Here is a question for us all, about the irrelevant, pseudo, swing issues(eg. the widespread "problem" of flag-burning and where a candidate stands on this issue), which candidates use to hoist themselves up and over an otherwise skeptical public:
Let's look at history. In 1920's and 1930's Germany, a man who was a maniac and probably insane got elected. While the election might have been rigged, nevertheless many of his supporters were under the spell of what seemed at the time a very benign and harmless issue of race, and even this was based upon partial truths, such as the fact that like begets like, etc. I mean who is to argue that a daisy does not produce a rose. But is this really an election issue?
Anyway the question for us today is do we want to elect maniacs into office, simply because they have won over the public based upon some irrelevant "swing" issue?
Do we care more about burning symbols (flags) or sending innocent people to the electric chair over circumstantial evidence, because we couldn't get it figured out just what happened?
It is alarming how many prisoners were going to be executed for murders they did not commit, but DNA testing came along and proved their case.
Okay what is more important --- burning a symbol, or burning people at the stake? A symbol is nothing other than a symbol, and it involves freedom of speech. It is not a sacred cow.
Maybe I should be burned at the stake, in fact, since I once had a dream that the Statue of Liberty was lying down under water with her hands together in prayer (as if perhaps frightened, or maybe just exasperated --- I couldn't really tell), instead of standing tall with the flame held high. What if I had decided to turn that dream into art, or satire?
Lately the nation's powerful think tanks have thought up some issues for us, carefully placing them in media outlets and megaphones to serve as our nation's "problem" issues.
One of these issues is the widespread problem of flag burning.
Another is the influx of immigrants, and how this might impact our fragile yet carefully-established echo chamber.
I'd like to have a word myself about these psuedo, let-them-eat- cake issues:
These carefully concocted non-issues are simply very tangible "anchor" issues which the public is "supposed" to grasp onto. They come with redi-made answers and require little or no personal assessment or thought. The issues and sub-issues are totally spoon-fed to the public by a Big Brother telling the masses to take their so-to-speak medicine.
We might call them "lollipop" issues, since they are nothing much other than a piece of candy for the public to be entertained by and to suck on and think that it is food. Let them eat lollipops.
We might call them "hump" issues, since they are pseudo-issues that create a pivot or launching pad for a particular candidate (or agenda) to swing an election, over some otherwise hurdle or hump of public dubiousness. They categorize the candidate, and launch the candidate over a certain "hump" of otherwise public skepticism.
Whatever they are called, it's all a waste. It ain't real life.
Okay first let me say that I personally do not have quite the same animosity towards blacks who "wear" their religion for show than for whites who do so, and this is simply my own personal bias because I have not had the same personal life observations of blacks as whites. Blacks have often had to lead harder lives, and therefore I feel less judgemental of them. Anyway this comment is not directed towards blacks or racial issues, but wearing one's religion for show in general.
People everywhere feel like they are "okay" because they think they know what is wrong with everyone else. They are majoring in the presumed errors and wrongs of everyone else. But they don't have a clue about their own personal flaws --- just 20/20 vision on everyone else (or so they think), and perhaps this is only a natural human condition for which little can be done.
Anyway it is curious why the two words "secular" and "humanism" have been combined --- as if the two necessarily have anything to do with each other. (I was trying to be satirical above, and so called this comment "secular hedonism . . . ")
Also there are people going around in cars with bumper stickers that say that because they are Christians, they are not perfect but that they are "forgiven." Okay this particular presumption warrants some closer inspection, being that there is a little comment in their Bible in which Jesus tells his disciples to pray to "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." This is found in the book of Matthew, chapter 6 verse 12. Since it says to pray for one's own forgiveness to the same degree one is willing to forgive others, then could it be possible that there is a sort of "condition" involved?
Anyway it does give rise to some question that Christianity is really some club of license to sin with no reckoning or Day or Reckoning to come about it all. "There comes a Day of Reckoning" one lady once very aptly put it.
Okay sorry I don't have more time to devote/give to writing this up better but there is just very little spare time for very many of us in this world today, for us to sit around and perfect these sorts of write-ups. So this will have to do.
Also I did a little digging on the internet about these guys. If you look up the internet domain name they are hosted with Smartech Corporation. If you do a search on Smartech Corporation in google.com 3rd link down: 2006 : Republican Party. Click that link and you get: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=SMARTECH+CORPORATION&Cmte=RPC&cycle=2006
See for yourself. To me this just further proves www.vetsforfreedom.org is a prop for the Republican Party.
William Wade Zirkle graduated from Avon Old School in Avon CT in 1996, according to the Hartford-Courant. Average tuition now for a boarder at Avon Old School is $35k annually. Mr. Zirkle certainly was not your average GI.
The address of Vets for Freedom is 132 N. Main St., Woodstock VA 22664. The building was purchased by Lloyd H. Hartman in 11/01. Woodstock is in Shenandoah County.
There are a number of Zirkles in and around Woodstock and a number of businesses registered to Zirkles.
W. Denham Zirkle is director and former president of the Zirkle Mill Foundation, Inc., 12097 S. Middle Road, Edinburg, VA 22824, registered 9/04. Lisa R. Zirkle is secretary, Sharon Z. Wetherholtz is treasurer and Ann M. Zirkle is another director. 990s are not available online. The foundation receives state and federal funding, according to its website.
