Monday, November 2, 2015

Ben Carson and Free Speech

You're not going to believe this one. Carson, who rails against "political correctness" has come out with a proposal to limit free speech on college campuses using the full force of the Federal Government.


  1. What about God giving you all the answers on a chemistry exam?

    1. Visualization is and has been a very powerful ability. Regardless of where you get your inspiration from, its nice to know that some people do get it and whatever it is that guides their hands makes them special.

    2. Fair enough, but Dr. Carson claims that God gave him the answers to the exact problems in the test, that's not visualization is it?

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. I read the piece on the education proposal and I can see a place in the system for such an approach. I would advocate further consideration for examples of extreme viewpoints. Ultra right (Nazi )or ultra Left Pol Pot type preaching. There are times when the provisions of the 1st can and should be ignored. William please just let this pass by, I am too tired to argue!.
      As for the points that Carson felt the warm hand of God at a Chemistry exam; I wonder did the good Doctor ever try to analyze and prove the existence of this bountiful being? Did Carson simply do well at Chemistry because he was a very good student. I favor the latter point.

      Cheers from Aussie

    6. In a recent thread I asked the poorfessor from Florida to explain where the energy came from that originated the Big Bang.


    7. Sorry I must have missed that. The answer is, no one knows. The big bang theory is just that, a theory, and like all theories, it can never proved, only disproved. Since it explains how the current universe came about and answers many problems which have puzzled astrophysicists for many years better than any previous theory, it is now accepted as the standard model of creation. Does that mean it is the final truth? Of course not. Does it disprove the biblical accounts, not at all. If God chose to create the universe as a singularity in space-time, there is no conflict. Try Googling "standard model" for a more complete description.

    8. Like Dr. Carson I have occasionally found the answers to complex building problems after a good night's sleep. Having not a clue as my eyes closed the very obvious answer arrived at first light.

      There are many unexplained things that have very elegant solutions that seem far beyond the possibly of simple evolution or scientific theory. Small coinsidences in every day life defy normal probablities.

    9. As the sun rises this morning I look out upon our turning leaves. We are in peak Fall season and thousand of shades of colors and lights and darks blend together into a spectacular panorama. My eye is capable, even though not as strong as in my prime, of zooming into each individual leaf, each touch of grey bark, each splash of blue sky filtering between the glorious foliage.

      The clocks have changed here now. The evening constitutional features a lowering sun and never ending sunsets in infinite combinations. The air crisp here in the most densely populated State in the Union.

      Something more than science goes on here. Something more than a primordial soup.

    10. I don't disagree William, scientific theories represent our attempts to explain how the universe works. They are not meant to replace religion. Unfortunately the opposite is not true, many people attempt to replace science with religion. The Church at one time excommunicated anyone who believed that the Earth rotated about the Sun. But, as Copernicus said "And yet it moves". Please don't confuse science and religion.

    11. William
      A good post and very descriptive of the natural events which follow each other in a cyclical pattern every year. I must confess to missing the Autumn of my childhood, the crisp feel of the leaves in the woods during autumn and the first snow falling as the last of the leaves fell to earth. It was during the second world war that I lived in England as a child. I too used to marvel at the wonders of nature and at the same time ( 1942,43) I shivered as the beauty of the autumn leaves was destroyed by the random bombing as German planes either missed the target of the docks in Portsmouth or simply jettisoned the ordinance in order to escape.

      William, your post is evocative for your country, your city and your nation. You have not had to suffer the indignities of war on your shores since I believe the time the Brits started a bonfire in Washington. The 911 Atrocity was a loathsome act of terror but it was one single event in two centuries. Europeans put up with such experiences on a daily basis for years during the past two centuries.

      I wonder if there is a correlation between the feather bedded citizens of America and their God. Afraid your God has to accept responsibility for a proportion of the misery if he/she is to be venerated for the good. I further wonder what the WW2 G>Is thought of the omnipotent presence as they returned from the battlefields.

    12. If everything is truly relative is it not true that the entire universe revolves around mother earth?

    13. No. Things that revolve are accelerating toward the center and thus are non-inertial systems to which relativity doesn't apply. It is true that all galaxies are receding away from each other because the universe is expanding.

