“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”

Famous words from the past that still deserves an answer that we won’t accept.

“The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear,” Thiel said Monday.
“If you don’t conform (to their ideology), then you don’t count as diverse, no matter what your personal background.”

So are we talking about RELIGION, RACIAL ETHNICITY, HERITAGE or WHAT?

Immigration reform is more than just installing a "religious test" for immigration, like banning Muslims. It's about looking for extremists regardless of religion.

It's not about keeping individuals from certain countries or religions out, but about looking at why they come here and what they do here.

It's about putting those who want to legally immigrate and go through the proper steps in front of those that don’t. Those that do go through the proper procedures, should be given preference to be allowed to live here and accept the more vigorous scrutiny of their circumstances. It's about if they should be allowed to live here. If they want to live here, they should want to belong here. They should want to assimilate into the society of law-abiding citizens that live here. They should want to accept our culture, even if it interferes with theirs. They should be allowed to bring in those parts of their culture that don't interfere with ours. They should want to speak our language and help us to understand theirs.

Not everyone who is here illegally is a bad person who has a violent or criminal behavior; many are hardworking individuals with a moral upbringing. They aren't all into theft, drugs, and violence, but the good ones should not be given preference over those who legally go through the proper procedures, and those who are born here should only be given citizenship if one of the parents is already a citizen.

It appears that the many religions have the same view of God, but differ in interpretations of the words of God. It's interesting that the words and ideals attributed to God are essentially the same, before religious inflection is applied to them.

I think I heard that God will accept anyone in heaven if they repent, but I could be wrong about that, it may depend on which religious leader I ask.

What's most interesting is that if you convert from one religion to another, it doesn't make a difference which one, you most likely aren't going to Heaven, but it might keep you out of Hell and at least with one religion it may keep you from being killed.

Are we teaching our children to respect authority or reject authority? Is that a biblical teaching regardless of which religious tome you read?

It’s ok to question authority, but if your only action when confronted with those in authority is to provoke a reaction to a perception, either real or imagined, by causing a violent act in defiance of authority, then who was your teacher and what were they teaching?

We can’t all get along together if we don’t try to get along together and not act like a thug or criminal and disrespect any act of authority.

If you want to be treated like a law-abiding person you have to act like a law-abiding person and let those who are videotaping the action help to prove the action was right or wrong.

In God We Trust; religion or amoral activism, not so much.

DON'T BE BLUE

Left, Right, Left (politics)

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a called a moderate.

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views".

This would make anyone, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who voted the straight party ticket, a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. 

The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices.

This is not about who's better, Democrats, which are often mislabeled as LEFT or Republicans, which are often mislabeled as RIGHT, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, which, as an American, I'd hope you'd do just that. 

My question is about the choice of terms.
The extremes in both parties are most likely to label the other party as either Left or Right, while they,  really think of themselves as Liberal or Conservative.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left has been labeled as anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right has been labelled as fascists, racists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

Interestingly, both categories have contradictions, in my mind, for the same terms.
Both parties have demonstrated that they are NOT open minded as a party, while any person of either party would certainly say that "they" ARE open minded and anyone of the other party is not.

I've seen more racist attitudes and demonstrations started by so called Anti-racists as categorized by the term Left. I've also seen more so called Anti-racists throwing the race card, with the express intent to initiate a confrontation that will lead to open violence.

Keep in mind that the first person or group to throw the race card, is the real racist.

I think no party designation, either Democrat or Republican, is really defined, by either party, as being racist. It is an individual ideology. Most people have forgotten that the Democratic party was originally founded on racism and the Republican party was against it, resulting in the Civil War,

It is also very interesting that while the, admittedly Democrat leaning activist group, "Black Lives Matter", so called Anti-racist activists, openly demonstrates against a black person being killed by a white police officer, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime, BUT there is no outcry by them when a black police officer kills or even shoots another black person, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime.

There has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer shoots or kills a person who is white, hispanic, asian or any other race, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime. Clearly ALL lives do not matter.

And there has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer is killed by another black person committing a crime.

Point of View  Wikipedia Yahoo 

And don't get me started on using insanity as a defense for a not guilty plea.


DON'T BE BLUE

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports

Former Yankees star reliever and current spring training instructor Goose Gossage has shaken Western democracy by denouncing players — home-run bat-flippers, pitching-mound chest-pounders, and the like. 

So the Yankees brought Gossage in for a chat?

Gossage, as per my understanding, said, “Let’s keep some sport in our sport. Bad losers can reasonably be explained and indulged. Bad winners? No way.”

Among the most commonly asked questions by fans who were raised to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad and winning baseball from everything less, has become, “How do managers allow that stuff?”

Baseball players are not the only fools who parade their incivility in this unsportsmanlike manner. Football players ,both American and European, but mostly American Football players, are the most egregious. Basketball is not quite as bad as Baseball or Football, but there is lots of disrespect shown between players in most team sports. Hockey may be the worst in teaching unsportsmanlike behavior to our children, as far as encouraging unsportsmanlike conduct on the ice by allowing fights between players, but Football and Baseball and Basketball are more watched by our impressionable youth.
It appears that most team sports are a parade of fools. 
http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/goose-gossage-absolutely-right-to-call-out-mlb-showboaters/

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports.
And it all starts with how they are brought up.
Being respectful and civil in your social interactions and accomplishments was encouraged as a young participant in school as well as play. It's not being taught by parents or teachers anymore. Generation X and Millennial children are seriously lacking in Civility.

