Response to my Big Poppa

Big Poppa Roos asked me some questions about some stuff. I love that guy.
______________________________________________________________________________

Here was his wording:
I have not run this by anyone and I need to know what you think of this phrase found in the first paragraph of the
Declaration of Independence....... Thomas Jefferson states 'the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them....... Please Google the Declaration of Independence/Thomas Jefferson or whatever and give me your take on what the 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' mean.......... Please list the laws of Nature that you believe Jefferson was referring to.......

Also in the Second paragraph of the D. of I. - what does it mean that 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.' What are those rights and do those rights go around the world with mankind - and how does the Creator according to Thomas Jefferson believe 'all men are created equal...'
__________________________________________________________________________

This was my response to my dad.

Big Poppa:

I’ve done some research on your questions about “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.”

I don’t understand the peak of interest in Thomas Jefferson’s opinions regarding specific issues. I agree that Thomas Jefferson was a great man, and a scholar, and a very knowledgeable individual. However, I don’t believe he’s all knowing. He was just (and I say this with no malice) a dude. He had faults like anyone else. He took his women slaves’ bodies against their will. He is no more credible than you, or me, or Robert Sabin, or Barack Obama. He is a dude with good points and bad ones.

For my money, there are few places to research that are better or more credible than wikipedia. I don’t know if you are familiar with the concept of wiki, but it means that anyone and everyone can add to it. There are enough people who care fervently enough about any given subject, that if you or any other person were to go into the site and attempt to publish something spurious, it would be corrected by the end of the day. If you don’t believe me, I invite you to put the theory to the test.

That being said, before I begin, I will let you know up front what my sources are, before I give you my final thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic

First, let’s examine the paragraph in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer:
“ When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The Laws of nature, according to my source (which, again, is everyone in the world), have been explored through the centuries, before they ever reached the Declaration of Independence.

Aristotle first studied under his mentor Socrates, and ran with the idea of natural law from there. I think it is merits mention that in the first two generations of humans understanding the concept that “the written word remains,” they chose to tackle some of the biggest (or most basic) subjects that they could tackle – such as natural law. Since the natural law is something that was tackled in the first and second schools of thought of philosophy, I think it is safe to say that it is akin to the natural law for man to be inquisitive and to pursue understanding.

Stoic natural law is the next natural law on this linear timeline that is noteworthy. Why? Once again, because my source/s, which is anyone who cares enough to write about it, say so.

• Stoicism was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would control such emotions.[1] Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature.
Since it is in accordance to be with nature to have a will, I believe that whatever that will is – it is in accordance with nature. That’s a heavy fucking concept if you really wrap your head around it. In fact, if you are a Christian, that means predestination exists.

For instance – it is my will to write you this email, and it is my ambition to send it to you. It may or may not get sent to you.

It is my ambition to take my hip hop career into a further realm that will not quit simply at hip hop, but will create many different types of media that change the way the world views things – and even helps the world to begin looking at them my way. I may or may not realize that ambition.

However, even if I don’t realize the vision I have in my head at this time and place, I will realize something. That thing may change from one moment to another, but it will always be in accordance with nature. Why? Because, even if it alters, it will be because some other elements (i.e. natural elements) will have effected them.

So, that’s the scale at my own personal sphere of influence. Does the sphere expand? You bet it does. Let’s look at nature in the commonly used sense of the word – ecology. Is it natural to pollute the earth? Of course it is. Look at what’s polluting it – humans. And while some believe that humans are separate from nature, you and I have been around long enough to know that we are very much a part of it. We effect it and it effects us. Period.

So when I say that it is natural for humans to have polluted the earth to the point that it has been polluted, I say that with one caveat that actually points back to the original point I made about our philosophical friend, Aristotle: Humans are inquisitive. We are learning that polluting the earth is having a negative effect on us. And because we have learned that, we are interested and inquisitive about learning to live cleaner and more in harmony with the earth (or with nature, if you will).

Furthermore, we have done this at a very natural pace. How do I know it’s natural? Because it is the pace at which we have moved within each of our own, and our collective natures.

Now let’s keep moving down the progression of time, and into the next notable natural law applicators that all the people in the world who care have identified:

Christian natural law. I assume that because of your faith and practice, of which I am in great admiration, that this is the type of natural law that you would allude to most, if you were posed the same questions as you posed to me.

I personally believe that the American Christian Church is wrestling with itself in this sense, because many of the things that come naturally go against ethical principles that are prescribed by their Holy Book, The Bible. That is to say, they feel a need to fight nature.

Indeed, if a human exercised no discipline, they would simply resort the mind frame of an animal. It is an animal’s only purpose in life to satiate itself. It gets hungry, it satiates its appetite. It gets sleepy, it satiates its appetite. It gets near another beast in heat, it satiates its appetite.

There are so many different ways of satiating different appetites that we may not have even known we had (nicotine addiction, gambling, etc.) – that if all we did was satiate the appetites, we would die from gluttony within a matter of minutes – not simply because we are breasts, but because we also are constantly in possession of the ability to satiate as many appetites as we want, and as immediately as we desire, in this day and age.

So where does fighting the nature come in? It comes in, and we fight that nature because – not because a book says so, in my case – but because putting off that satiation in exchange for a different action will yield better or greater or, dare I say, more satiating results in the long run.

Example: Why do you run? Why don’t you just rest all day? Because running will make you feel better when you are resting.

Here’s the great part. It is natural to want to satiate appetites. It is natural to satiate the appetites. It is natural to decline satiation in an effort for better results in the long run ... Just find whatever balance works for you. If the balance isn’t working, there will be some obvious signs from nature (the natural world) to let you know.