    14. Thanks for clearing that up prof.

  2. Ultra right (Nazi )?.... now that's an ultra left myth.


    2. Yes TS the Nazi party was the conservative party in 1930's Germany. Maybe if you didn't spend so much time trying to rewrite history you would have known that. The three major parties Social Democratic Party, The National Socialist German Workers party and the Communist party. The Social Democratic Party still exists today as a major force in German politics. It has a combination of progressive and Marxist ideas.

      National Socialist German Workers' Party
      Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

      Party Chairman
      Anton Drexler (1920–1921)
      Adolf Hitler (1921–1945)
      Martin Bormann (1945)

      Anton Drexler

      "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" (unofficial)

      February 24, 1920


      Preceded by
      German Workers' Party

      Munich, Germany

      Völkischer Beobachter

      Student wing
      National Socialist German Students' League

      Youth wing

      Hitler Youth
      Deutsches Jungvolk
      League of German Girls

      Paramilitary wings

      Sports body
      National Socialist League of the Reich for Physical Exercise

      Women's wing
      National Socialist Women's League

      Fewer than 60 (1920)
      8.5 million (1945)

      National Socialism

      Political position

      Black, White, Red
      Brown (customary)

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. And this tells us what? National Socialism is right wing?... Could we say that about the PLO... or Cuban Communist Party? For anyone truly interested and not politically blinded by the propaganda wing of the Wilson administration (The world’s first true fascist administration) a side by side comparison of communism, fascism and Nazism will garner few differences.

      I beg to differ with the revisionist comments. The left have deliberately attempted to separate similar ideology with near identical objectives because one carries strong nationalistic tendencies and the other are more inclined to run the entire world. This of course would make George Washington Fascist... pride in your country isn't truly being Fascist or the desire for national sovereignty does not make you fascist.

      Fascism, no less than Communism or Nazism is a top down state run enterprise. While fascism might allow for industry (Actually Mussolini tolerated industry as a means to an end), at the end of the day Fascism was no less totalitarian than its communist counterparts.

      Beyond the nationalist aspect, they further cast Nazism as being even more radically to the right because of race but we know that both Stalin and Marx (himself of Jewish heritage) expressed utmost disdain for Jews. Other than the specific racial implications of Hitler’s attention, as the Black Book of Communism documents, the gulags were no less effective in dealing with perceived political or ideological opponents than Germany’s concentration camps. German communists often resorted to nationalist and anti-Semitic appeals when it served their purpose. Ethics of the left are suspect.

      So distorted is the term ‘right wing’ by the propaganda machine of the socialist left that when Stalin exiled Trotsky … he branded him as right wing… even though Trotsky’s only sin was that he wanted to take Bolshevism world wide... and of course was a threat to Stalin’s ascension to power. The left it would seem have a history of branding anyone who even moderately opposes their quest for social rearrangement under an all knowing central committee as a ‘right winger’ or a way to cover their own historical associations with the ideology... ‘A Fascist’

      The fact is that Fascism, Nazism and Communism differ from each other only because they grew out of different soil. What makes them the same is their emotional impulses for community… the urge to ‘get beyond’ politics and a faith in the perfectibility of man… under the authority of their chosen experts of course. Most of all what they share is the totalitarian temptation to believe that they have the answer in creating utopia… All three stressed huge state governments that included expanding health services, worker holidays, enforcing anti-elitism, wealth-confiscation, and secularism all in the name of the state and the common good. Fascism offered “anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalistic, and anti-individualist nationalism”

      People conveniently skip over the fact that Roosevelt along with a host of American ‘progressives’ were smitten with Mussolini… and while Hitler’s Meine Kampf barely mentions fascists or fascism it is clear what Italian fascism had a lot to teach Hitler about the need for industry that was no more right wing than the Chinese Communist Party. Like so much of the left’s dogma, overthrow of the established order by any means necessary was the exact playbook of the French Revolution from which all three have undeniable philosophical roots.