The disruptive conduct of protesters at presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rallies is the latest evidence that protesting in a civil manner is not the hallmark of the current electoral campaign. The protesters were bent on causing as much disruption as possible, mostly physical. In Ohio a protester was apprehended when he approached Trump on stage, perhaps intent on inflicting physical harm to the candidate. 

This protester was an anarchist with blogs and Facebook pages showing his hate for America in his words and actions by stomping on the American Flag. It was later learned that his mother is an extreme left wing protester advocating socialism, his father is a preacher.

Other candidates have faced less physical confrontation, but their opponents’ vocal catcalls have disrupted their efforts to speak to their supporters. “Black Lives Matter” advocates have been particularly disruptive, most notably at a Bernie Sanders event. 

It's interesting that the Democratic supporters that demonstrate at Republican events have the most violent outcomes, while the Republican supporters at the Democratic events have not shown any violence. 

If protesters want to attend the rallies of candidates they don’t like, they can do so in a peaceful, non-disruptive manner while still making their point. Years ago a group of protesters quietly took seats in the front row at a speech by someone they opposed, holding opposition signs clearly visible to the speaker and television news cameras. There was no disruption, but the speaker was aware of their protest throughout his presentation.

Why can’t the citizens of a nation whose First Amendment is a protection of free speech honor the right of their opponents to practice that right without harassment? 

It appears to me that the Left wing can't get their voice heard without resorting to violence, even when they demonstrate against other Democrats, at Democratic events.

George Washington Carver ~ "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these."

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING VS TRUTH IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

It's that time again. Political campaing season is coming, now that the polls are history and the voting is starting.

Businesses have to abide to Truth in Advertising, why don't politicians?

Are they held to a lower standard?

We should have all of the politicians wear a collar that would shock them when they lie to the public.

They should also be held accountable for advertising that is used to sway public opinion on their behalf.

Where have all the honest politicians gone, well they've been dead for a long time.


Here are some of the voices of the past about Politics.

“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”
― Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary

“In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”
― George Washington

“The Seven Social Sins are:
1. Wealth without work.
2. Pleasure without conscience.
3. Knowledge without character.
4. Commerce without morality.
5. Science without humanity.
6. Worship without sacrifice.
7. Politics without principle."
From a sermon given by Frederick Lewis Donaldson in Westminster Abbey, London, on March 20, 1925.

“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain

About political correctness
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
― Napoléon Bonaparte

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
― John F. Kennedy

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
― Edward R. Murrow

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston S. Churchill

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.”
― Henry Kissinger

“In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Leadership is being the first to put others second. Wait, that’s not right. That’s politics."
"I trust politicians to do what’s right. For themselves.
”
― Jarod Kintz

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

“The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.”
― Will Rogers

DON'T BE BLUE

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy has been going around for quite a while. It represents an idea that creates much opposition from the extreme ends of the spectrum. On one side you have the people who want to place limitations on recent events affecting society, or even past events. On the other you have people who do not want any limitations on those aspects of society affected by the events. Both can be right or wrong, depending on which side you are standing.

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy goes something like this.
Someone says that you can have a whole bag of M&Ms, not a small bag, but the big party bag with 1000 M&Ms in it, but warns you that 1% of them are poisoned. Do you want to still have the free bag of M&Ms? (the actual scenario used 10%, but I feel that's much too high)

The analogy usually refers to something that is certainly meant to stir the emotions when it is referring to a minority of ideologies, like race, religion, ethnicity or any other defining notion.

There's the side believes that treating them all as suspect is validated by not wanting to eat an M&M from a bag were some of them are poisonous. The other side believes it can be used to prop up any kind of harmful stereotype about groups, such as genders, ethnicities, religious and political communities without having to engage the objections to unfair generalizations.

So we should just do away with all of the laws we've made in the past because they are unfair to people who want to commit a crime against innocent people.

The bottom line is this.
We have laws for a reason and the underlying reason is that a minutely small number of a given population has performed an unjust act on the rest of the population with something harmful, like death, in the beginning. It escalated to other less offensive acts that may not have killed anyone, but hurt the physically or financially. If we knew who they were, we wouldn't need the law, but they are hidden among us and acting like us and society is forced be reactive instead of proactive.

Now we are back to the Poisonous M&M Analogy. What if half of the poisonous ones were green, but only about 40% of them. Now you could throw out all of the green ones, but still have .5% poisonous, that’s about 4 out of say 800.

Here's the part they didn't tell you. If you do eat one of the poisonous ones, everyone standing next to you would also die and everyone within 10 feet of you would end up in the hospital, kind of like a virus. Now you have the bag of M&Ms, what do you do with them?

Of course all of the Skittles are free to eat, but what about the green ones?

DON'T BE BLUE

Hypocrisy of hip-hop

The Hypocrisy of hip-hop & rap "music".

Artists and producers of Hip-Hop and Rap "Music" claim the lyrics are only a statement of our current life and times. A picture of the environment of life in our modern culture. And I suppose that makes it right?


