they want to discredit in an unfavorable light, even going so to as tho ignore other information; and take a step back and look at what the other views are.

    Youcredibilitydibilty when you point to those who have a "conflict" problem, but fail to see in house the same conflicts, standardsnndards, and selective arguments to justify outassociationscations, decisions, and results.

    There is a blending of truth and non-sense to justify decisions, even ones that are no different than the enemy you fight.]


  • Can they stay on topic?

  • Do they yell or use bold language?

  • Why is "their pet project or issue" more worthy of consideration than your concern or question?

  • Why do they define what "others should or should not do"?

  • Why dissuading otehrs not to look at certain matters?

  • Is it a "distraction" or "manipulation" to not talk about distractions?

  • If the issue is a "reasonable risk to occur," why the reluctance to discuss it, much less have a back-up plan should it occur?

  • Is your future destinted?

  • Do they look at mortals as Gods?

    We have free choice and can change the future. No man is above the law, nor worthy of blind obedience.

    I remain unconvinced that someone can be asserted to have either wisdom or insight when they fall into the trap of asserting that the future is fixed.

    Plans are not alawys used. But they are good to have just in case.

    Notice who asks, then compells you to "not look" behind the curtain. Why not? Do they not belive that you are capable of using your time as you want?

    These are the people who say, "We know better," but do they?

    Those who assert "they are for the rule of law," should surely trust you to make your own decisions about what to read, how to spend your time, what is important, what is worthy of consideration.

    Perhaps they yell, and scream, then assert "the right choice," because they do not trust you to choose for yoruself how to spend your time, what to focus on.

    They like to meddle. Have they made poor choices in the past; and want to "protect others" from making the same "poor choices" as they?

    Look who thinks of the time they were afloat, perhaps longing for shore. A catapult does launch dreams, and it reminds us of what we have given up.

    The time is gone. Will they assume that all might do the same and fritter their time? They do not trust you to make your own choice. They seek to compel you to focus.

    What do they fear if you focus on what "they do not want you to consider"? They fear that you will be distracted from what they choose to define as "what you should or should not do."

    Trust yourself to choose for your own. Let those who wish to assert the "rigth choice," show by example that they can trust themselves to remain focused on what is most prudent.

    Ask whether they have demonstrated a willingness to be as open with "other views," as they require you to be of "their view of what is appropriate."

    Notice the contrast between the standard they apply to you; and the liberty they give to themself.

    Then notice what happens if you attempt to impose the same standard on them that they impose on you: Notice the accusations of "poor thinking", to which they refuse to accept for themselves.

    They have double standards; and they have double standards about which issues and standards are to be discussed.

    Call it what it is hypocrisy and a lack of credibility.

    Other views

    Will you dare to apply your insights to other situations?

    Sometimes trash stays and sticks where it not only belongs, but where it is best kept and serves its most useful purpose.