      Carl Sagan labeled today’s progressives in the US ‘Smiley Face Fascists’ because they have to endure in their pursuit of the reorganization of social order, a Jeffersonian independence streak that lives in most Americans, the barriers presented by the damnedable constitution and of course some 300million guns…..

    5. Ultra right (Nazi )?.... now that's an ultra left myth. Nope TS the Nazi party was ultra right. Any party well meaning or otherwise could be run as a dictatorship as Germany was but it doesn't have to be. People living in the social democratic states of Europe are just as free, sometimes more freedoms then America has.
      Fascism by definition is an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing form of government and social order.

      Nazism is not a form of government it is a set of unfortunate ideals and principles promoted by the National Socialist German Workers Party during the 1920's and 1930's that led to the tremendous burdens of the world to squash it during the second world war.

      communism is again a set of principles espoused by Karl Marx in which the government owns all business and production and each worker is paid according to his abilities, kinda sounds free market for labor in that the best get more to me. I would think that you would agree with the social Darwinism of the system.

      Now Communism is a system of government by a ruling Communist Party such as the system used in the old Soviet Union.
      Karl Marx never said that his principles had to be invoked by a dictatorial power. Unfortunately that's what has always happened so we really don't know if true communism would ever work. I think the Chinese will be the first to let us know.

      Parlimentary democracy like in Kings Australia is much like our system except it is a two branch government not three. The executive is normally different then the head of state and the executive is directly held accountable by the legislature. Therefore since the executive derives his legitimacy from the Legislature the branches are interconnected.
      But I would think that King feels that he is just as free as an American.

      Democracy A system of government by the whole population or those who are eligible usually through elected representatives.

      Wow isn't that what they do in today's Russia? But with a dictator sitting at the top it doesn't look much different then Communism with a dictator at the top does it? - except now the elite of Russia have achieved the same inequality of income that we have in America.

      Point being TS it isn't always about the form of government as much as it is about who's running the damn thing. When Boris Yelsin ran Russia it was free, Broke and broken but free. There are countless democracies in the world, the people elect the representatives, but there are also a bunch of horrendous people or groups of people running those democracies.

    6. You are reaching for definitions that are palatable and useful to justify your position. Right wing has no more real association with authoritarian government than does the left wing. Redefining things is nothing new to Progressives... they regularly redefine themselves. Remember progressives use to define government as being the ‘right hand of God’ and were deeply involved with prohibition and the Temperance movement.

      As far as a definition for fascism, I don’t think, beyond looking at the relatively common sources for information that you can find an agreed on definition. Beyond the use of the term ‘Ultra Nationalist’ most political philosophers just can’t seem to nail down the essence of fascism. Certainly the understanding of fascism that made FDR such a fan of Mussolini isn’t the definition that seems to be presently in vogue. Current progressive thought would much prefer to maintain Orwell's definition of fascism as anything not desirable, thus excluding their own fascistic proclivities from inquiring eyes.

      Borrowed from other sources and compiled for you is my definition of Fascism:
      Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to ‘the will of the people’. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the ‘common good’. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy. I contend that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.

      I beg to differ with your comment: “Karl Marx never said that his principles had to be invoked by a dictatorial power. Unfortunately that's what has always happened so we really don't know if true communism would ever work. I think the Chinese will be the first to let us know.

      Firstly.. the utopian world envisioned by Marx requires complete unity of purpose; politically, socially and economically. It stands to reason that without force it requires the complete and voluntary subjugation of the human spirit. In my estimation hardly possible without force. Mussollini stated that "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual." This comment could have come from Marx or Lenin or Hitler or Stalin and the only way to ascertain that type of unified identity... is either with force... or with drugs.

      In 1848, Marx and Engels published “The Communist Manifesto,” which introduced their concept of socialism as a natural result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system; Socialism being an interim place between the bourgeois world of capitalism and proletarian destination of communism.

      Marx was coy about the subject of state and dictatorship; presumably because it is the bit that is hardest to sell to people... brain washing and torture don’t play well with the proletariat even if they feel that the nasty capitalist are doing them wrong. He inferred that dictatorship was necessary as an interim place between capitalism and communism.. That transitional period has been experience by many countries in the name of communism but has never survived to a true communist state and to the extent socialist policy is invoked against the free will of a people, the amount of authoritarian power required to enforce it rises proportionally.