I could probably accept Hip-Hop and Rap, if it wasn't for it's roots.


The roots and lyrics were and even today are MISOGYNISTIC, homophobic, hateful, racist, vulgar, anti-authoritarian and an all-around bad influence on anyone's children. The list of grievances against hip hop is a long one, and are all present in the lyrical content of Hip-Hop and Rap "Music", and nowhere to be found in the lyrics of the Disney classic "The Song of the South", which was a statement of our life and times in the 40s and 50s.



Politicians, journalists, and critics refuse to condemn the content of Hip-Hop and Rap, yet will shout to the walls and condemn the content of "The Song of the South", even today.
Contrary to popular belief, the "The Song of the South" story takes place after the Civil War and after slavery, it was not during or even about slavery.

"The Song of the South", has a happy feeling and atmosphere, while there is no happiness in any part of most rap and hip-hop music in it's foundation, not then and hardly now.

I can understand the rationale of the critics of "The Song of the South", but those same critics encourage their children to listen to bad rap and Hip-hop, give them awards in televised events and bestow them with "Best of" honors. Which is a sad commentary on the state of the music industry to bestow accolades on something that is at best a sad story of disrespect for everyone and everything and not even good rhyming.

Don't buy the lyrical abusers' CDs, don't buy their gear, don't go to their concerts, don't watch their videos, don't memorize the lyrics to their songs, and don't dance to their tunes.
Wrong is wrong, no matter what color you are.

Check out:

Hip Hop Hypocrisy: When Lies Sound Like the Truth

Alfred 'Coach' Powell (Author), Donna Williams (Editor)

http://www.acoachpowell.com/

http://hiphophypocrisy.blogspot.com/

Also: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South? And Other Forbidden Disney Stories by Jim Korkis.

The genre may have changed, slightly, but the legacy lives on. It's a sad commentary on the music industry when a Grammy Winner, several times in his career, is looked down on when the fans, fellow artists and producers of Hip Hop & Rap music complain that his music is not "black" enough. Just ask Will Smith about it.

 DON'T BE BLUE 

The future of Presidential Elections in America.

In the future, all presidents will be elected by minorities, entitlements will be the law of the land, and entrepreneurship will be a thing of the past.

Obama and the Democrats believe demography is on their side. Census 2010 made abundantly clear that racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics, are dominating national growth and will for decades to come. The Democratic agenda— favoring broader federal support for medical care, housing, and education seems designed to curry the favor of these groups, which played a huge role in tipping the balance in his favor in several key swing states.

In 2010, minorities were 26 percent of the electorate. Yesterday (Nov 7, 2012), 28 percent. A 2 percent bigger slice of the pie doesn't sound like much, but in a tight election it's everything. If conservatives want to win, we must broaden our appeal. But that doesn't mean abandoning our core principles. Assuming the country can survive another four years of Obama, Tuesday's loss might actually be good for the long-term health of the GOP, and thus, the nation. A victory would have allowed Republicans to sweep their problems under the rug — and postpone taking that long, hard look in the mirror. But let's face facts: Republicans simply must confront the fact that, at minimum, they need a makeover.
By next year, 500,000 more Latinos will have turned 18 in our country — and every year after that for the next two decades.
The irony, for those Republican primary voters who demanded tough stances on immigration, is that this is one problem Obama has inadvertently solved. The economy is so lousy under his stewardship that immigrants have stopped coming.

The Census Bureau also makes projections of the future population based on fertility rates, family size, immigration and other factors. Its latest estimate projects that by 2030 the black and Asian populations will be about unchanged in percentage terms, but the Hispanic population will rise sharply from 16 percent to 22 percent. On the question of whether they favor bigger government or smaller government, Hispanics favor big government by a 75 percent to 19 percent margin.

We must also address the issue of birthright citizenship or we will continue to have illegal immigration as far as the eye can see. Without changes in birthright citizenship, we will have future waves of illegal immigration looking to take advantage of the soon to be implemented plea for amnesty. The 14th amendment in its current form ensures birthright citizenship, automatic citizen status to anyone born or "naturalized" on American soil. Changing the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are not documented citizens is the solution Graham and many in his party are advocating for.
The bill for the Social Security and Medicare alone will be over 500 trillion ANNUALLY, once amnesty is given to ILLEGAL immigrants.

The worst part is that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge the word ILLEGAL, since it can not even be found in any dictionary used by the Democratic Party.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/01-race-elections-frey
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/236006/what-the-election-means-for-minorities-the-supreme-court-the-gop-and-more
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/latinos-minorities-obama-win-election-article-1.1198477
http://www.hacer.org/usa/?p=1799



 DON'T BE BLUE 

The Mathematics of Religion: One God, but whose?

Updated 3/31/2017

The Mathematics of Religion

.....between religion and arithmetic, other things are not equal. You use arithmetic, but you are religious. Arithmetic of course enters into your nature, so far as that nature involves a multiplicity of things. But it is there as a necessary condition, and not as a transforming agency. 

No one is invariably "justified" by his faith in the multiplication table. But in some sense or other, justification is the basis of all religion. Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity.

In the long run your character and your conduct of life depend upon your intimate convictions. Life is an internal fact for its own sake, before it is an external fact relating itself to others.

Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life and strife of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.

Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion. Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, houses of worship, rituals, religious tomes, and codes of religious behavior, are the trappings of religion, in its passing forms.

Accordingly, what should emerge from religion is individual worth of character. But worth is positive or negative, good or bad. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil. The fact of evil, interwoven with the texture of the world, shows that in the nature of things there remains effectiveness for degradation. In some the religious experience the God with whom you have made terms, may be the God of destruction, the God who leaves in his wake the loss of the greater reality. 

For those that say, "God is everywhere, all around us." Your God, nor mine, may not be everywhere.
He was not in that café in Kabul that was just blown up by a terrorist, at least not my God!
He was not in that store or building that was terrorized by some crazed person with a gun that shot those innocent people, at least not my God.


Do you believe in GOD!
A question that frequently emerges from people who are deeply religious, but unfortunately what they are really referring to is..............Do you believe in THEIR God?
Believing in God is, in the long run, not as important as living your life as if you believed in God and even more importantly extolling the attributes of a good, kind, and just God.


When asked that question I usually would reply, which God is that? Is your God a tolerant God? Does your God say that only those who follow your religion, will be welcome into Heaven, and there are many religions? Will your God accept everyone who lives their life not only in acceptance of other's beliefs but also condemning people who practice evil in the name of God?


If you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan, the God of evil. Where God is the semblance of creating order out of chaos, Satan is the opposite, striving to create chaos out of order. Those who practice harm to innocent people, in the name of God, are worshiping Satan.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers. Any terrorist who wages war for their god has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.


Pity the Atheist, which they vehemently deny is also their religion, Atheism, but it speaks to the act of being tolerant of others beliefs, which Atheists are not. They say they only believe in science. They are so arrogant that they say they would not believe in God if he came down and stood before them. Otherwise you're just an agnostic, in wolf's clothing.


Atheists have no history of being or doing good or living your life as a person who rejects evil for the sake of being a good, kind, and just person. They force their beliefs upon others, just as all religions do, but demand you denounce what goodness any religion preaches. If they were tolerant of others, they would not be so demanding and they would be encouraging goodness over evil.




In considering religion, we should not be obsessed by the idea of its necessary goodness. This is a dangerous delusion. The point to notice is its transcendent importance; and the fact of this importance is abundantly made evident by the appeal to history. All religions have defectors that still claim allegiance to their religion, be they Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or whatever. The deeper they go into harming not only those outside their religion, in the name of God, but even those believers in the same religion, the closer they come to actually worshiping Satan. Satan worshipers revel in dominating the many by the few.




So ask yourself again, WHO IS MY GOD!

You are the sum total of all you have experienced, learned, thought, felt, believed and acted upon. 
What you are -- is inside of you, influenced by external forces, both good and bad. 
You are -- what you believe, based on who taught you and how you interpreted their ideology. 

My God lives and can only live, inside of me, guiding me.

Excerpts from:

Religion in the Making by Alfred North Whitehead (1926)

http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/ritm1.htm

Suggested reading:

The Psychological Origin and the Nature of Religion by James H. Leuba

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39511/39511.txt

 DON'T BE BLUE 

Has HE seen the Elephant?

Michael Moore calls our soldiers cowards!

"Has Michael Moore seen the Elephant", or anyone else who wants to criticize our soldiers?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_062304,00.html

One phrase familiar in enlisted men's writings is, "I've seen the elephant," or, "I'm off to see the elephant." Used to describe the experiences of war and soldiering, the term has many possible origins. Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant."

This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

 "I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."
YES, I've seen the elephant.






 DON'T BE BLUE 

Consequences => Choices

When I was learning to take tests, one of the benchmarks of taking tests was that anything with "All" in it, was false. Not so when it comes to the choices you make and the consequences that result. All choices have consequences!

Choices have 6 stages, related to the 5 senses plus one, which really could be plus 2 if you insert intuition.
Any or all of these could be involved in the consequences of the choices you make.
The first is just thinking about it. The more you just think about it, the more likely one of the 5 senses will come into play. But just thinking about it could be the point of no return in regards to the consequences that could result. Part of thinking about a choice could be effected by your intuition about the consequences, but intuition may not become cognizant until one of the 5 senses kicks in.

Any of the 5 senses could be the trigger to making the choice.
Smell and sight could be the first stage depending on which one becomes the one which jolts your mind, or hearing the known or unknown sound, or even the lack of sound.
A reflex action of touching something, the interaction of taste and smell because taste is largely dependent on smell.

The consequences though are time insensitive. The consequences of the choice you make could be instantaneous or not realized until after you die.
The quicker consequences are realized as being either good or bad or neither, the easier it is to change or reverse them if desired. The longer it takes to determine if it is good or bad, the less likely they can be changed or reversed. Most people just learn to live with consequences that don't cause them physical harm.

The point of No Return is the defining point of consequences. The point of no return doesn't usually start in an instant, it builds until turning back has escaped the thought process or the consequence has reached the tipping point of disaster and good consequences don't have a tipping point, they just are. Beyond the point of no return lies truth and the understanding that the sign posts along the way were missed.

I know you'll come back home Dorothy, when your return from OZ.




