A Little Inspiration

I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it.
Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about
it again.
________________________________________

Robert A. Heinlein wrote this item in 1952. His wife, Virginia Heinlein,
chose to read it when she accepted NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal
on October 6, 1988, on the Grand Master's behalf (it was a posthumous
award). Mrs. Heinlein received a standing ovation.

This I Believe by Robert A. Heinlein
I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious
that it has gone out of style to mention them. I believe in my neighbors. I
know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults.
"Take Father Michael down our road a piece. I'm not of his creed, but I know
that goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. I
believe in Father Mike. If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him."

My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after
a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee--no prospect of a fee--I believe in
Doc.

I believe in my townspeople. You can know on any door in our town saying,
'I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception. I've found the
same ready charity everywhere. But for the one who says, 'To heck with you -
I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand who will say, "Sure, pal, sit
down."

I know that despite all warnings against hitchhikers I can step up to the
highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop
and someone will say, 'Climb in Mac - how far you going?'

I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet
for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were
not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to
day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force
stronger than crime.

I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of
teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds
that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land.

I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There
never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence
Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by
craftsmen who were honest in their bones.

I believe that almost all politicians are honest. . .there are hundreds of
politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without
thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would
never have gotten past the 13 colonies.

I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless
unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River. I believe in -- I am
proud to belong to -- the United States. Despite shortcomings from lynchings
to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly
internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history.

And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown.
In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the
overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet.
I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the
skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but
that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless
embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this
animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home
planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his
honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble
essential decency.

This I believe with all my heart.

Greg Mossman wrote:
>
> Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction?

That is what he is generally known for, but even within it, he did
share a lot of wisdom, sometimes in the shortest of prose. For
example:

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."
[Robert Heinlein, 1973, Time enough for love]


IIRC, a common Heinlein theme was that military service was purely
voluntary, but it was also the only way to earn the right to vote.

Not sure to the degree that this was functionally inspired by the likes
of Switzerland.


-hh

Lee Bell wrote:

> Greg Mossman wrote
>
>
>>Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction?
>
>
> Among other things.
>
> Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too?

Post-fact-fiction ?

Matthias

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Vkx1h.10720$Bs.4329@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Matthias Voss wrote
>
>>> Doesn't Greg Mossman write fiction too?
>
>> Post-fact-fiction ?
>
> Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with.
> Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the kid
> that defended his mother, but more often, it's any distortion and
> misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's an
> occupational hazard.

Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this
country is going to shit. What's our crime rate doing? Our budget? Our
unemployment? Our health care? Our education?

But at least we have the right to resist cops with armed violence when they
come to take away our guns. We are the NRA. That's no fiction.

Greg Mossman wrote

>> Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with.
>> Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the
>> kid that defended his mother, but more often, it's any distortion and
>> misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's
>> an occupational hazard.

> Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why this
> country is going to shit. What's our crime rate doing? Our budget? Our
> unemployment? Our health care? Our education?

Thanks for the excellent example of what I said.

By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with
criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that
violate the law. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion of
the attorneys in the country do deal with crimes, specifically defending
those that have comitted them. Between the attorneys and the judges, who
are also attorneys, they manage to get a substantial number of those
arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement
either acquitted or plea bargained and back out on the streets to commit the
next crime. After all, the criminals have to get the money to support their
attorneys from somewhere and they can't make nearly enough while in prison.

Our budget is formulated and implemented by elected officials, not
government employees. Many of those same offciials are, you guessed it,
attorneys. Others with a significant impact on the budget are lobbiests,
many of whom are also attorneys.

Unemployment relates to employers and employees. The government is doing
its part. Attorneys are not. Law firms hire relatively few people who are
not attorneys. On top of that, they regularly promote the interests of
illegal immigrant workers over citizens and legal residents of the United
States.

The government is not responsible for health care. That's in the hands of
the citizens, doctors and insurance companies. To a limited extent, it is
the responsibility of lawyers, the ones that represent the insurance
companies when they resist meeting their obligations under insurance
contracts.

The federal government is not responsible for education. That's one of the
state's rights, often delegated to the municipal level. If that's what Greg
was referring to, he may have a point.

> But at least we have the right to resist cops with armed violence when
> they come to take away our guns. We are the NRA.
> That's no fiction.

Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer
to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding
citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you
meant?

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mTy1h.49678$vi3.33239@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

> Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer
> to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding
> citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you
> meant?

They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal.

For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for
individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be
unconstitutional?

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:12kdqmcmhdhf9c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mTy1h.49678$vi3.33239@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you
refer
> > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law
abiding
> > citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you
> > meant?
>
> They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal.
>
> For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for
> individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be
> unconstitutional?

It would be worth it to save the airliners.

Greg Mossman wrote

>> Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you
>> refer to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law
>> abiding citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that
>> what you meant?

> They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal.

Which government? As you well know, there are multiple levels of government
and checks and balances to go with them. What a lower level says may not,
in fact, change what is legal or not legal and, except for matters of
interpretation, what any of them have to say may not, in fact, change what
is constitutional or not.

> For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for
> individuals to possess, then went around confiscating
> them, would this be unconstitutional?

Based on Congress's recent confirmation that the right to keep and bear arms
is an individual right, I think it probably is.

I choose not to try to do anything about it.

Lee

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:12kdqmcmhdhf9c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mTy1h.49678$vi3.33239@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you
refer
> > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law
abiding
> > citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you
> > meant?
>
> They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal.

Its not enough for them to say that they're not legal.
They do have to follow "due process".

Not only is there a second amendment regarding the right to keep and bear
arms, there's also the matter of the fourth.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."?

Dennis

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message news:12kdqmcmhdhf9c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mTy1h.49678$vi3.33239@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> > Nice twist and misdirection. You are, however, correct if, what you refer
> > to is the confiscation of legally owned guns from the homes of law abiding
> > citizens without legal cause, due process of warrant. Is that what you
> > meant?
>
> They're not legally owned if the government says they're not legal.
>
> For instance, if the government said that Stinger missiles are illegal for
> individuals to possess, then went around confiscating them, would this be
> unconstitutional?

Following a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Yes. Realistically, nobody is going to
fight it so the law will *probably* never be determined to be unconstitutional by the courts.