      Continued >>>>>

    7. Again, he never quite explained away the human spirit, unless of course the ‘dictatorship’ phase beat the spirit out of the proletariat which, contrary to your ‘right wing’ criteria, would require a considerable amount of physical or physiological coercion... problem here is that when the human spirit is actually destroyed, so is a functioning society. While that kind of compliance might be possible with some segments of the classless society... someone must, at least until nirvana has arrived, replace the dictator from time to time... and there is always someone who thinks they can do it better than the old boss and better than they guy next to them. This conflict alone plays hell with the classlessness of a population and individual ambition.

      Given that no country, regardless of what they call themselves has ever been a true communist state, they are all pass into a state of socialism... a concept that is the very contradiction to the concept of a democratic institution somehow advertised by progressives.

      The second flaw, at least to my way of thinking is that communism is, on the one hand, stateless and on the other, requiring that ‘something’ be the controller of the means of production and resource... kind of a contradiction wouldn’t you say? Given the disdain for the constitution and the rule of law, one must assume a strong ruler.... Authoritarian... Totalitarian... but certainly not right wing...

      One Final Point... and it is an important one: “Point being TS it isn't always about the form of government as much as it is about who's running the damn thing. When Boris Yelsin ran Russia it was free, Broke and broken but free. There are countless democracies in the world, the people elect the representatives, but there are also a bunch of horrendous people or groups of people running those democracies.”

      Because we cannot in any way depend on an elected representative to operate in a manner consistent with the will of the people... we must depend on the rule of law... The constitution, much maligned by progressives is the law to which all other laws and treaties must comply... Keeps everyone honest and drives progressives crazy...

  3. For all you just said that is exactly the point it isn't the government it is who is running it.

    "You are reaching for definitions that are palatable and useful to justify your position. "
    I'll just turn that one around on you, because TS you are not always the one who's right. Gasp!
    You keep saying the constitution the constitution, well TS our constitution doesn't mean diddly squat to the Russians the Germans or anyone else outside of the United States. They all have their own constitutions and I am hard pressed to believe that you know every single word and every single one of them. And here in lies the problem, you can't just think of our constitution in world affairs. Now you are correct that we cannot depend on the elected representatives to operate in a manner consistent with the will of the people even in our holier then thou Nation. But TS the majority of the time our representatives do. When they don't we have the Supreme Court to decide if the measures passed are in fact legal within the bounds of our constitution. A measure may not always be the will of a majority of the people but probably enough of the people to make it a sound measure. There's all kinda shit that goes on in this country that I don't agree with but I don't go around doing everything I can to fuck up the country like one group in this one does.
    Have you seen Putin's public acceptance when he does something off the wall like invade the Ukraine? Might not be constitutional and might not be the will of the people but the average Russian sure seems to like it. Same here start a war and your opinion polls go up. I think people just like to fight

    1. Ric your Wilson ian progressives have been f-in up the country for a hundred years.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I did nothing more than dispute your contention that ‘authoritarian’ government was an exclusive feature of ‘right wing’ thought. Socialism does not function without the barrel of a government gun stuck up someone’s nose. Now if you have facts to the contrary, that’s what we should be talking about.

      Look, national antagonism as been a subject of debate for the last 2500 years. While I readily agree that our foreign policy has been a disaster on many fronts, the expansionist nature of some ideologies sometimes must be confronted... to me, our biggest flaw is that we are too limp wristed about it. If it is worth getting in a shooting match over, it is worth decimating the opponent. I could give a damn about the Russian constitution... if they don’t screw with us then live and let live. We were warned about foreign entanglement... (Like a free trade agreement that is 3 times longer than the King James Version of the Bible). The US like Russia is a sovereign nation... each with their own internal rules... respect for each other is one thing but I will be damned if I allow you into my house to arrange my closet to suit your way of doing things.