 DON'T BE BLUE 

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Hanging by your tongue on a telephone wire…

http://lifeslittleinspirations.com/liar-liar-pants-on-fire by Wendi Kelly

When I was a youngster, this little jump rope chat could be heard daily on the playground as little girls gathered in groups to skip to the beat of the rope. There were other versions too, “Liar, liar, pants on fire, Hanging by a telephone wire!” and “Liar, liar, pants on fire, Your belt’s hanging on the telephone wire!”  are two that I still can recall. Every now and then, when someone is not quite as truthful as I expected, I still hear the little chant inside my head, forever imprinted there.
Liar, liar, pant’s on fire…


Sadly…every now and then, I have to say it to myself.

Not because I have told somebody a lie ( I try REALLY hard never to do that). But because I told one to myself. I don't MEAN to tell a lie. They just sometimes fall out of my thoughts.
Like the famous, “Today, I’m not eating a single bit of white flour or bread. I don’t eat that stuff.” (Liar, liar…I've been scarfing it down for a week now,)
Or, how about, “I’m going to bed early tonight, my sleep is important to me.” (Oh yeah? So why did the clock strike pumpkin time before I ever saw my sheets? Liar, liar…)
I make my shoulders slump. I feel like I let myself down. I feel like a fraud. It creates pot shots in my self-esteem. I question my personal integrity.



Does this ever happen to you?
If you are human, it probably does. So then, if everyone is doing it, no harm done right? We can just chalk it up to being part of the human race and accept that the things we say to ourselves just don't matter.



Except that this is the biggest lie of them all.

The truth is, that when we let ourselves down, it digs a hole. When we make ourselves promises that we don't keep, we feel untrustworthy. We begin to doubt our personal integrity, our motivation, our will power and our ability to make our dreams come true. We begin to look toward outside influences for our accountability because we can't trust ourselves to be accountable to our own internal being.



Does that mean you have to be perfect?
You won’t be. You can’t be. Perfection isn't of this world, we call that place heaven. But what you can be is accountable. You can take stock of what you are saying to yourself, sit down and ask yourself,” Hey Self, What’s up with this?”
Get to the bottom of why you are not accountable to your personal word to yourself. There are probably really good, fixable reasons. Here are a few of the most common.



A Few Reasons We Lie To Ourselves
The Goal isn't really important to us. It’s important to somebody else, but secretly, we really don't care. We are people-pleasing all over ourselves and our inner being isn't buying into the program. First available chance and our subconscious mind whispers, “Just kidding! Never had any intention of waking up early to exercise!" And we are more than happy to fall back asleep. We never wanted to get up in the first place!


The Goal is overwhelming. We bit off so much that we are choking and our subconscious is talking back through the ginormous bites screaming that this is unsustainable so why even bother?



The Goal is no match for our fatigue. When we are exhausted, there is very little that can keep us on task and motivated without considerable effort. It’s easy to break promises when we have no energy. In order to have more personal integrity, we need to take better physical care of ourselves. In order to take better physical care of ourselves, we need better personal integrity. It’s a tricky one and the trick is this. Establish a bare minimum, no matter what threshold, that keeps you honest. That way when you are feeling run down, you can institute Personal Pampering Day, and get by on your bare minimum without breaking your integrity. But at least you are doing something!



The Goal is not part of your routine. Out of sight, out of mind. Routines and systems help us to keep our personal integrity by making habits automatic. The more automatic a habit is, the less time the Liar and excuses voices can sit on your shoulder and tempt you to quit.
Here is a tip. Link your new habit to an existing habit so that your brain will accept it more readily and not argue.

Let’s face it, none of us want to be liars.
Here's another tip. Avoid it. If you don't want it, don't get it, if you have it, throw it away.
Here's another tip. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Start by doing. The hardest step to take is the first one, once taken others follow, willingly.
We all want to have integrity, faith in ourselves and great self-esteem. It isn't like we are TRYING to sabotage ourselves with excuses, lies and broken promises.


When it does happen, be kind. Recover with grace and forgiveness to your struggling self and see if you can implement a few systems or ideas to help your poor self out.
Yourself will thank you for it!



DON'T BE BLUE

Are you leaving holes in your fence?

NAILS IN THE FENCE
There once was a little boy who had a bad temper...  His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence...  Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.  He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.  Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all.

He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.

The days and weeks passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence.  He said, 'You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence.  The fence will never be the same.  When you say things in anger, they leave a scar, just like this one.  You can put a knife in a man and draw it out.  But It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound will still be there.  A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.

Remember that friends are very rare jewels indeed. They make you smile and encourage you to succeed; They lend an ear, they share words of praise and they always want to open their hearts to us.

Please forgive me if I have ever left a hole in your fence!

The next time you get angry with someone and are about to speak, ask yourself if there was a way to say what you want to say with neutral words. Picture the holes in your fence.
Often the habit of reacting angrily is just that - a habit you learned when you were young and haven´t questioned since. You might have become blind to the effect it has on your life.

It is really so that the world reflects back your own attitude. If you constantly wonder why people are angry at you, perhaps it is you who treated them with anger first? Listen to the words and tone of voice you use. And try, really try to speak neutrally to someone who are angry with. If you know it will be difficult, write the words down first. Rehearse it in your mind. Decide on a prize you will give to yourself if you succeed.

Teach your mind intentionally to use respectful words. And you just might find that life begins to feel a lot nicer - because people aren´t angry at you anymore.