The address of Zirkle Family Farms, LLC, formerly Zirkle & Associates, LLC, is 12097 S. Middle Road, Edinburg, VA. No officers listed.
Katherine E. Ramsey of Hunton & Williams, Riverfront Plaza East Tower, 951 E. Byrd St., Richmond VA 23219, is the registered agent for the Zirkle Foundaton and Zirkle Farms.
W. Denham Zirkle, a former executive vice-president with Templeton Investments, is or was CEO of Carret and Company, another investment firm. Carret and Company is owned by Castle Harlan Partners III L.P., a private-equity investment fund organized and managed by Castle Harlan, Inc., the New York merchant bank. Assets under management by Carret and Company are now more than $2 billion.
William D. Zirkle of Edinburg, VA donated a total of $4.5k to the campaigns of Todd Gilbert and Jerry Kilgore in 2005. William Wade Zirkle, also of Edinburg, donated $2k to the Virginia League of Conservation Voters in 2005.
Any idea if William D. or W. Denham Zirkle is related to William Wade Denham Zirkle?
Here is a question for us all, about the irrelevant, pseudo, swing issues(eg. the widespread "problem" of flag-burning and where a candidate stands on this issue), which candidates use to hoist themselves up and over an otherwise skeptical public:
Let's look at history. In 1920's and 1930's Germany, a man who was a maniac and probably insane got elected. While the election might have been rigged, nevertheless many of his supporters were under the spell of what seemed at the time a very benign and harmless issue of race, and even this was based upon partial truths, such as the fact that like begets like, etc. I mean who is to argue that a daisy does not produce a rose. But is this really an election issue?
Anyway the question for us today is do we want to elect maniacs into office, simply because they have won over the public based upon some irrelevant "swing" issue?
Do we care more about burning symbols (flags) or sending innocent people to the electric chair over circumstantial evidence, because we couldn't get it figured out just what happened?
It is alarming how many prisoners were going to be executed for murders they did not commit, but DNA testing came along and proved their case.
Okay what is more important --- burning a symbol, or burning people at the stake? A symbol is nothing other than a symbol, and it involves freedom of speech. It is not a sacred cow.
Maybe I should be burned at the stake, in fact, since I once had a dream that the Statue of Liberty was lying down under water with her hands together in prayer (as if perhaps frightened, or maybe just exasperated --- I couldn't really tell), instead of standing tall with the flame held high. What if I had decided to turn that dream into art, or satire?
Lately the nation's powerful think tanks have thought up some issues for us, carefully placing them in media outlets and megaphones to serve as our nation's "problem" issues.
One of these issues is the widespread problem of flag burning.
Another is the influx of immigrants, and how this might impact our fragile yet carefully-established echo chamber.
I'd like to have a word myself about these psuedo, let-them-eat- cake issues:
These carefully concocted non-issues are simply very tangible "anchor" issues which the public is "supposed" to grasp onto. They come with redi-made answers and require little or no personal assessment or thought. The issues and sub-issues are totally spoon-fed to the public by a Big Brother telling the masses to take their so-to-speak medicine.
We might call them "lollipop" issues, since they are nothing much other than a piece of candy for the public to be entertained by and to suck on and think that it is food. Let them eat lollipops.
We might call them "hump" issues, since they are pseudo-issues that create a pivot or launching pad for a particular candidate (or agenda) to swing an election, over some otherwise hurdle or hump of public dubiousness. They categorize the candidate, and launch the candidate over a certain "hump" of otherwise public skepticism.
Whatever they are called, it's all a waste. It ain't real life.
Okay first let me say that I personally do not have quite the same animosity towards blacks who "wear" their religion for show than for whites who do so, and this is simply my own personal bias because I have not had the same personal life observations of blacks as whites. Blacks have often had to lead harder lives, and therefore I feel less judgemental of them. Anyway this comment is not directed towards blacks or racial issues, but wearing one's religion for show in general.
People everywhere feel like they are "okay" because they think they know what is wrong with everyone else. They are majoring in the presumed errors and wrongs of everyone else. But they don't have a clue about their own personal flaws --- just 20/20 vision on everyone else (or so they think), and perhaps this is only a natural human condition for which little can be done.
Anyway it is curious why the two words "secular" and "humanism" have been combined --- as if the two necessarily have anything to do with each other. (I was trying to be satirical above, and so called this comment "secular hedonism . . . ")
Also there are people going around in cars with bumper stickers that say that because they are Christians, they are not perfect but that they are "forgiven." Okay this particular presumption warrants some closer inspection, being that there is a little comment in their Bible in which Jesus tells his disciples to pray to "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." This is found in the book of Matthew, chapter 6 verse 12. Since it says to pray for one's own forgiveness to the same degree one is willing to forgive others, then could it be possible that there is a sort of "condition" involved?
Anyway it does give rise to some question that Christianity is really some club of license to sin with no reckoning or Day or Reckoning to come about it all. "There comes a Day of Reckoning" one lady once very aptly put it.
Okay sorry I don't have more time to devote/give to writing this up better but there is just very little spare time for very many of us in this world today, for us to sit around and perfect these sorts of write-ups. So this will have to do.
Pages