      Fact is you don’t like the United States of America... It is a sore on the existence of mankind... Russia and China are the world’s best hope. You want to know why Putin is succeeding? Because the people of this country have all but handed him victory. Common sense means little to the people of the US... we are so propagandized against each other and even against our own welfare. Someone does a spoof petition in California that says we should ‘perform a nuclear first strike against Russia’... people sign it. The same person on the same day does another petition to ‘have the bill of rights revoked’ and people sign it... Putin uses both as propaganda against the west.

      I don’t have any hard conceptions about my opinions being right or wrong... I am open to facts. Problem is people on the left do not operate in fact or in the rule of law for that matter... As I have said of Mike, his answer many times is ‘just because’. You and he dance around the rule of law because you will hide behind it when it suits you and disregard it when it stops you. Your words here speak volumes about your respect for the rule of law and democracy itself.

      “A measure may not always be the will of a majority of the people but probably enough of the people to make it a sound measure. There's all kinda shit that goes on in this country that I don't agree with but I don't go around doing everything I can to fuck up the country like one group in this one does.”

      The second sentence shows your delusion... As William has clearly stated... progressives have been aggressively fucking up the country for decades....

    4. Wrong again. I do love my country and am proud to be an American and yes I understand exactly how luck I am to be part of this great experiment. But O also want my country to move forward together as the strong nation that we can be when we work together.
      Progressive ideals have been a large part of what has made this country the number one place in the world to live. progressive Ideals that started from about day one of the great signing.
      But here's the difference. I see our constitution as a living document one that is going to change.... has to change and be broadened to reflect things that our founders couldn't even imagine. Why do we have so many rules and regulations? Just because we can. Just because someone said lets make a law, let's regulate this? No. We have so many rules and regulations precisely because we don't have an authoritarian government ruled by one dictator. Rules and regulations to keep us as free as possible. We have them because humans by their very nature don't know how to act. You on the other hand see the constitution as a static document that can't be changed or expanded to be taken literally as written although things have changed drastically since it was signed. You would rather have an unregulated chaos. because that's what only the original document can provide in todays world. Difference is we choose to move forward into the future you choose to look at was has been and dream of the past. hell I was alive in the 50's 60's 70's. I remember how good things were, no danger playing out in the streets after dark, no idiots preying on our country. yea I remember but that was a different time. I remember driving at night going to see my grandparents in Indiana. You would sometimes barely see a car for miles. But I also realize there were only 100 million of us then. Today we approach 320million. More people mean more interaction, more interaction requires more rules. If everyone just did the right thing always we could live in your utopia. But unfortunately human nature isn't that way. from the time of the bible, and I am no way religious< people acted out and acted up and God would destroy all that they had built as punishment for their actions. Humans.......... we are the cause of all we don't like.

      Socialism doesn't function without the barrel of the gun.... Again you don't understand governments like you think you do. Those are authoritarian states. Russia fashions itself as a democracy in todays world. But the gun is still visible. It isn't the type of government it is who is running the thing that matters.

      "Socialism does not function without the barrel of a government gun stuck up someone’s nose."

      Now if that isn't an ignorant statement.

      Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Shall I go on. each and everyone a socialist democracy and no one is being forced to stay with a gun or anything else. And TS they are the happiest people on the planet. there's your fucking facts my friend.
      Rule of law? I don't hide behind any rule of law. I obey every law in this great country of ours. I think you must be thinking about those who will skirt and stretch every law they can for their own personal gain. Many are in your fabled 1% they screw everyone they can in the name of the almighty dollar.

    5. Wow... Orwell couldn’t have written that any better.... WAR IS PEACE..FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and of course IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

      They say that insanity is asking the same question over and over again and expecting a different answer. In this case I don’t think I am looking for a different answer in as much as I am looking for any answer at all. Constantly this tripe about a living constitution and me being stuck in my tricorn looking for the red coats (Now there’s a parity of wording for you)... I ask two questions time and again and from the left I hear only silence... 1) the founders as I have pointed out, were clear that the constitution not only might, but undoubtedly would need changing and modifying... yet for all of the desire for progressives to claim ownership of the document (guess you got tired of your classically liberal faction who actually believe in it), I hear nothing of Article V.... That is where the constitution is modified, not by ignoring its provisions. 2) One thing that progressives of the FDR lot seem unable to articulate are ... why do we even have enumerated powers if the constitution gave the National government the power to do anything it wanted to do in the first place? And if the enumerated powers were put their to show iron clad ownership then I think that all these little laws that harm trial by jury, search and seizure, right to bear arm and the ability to peacefully assemble are just as out of bounds? ... don’t you?