DON'T BE BLUE

Media news bias is ratings driven

Just another reason I rarely watch "Prime Time News" or nationally syndicated news shows like 60 minutes, they bend the news to drive up ratings, in some cases they will just make it up.

Why are the major media outlets content to manufacture or bend the hot news stories in order to drive up ratings?
It's because of the mentality of the old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"! Unfortunately the bastardized news stories last for days or weeks, if not months, and the asking for forgiveness by broadcast media never happens, or in the case of printed news, it's relegated to the back pages or a footnote.

Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be lying mute in an underground box at the age of 17. Nobody does. He committed no offense to warrant such a fate. He was simply returning from the convenience store and chatting on his cell phone with his girlfriend , a scene that could be replicated a million times across America on any given evening. http://themoderatevoice.com/142893/pictures-and-prejudice-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Here’s all we know for certain about the killing of Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman noticed the black teen wearing a hoodie while within the confines of the gated community, tailed him as a suspicious character, stepped out of his car to challenge him (despite instructions from police to keep on moving), exchanged words with Martin and they both ended up on the ground. Someone moaned for help around the moment that the gun went off, and Martin died on the spot.

Was the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman out for blood or just taking his job a little too seriously? 

Why was the only picture used by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and every other major newspaper, from when Trayvon Martin was only 14 years old?
The contrasting photos of cute Trayvon and nasty George undoubtedly contributed to the call for vengeance.
Was the exposure on Zimmerman’s photo altered in some versions to make the half-Hispanic killer look “whiter”?
George Zimmerman is multi-racial. In fact, it’s been said that he has black relatives.

For most of the black community and the left-of-center crowd, it’s an open-and-shut case of a light-skinned racist murdering an innocent African American kid for the crime of “walking while being black.” The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up to make racial politics, just to add fuel to the fire. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has catapulted that essential item of hip-hop apparel to unprecedented glory as a political symbol of unjustly maligned black youth. By now, every Trayvon Martin sympathizer and his brother has been photographed wearing a hoodie. Congressman Bobby Rush was even kicked out of a congressional hearing because he showed up wearing a hoodie. He was kicked out because he did not adhere to the dress code for appearing before congress. Dress code? 'That' is a subject for another day.

NBC altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it seem as if Zimmerman was race obsessed, and every news story used it as part of their coverage. 

Photographs, videos, and recordings can be indispensable clues, but our biases, conscious or not, have a way of tampering with the evidence.
Neither man was all saint or all villain. Both should be given an equal chance to be vindicated or judged by proper authorities.

NBC News has since fired the producer who was involved in the production of a misleading taped segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. On April 6th, 39 days after the maelstrom, it appeared as a blip in the news, but not on any prime time news broadcast.

The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

Of course the damage has been done in the wake of a rioting public driven to the media frenzy,
 just as they wanted.

Sometimes you just can't help but be BLUE!

The Value of Deductive Reasoning and proof that GOD exists!

This was a Chemistry Question

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.

Therefore, no souls are leaving Hell!

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we have to look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell, because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven; thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh...my....God....Oh....MY....G O D !"

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A


DON'T BE BLUE

What's your definition of "Millionaire"?

Definition of Millionaire

Obama: Anyone who makes over $200,000.
Wikipedia: an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency.
Merriam-Webster: A person whose wealth is estimated at a million or more (as of dollars or pounds).
Dictionary.com: A person whose wealth amounts to a million or more in some unit of currancy, as dollars.
Investopedia.com: It is important to note that paper millionaires are not the same as true millionaires, which generally refers to people who have more than $1 million in cash in the bank.
Urbandictionary.com: A person or organisation that is in possession of over one million of a pre-set currency in liquid assets, except property.

I don't know about you, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who makes-up definitions of the words they use. If you like that stuff, play the board game Balderdash.

In practically every speech on taxes, President Obama likes to pit the wealthier population against everyone else by using the term “millionaires” to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  Class warfare is unnecessary.
President Obama wants to raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 and families making $250,000.  First of all, how $200,000 + $200,000 = $250,000, instead of $400,000 as a couple, is beyond me.  Is one spouse supposed to suddenly make only $50,000 from $200,000?
Give me a break.
 http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/08/17/how-long-does-it-take-to-become-a-millionaire/

One of the problems of taxation that needs to also be addressed, is Social Security.  The maximum taxable earnings amount for Social Security (OASDI) taxes, 2012, is $110,100. True Millionaires don't have to pay any more into Social Security after they earn $110,100. Fortunately there is no cap on income and payments into Healthcare. However, both Social Security and Healthcare, as well as all government relief programs, are destined to bankrupt the United States, if illegal immigrants are allowed amnesty.

First we need to change the US Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship for people who are born here, but neither of the parents are legal citizens. Then we need to establish a guest worker visa program that insures that only citizens can get any government relief.

DON'T BE BLUE

I AM WITH YOU STILL

For anyone who has lost a loved one, as we lost our Antoinette. Hold them always in your heart as the new day dawns.

I AM WITH YOU STILL

I give you this one thought to keep -
I am not gone, I do not sleep.

I rustle your hair when the warm winds blow,
I am the softly falling snow.
I am the gentle showers of summer rain,
I am the fields of ripening grain.