      Mislead by your own sources of propaganda I see. The one enduring feature of socialism is state control of resource and the means of production. Programs such as education and healthcare are merely side products as there would be no one else to fulfill those needs. The problem isn’t the programs... States have always had the right to implement such programs; in fact education had been a function of every state long before the ‘Dept of Education’. The problem with the programs is that the federal government... up until FDR completely broke the government, had no authority to create them.

      "Socialism does not function without the barrel of a government gun stuck up someone’s nose."

      Believe me, when the state gets in the middle of business, when the state confiscates property for economic ‘good’, when the state declares how much a person must be paid regardless of their knowledge or ability and who must be hired... it is, without a doubt, a coercive action of the state.

      Now, if we look at your ‘happiness index’, we have to look at who wields it and why... Who gets to decide what equates to rather arbitrary definition of happiness...

      Of course the UN runs the GNH. It has four broad categories from which it makes its calculations. Sustainability, Preservation and Promotion of cultural values, Conservation and natural environment and the all important Good Governance. ... really?...Other than cost, do you really celebrate happiness because the timber frame of your home comes for any particular forest? I can see how preservation of cultural values would be important... and why the US is so far down the leader board. Conservation as a measure of happiness?... Really? Now, I know that being able to surround yourself in nature is a wonderful thing and it certainly makes one happy while they are their but killing a person’s livelihood in the absolute pursuit of this doesn’t necessarily bode well on the happy scale. The last of course is governance... we will talk more about this but suffice to say that more government does not automatically equate to good governance.

      So, for one moment, less forget the difficulty in trying to pin down what makes people happy (and who is doing the survey) and look at what life looks like in ‘happy’ countries.

      One thing touted is per capita income... Well, as we know a good central bank and coercive labor laws can pump income. If however we took the average ‘expendable’ income from the 7 happiest countries... they would rank among the bottom 10 US states for poverty.


    6. While we point to guns in the US as being a main factor in suicides, the rates in these ‘happy’ countries exceed the per capita suicide rates in the US... and they have no easy way to get it done.

      The Happy Planet Index (HPI) rated Costa Rica, followed by Vietnam, Colombia, Belize and El Salvador as most happy .... relative huh?

      One, if you are inclined to actually look is that a universal quality of the happy countries was the lack of government interference and regulation in personal and business affairs.... That is minimal invasiveness in the lives of its people. (That resource and production thing)

      One thing touted about these happy countries is their early recognition of women and their right to participate in government and business, yet Margret Thatcher, Britain’s first female prime minister was snubbed by the our progressive president... why? Because he didn’t like her politics. Petty you say?... so would I. Progressives don’t like the advancement of mankind... they only like the progression of their social experiments; experiments that have dealt with eugenics and the mongrelisation of the population... now for some self defeating reason they are out to wipe out the white population... and they call abortion a choice.

      One point given for the Danish is their very high rate of volunteerism. It is encouraged and it flourishes. Our progressive government does everything it can to kill charitable organizations and giving unless they are programs to work off student debt via ‘America Corps’ or some other government created organization.

      Sweden has always been a solid market economy and never based on public ownership or ‘third way’ economic philosophies. Because of its prosperity, it did create many social programs... programs that are now being rolled back as unsustainable. Current anthology would be called neo-liberal capitalism.

      Norway a gleaming example of Marxism?... hardly. High taxes for sure but clearly a more market economy than the US.

      Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S

      In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than the United States.

      You eat and live the propaganda my friend... a product of Sorel’s ‘vital lie’: "Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms...there are lifeless truths and vital lies...The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it's true or false."