When you awaken in the mourning hush,
I am in the graceful uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the star that shines at night.

I am in the flowers that bloom,
I am with you in a quiet room.
I am the song the birds sing,
I am in each and every lovely thing.

Do not think of me as gone -
I am with you still - in each new dawn.
I'm still here --- I have not gone.
I will always be in your heart.



An adaptation of the poem by Mary Frye





DON'T BE BLUE

The puzzle of poverty.

...it is a world where those without enough to eat may save up to buy a TV instead, where more money doesn't necessarily translate into more food, and where making rice cheaper can sometimes even lead people to buy less rice.

More Than 1 Billion People Are Hungry in the World

Oucha Mbarbk lives in Morocco without enough work, money, or food, but with a television, DVD player, and cellphone.
We asked Oucha Mbarbk what he would do if he had more money. He said he would buy more food. Then we asked him what he would do if he had even more money. He said he would buy better-tasting food. We were starting to feel very bad for him and his family, when we noticed the TV, satellite dish and other high-tech gadgets. Why had he bought all these things if he felt the family did not have enough to eat? He laughed, and said, "Oh, but television is more important than food!"

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

DON'T BE BLUE

Have you lost your Marbles?

The Marble Game
In marriages (and other relationships), there is often a "Marble Game" going on.

At the beginning, each person is perceived to have roughly the same number of marbles. However, as the relationship progresses, and one spouse clearly emerges as being weaker in decision-making, natural intelligence, and/or "walking around smarts," then "Marbles" are lost by that person, and the other spouse gains marbles.

In one case about a dad blaming a mom for a child being waitlisted for school admission, the "husband" lost a whole bunch of marbles when he foolishly invested their money. The "wife" gained a whole bunch of marbles with her decisions to allow the child to be waitlisted instead of pulling him off the list and then finding a way to pay for school. This created a huge imbalance of marbles because of the long-lasting implications of that one mistake. This mistake wasn't something that just caused a minor ripple in the family, such as denting a car or bouncing a check. This "husband" has to live with the fact that not only did he make a very serious mistake, but his "wife's" decisions were not only better, but they saved the family from absolute disaster.

Once you have one spouse with lots of marbles (in this case, the wife) and you have another spouse who perceives himself as having fewer marbles, then you have a situation where the "husband" is going to - lash out - and criticize any imaginable, thing in a way to try to take away some of the other's marble stash.
So, even when other rational people would say that the "husband" has no reason to criticize the wife about the waitlist situation, the "husband" just sees it as an opportunity to say, - "see, everything YOU do doesn't work out perfectly either".

Also...since such a person perceives himself as having fewer marbles, it may take him a LONG time (maybe never) to admit that he was wrong to criticize (because that means losing MORE marbles).


This theory may help to explain why a whole lot of situations began to make sense (situations with unreasonable relatives, nutty teachers, stubborn children, etc).

Men may have a harder time dealing with an imbalance of marbles when they perceive themselves as having less because of their culture's perception that men are supposed to be the (gag) more logical, smarter sex. It's also not about who makes more money. When men feel that they don't have more marbles, they can feel emasculated....so he will just be petty...and some will more seriously lash out.

This theory seems to help a lot of people understand weird conflicts that are going on in their lives.... with spouses, kids, co-workers, relatives, siblings, in-laws, parents, etc. (oh yes, with parents!) Parents of adult children do not want to admit that their adult children may have more marbles than they do. It can also occur when one spouse has an addiction (drinking, gambling, etc) or infidelity issues that has had negative affects on the marriage/family, so that a spouse viciously nitpicks the other spouse so as to say..."you're not perfect either...you make mistakes, too" (even though those mistakes/flaws are far more minor and have insignificant negative affects on the family).

How does the partner with the most marbles stop being the constant brunt of attack from the marble-short partner? I think the day you stop keeping a record of the marbles, the problem will end, but it is in our human nature to keep score. We have long term memory, all but sometimes very selective. This is a psychological problem to begin with. If you try to have the upper hand in marriage - you'll loose the relationship.

Make better decisions and you will get more marbles, or attain a balance of marble stacks. I understand keeping score with casual acquaintances and business associates, just because you may need to limit interactions or find a new way to communicate, if it becomes too imbalanced? Keeping score with "family" never leads to anything good. You need to give some marbles back, to keep the stacks balanced, or at least give the appearance of being balanced.

You have to make the other person feel that his/her opinions are valued, listened to, and not immediately dismissed. This can be hard to do if the person is seriously lacking in common-sense, but be very cautious not to be the type who can't "suffer fools gladly." Each person in a valued relationship has to have some worth-while redeeming value.

Hasn't each of us been frustrated when we tell a parent/child to do something and they dismiss it, yet when someone ELSE tells them to do the SAME thing, the parent/child acts like that's the smartest idea they've ever heard!!!???  

That's the Marble Game Theory going on. The parent/child doesn't have that "marble-conflict" going on with that "other person." So, the parent/child feels that he/she isn't giving up any marbles (showing weakness) by following that "other person's advice. (and, we all just shake our heads and wonder.)

FYI:

I get alerts about "game theory" every day, this was one of the better ones from;

mom2collegekids

Senior Member

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1112882-touched-sore-point-marble-game-theory.html



DON'T BE BLUE

The Story of the Statue of Liberty

The French, Egyptian and American connection.

The Story of the Statue of Liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty


While on a visit to Egypt that was to shift his artistic perspective from simply grand to colossal, French sculptor Frédéric Bartholdi was inspired by the project of the Suez Canal that was being undertaken by Count Ferdinand de Lesseps, who later became a lifelong friend of his. He envisioned a giant lighthouse standing at the entrance to the canal and drew plans for it. It would be patterned after the Roman goddess Libertas, modified to resemble a robed Egyptian peasant, with light beaming out from both a headband and a torch thrust dramatically upward into the skies. Bartholdi presented his plans to the Egyptian Khedive, Isma'il Pasha, in 1867 and, with revisions, again in 1869, but the project was never commissioned because of financial issues then troubling the Ottoman Empire.

Soon after John Wilkes Booth was killed by one of his captors, Frédéric Bartholdi (according to legend) was enjoying dinner with friends in Paris. Commenting how good it was that the U.S. Civil War was over and how terrible it was that Lincoln had died, one of Bartholdi’s friends (Edouard de Laboulaye) had an idea. What if the people of France, gave the people of America, a monument to commemorate liberty? And ... what if they gave such a gift during 1876, the first centennial of American independence? France, after all, had played a key role in helping America to win her revolutionary war. Enthused with the idea, Bartholdi visited America and ultimately sketched his conception of such a monument.

The first small terracotta model was created in 1870. It is now exhibited at the Musée des beaux-arts de Lyon. The first reduced scale bronze replica was given to the city of Paris by Americans residing in the French capital on May 13, 1885; the statue was originally located in the Place des États-Unis and was moved to the Île des Cygnes in 1889. It was agreed that in a joint effort, the people of the United States were to build the base, and the French people were responsible for the statue and its assembly in the States. In France, public donations, various forms of entertainment including notably performances of La liberté éclairant le monde (Liberty enlightening the world) by soon-to-be famous composer Charles Gounod at Paris Opera, and a charitable lottery were among the methods used to raise the 2,250,000 francs ($250,000). In the United States, benefit theatrical events, art exhibitions, auctions and prizefights assisted in providing needed funds.

Meanwhile in France, Bartholdi required the assistance of an engineer to address structural issues associated with designing such a colossal copper sculpture. Gustave Eiffel (designer of the Eiffel Tower) was commissioned to design the massive iron pylon and secondary skeletal framework which allows the statue's copper skin to move independently yet stand upright. The good-looking French widow of an important American, Isabella Eugenie Boyer, the wife of Isaac Singer, the sewing-machine industrialist, was called upon to be Bartholdi's model for the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886 and was designated a National Monument on October 15, 1924.

The Statue of Liberty functioned as a lighthouse from 1886 to 1902. As a lighthouse, it is the first in the United States to use electricity. Birds, attracted by the original torch, sometimes became disoriented from the light of the flame. It was once discovered that more than a thousand had been fatally injured in a single day.
The bronze plaque in an exhibit on the second floor of the pedestal is inscribed with the sonnet:

"The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It has never been engraved on the exterior of the pedestal, despite such depictions in editorial cartoons. The first two lines refer to the ancient Colossus of Rhodes. The bronze plaque in the pedestal contains a typographical error: the comma in "Keep, ancient lands" is missing, causing that line to read "'Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she", and noticeably altering its meaning. The name "Mother of Exiles" was never taken up as the statue's name.

In 1889, Americans who were living in Paris gave that city a smaller version of Liberty. The thirty-five foot monument is located near the River Seine and faces west, toward its sister.
http://www.awesomestories.com/movies/national_treasure/national_treasure_ch6.htm

Hundreds of other Statues of Liberty have been erected worldwide. A smaller replica is in the Norwegian village of Visnes, on the island of Karmøy, in Rogaland County where the copper used in the original statue was mined.

A Statue of Liberty replica at Odaiba, overlooks the Rainbow Bridge in Tokyo Bay. There is a sister statue in Paris and several others elsewhere in France, including one in Bartholdi's home town of Colmar, erected in 2004 to mark the centenary of Bartholdi's death; they also exist in Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Brazil and Vietnam; one existed in Hanoi during French colonial days. During the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, Chinese student demonstrators in Beijing built a ten meter image called the Goddess of Democracy, which sculptor Tsao Tsing-yuan said was intentionally dissimilar to the Statue of Liberty to avoid being "too openly pro-American." At around the same time, a copy of this statue was made and displayed on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C., in a small park across the street from the Chinese Embassy.

The sculptor James Alexander Ewing's most prestigious commission was for the carving of the Glasgow City Chambers' Jubilee Pediment, its apex group of Truth, Riches, and Honor, and the statues of The Four Seasons on the building's tower. The figure of Truth also is known as Glasgow's Statue of Liberty, because of its close resemblance to the similarly posed, but very much larger, statue in New York harbor.

The Statue of Liberty is located in the harbor of New York City, on the Jersey side (but that's another story), on what was originally called the Oyster Islands, which includes Ellis Island, Liberty Island, and Black Tom Island. Both Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty have become powerful symbols of the freedom and opportunity that awaited millions of men, women, and children when they legally immigrated to America from around the world.


Don't Be Blue