Next on the timeline:

Islamic natural law. Man, I’m in the land where Islam was founded. There is some natural law going on here that is detrimental to these people. On the other hand, it will be their nature to act to their own detriment until they naturally seek another way of doing business.

From here, it morphs into Thomas Hobbes’ natural law. He had 16 of them laid out for whomever would listen.

Thomas Hobbes:

The first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.

The second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.

The third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.

The fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

The sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
The seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.

The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.

The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.

The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.

The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.

The thirteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.

The fourteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.
The fifteenth law is that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgment of an arbitrator.
The sixteenth law is that no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause.

Hobbes died about a century before the Declaration of Independence was written. He seems like a cool enough guy, but I would probably find some points of contention with his 16 points if I ever had a chat with him.

To answer your question about the Creator:

According to everyone in the world who cares enough to write about it: A creator deity is a deity in a creation myth responsible for the creation of the world (or universe).

In monotheism, the single God is necessarily also the creator deity, while polytheistic traditions may or may not have creator deities. A number of monolatristic traditions separate a secondary creator, from primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.

To answer the question about rights:

Gratitude comes from the realization that – of all the things in this world you’ve been given; of all the opportunities that were afforded to you; of all those advantages you’ve had; of all those things – you have not necessarily been deserving.

What is a right?

I have a right to this! What does that mean?

From where I sit, when I hear that someone has a right to something, it sounds to me that they are saying they are entitled to that thing.

I must tell you, Sir, that I have a huge problem with a sense of entitlement. It is my privilege to serve in the Army. It is my privilege to get a paycheck. It is my privilege to say what I want when I want. It is my privilege to write an email to whom I please. It is my privilege to have privacy. It is my privilege to drive a car. It is my privilege to touch my woman in such a way that I please. At any point in time, I can act in a way – I can conduct myself in such a manner that I no longer have any of the privileges I just listed.
No one has rights. People are privileged to certain things, so long as they act in a way that the law of nature has prescribed them to act in exchange for those things they desire. And you or I can lose our privileges with misconduct.

Speaking for myself, and in regard to the questions you’ve posed: It is in my nature to conduct myself and my resources in a manner that will yield levels of privilege exceeding even my wildest dreams ... Thank you very much.

I love you. I’d love to hear what you think.
Love,

Joe

A little bit of media coverage

I went outside the wire today and stayed safe the whole way. I am doing good and loving life.

I also got some media coverage on myselft. Mind you, it's military media, so the market is not as big - but you know how it is: At this stage, I'll take what I can get.



Just Glad to Be Here.

I think ... the war is over.

The war is over. There is nothing left to be won militarily. The only function the American Soldiers are serving in, is the function of facilitating reestablishment of a society. This isn't even a point of contention with the command messages we put out. We broadcast it to as many people as will listen: "We Are Not In Charge!!" is the message we scream.

There isn't anything left to be won militarily. However, the function of the US becomes quite questionable when we're screaming as loud as we can that we aren't in charge, but are still obviously serving in some capacity. There's nothing left to be won militarily, but that's from a US point of view. Our point of view (incompetent as I think it is sometimes) offers a level of competence and precision that the Iraqis (whether they are insurgent or Iraqi Security forces) couldn't match on their best day.

Take, for instance, our first IDF (Indirect Fire) attack we had the other week. They didn't even come close to hitting the base.

Hopefully, we'll look back at that night at the end of the deployment and refer to it as "The Battle of Basra."

When I say there's nothing left to be won militarily, I mean there's no formidable force. Even though the Iraqi Police and security forces are not the most trained or professional bunch of guys in the world (they're learning quickly though), they certainly can handle the insurgency that is left.

Cardio

I know my life is better when I do cardio. I know my cardio is best when I do it first thing in the morning. I know that the better my cardio is, the better my life is. I think that means the rule goes something like this:

Those who do cardio in the morning have the best lives ... or something like that?

Somehow, Runner's World magazine gets here in a pretty timely fashion. Every other magazine is two or three years behind schedule - but for some reason - Runner's World stays pretty current.


I'm in the rhythm that everyone said we'd get into. Time flies when you're staying busy. I knock out another day. I knock out another muscle group in the weight room. I knock out another couple of miles. I knock out another book. I knock out another song. I'm staying right on schedule with the universe.

Sure, I slip every once in a while (when I say slip, I mean smoke a cigarette). But when I slip, I kick myself so many times in the ass that I have to get back up and get my focus. I'm focused. It feels good - but almost unfamiliar. I think that's why I smoke sometimes. I get so focused and sharp that it almost feels uncomfortable - it's easy to become intolerant of other people's slow movement when I get moving at the speed of Roos - I don't mean to be rude, but I know sometimes it comes out that way.

There's too much to do, and because of that, incompetence doesn't get a lot of empathy these days.

My music gig will get pushed through.

"Just Glad To Be Here" is a good album, with two caveats: 1 - It's not as good as the next album is going to be. 2 - It hasn't reached its full potential yet in terms of what it's grossed.

I'm building a website as a marketing platform. I own the web domain http://www.straightshooterproductions.com/ - there isn't anything on it yet, because it's being built. Between that and keeping Olson in my corner, this IS GOING TO HAPPEN: JOE ROOS AT THE TOP OF EVERY CHART.

I hope this message finds you well and full of vigor and zeal. You know how much I hate (ha ha ha, right?) to speak in absolutes but when it comes to how I spend my time, there is a place for broad generalization. It's either anabolic or catabolic. It's either a fountain or a drain. It's either production or destruction.

I am producing.

Clearing something up about IDF

You gotta understand about these goofy bastards trying to lob mortars. When I say they have bad aim, that doesn't quite cover it. They have absolutely no aim at all. They set up a rocket, right. They set up a rocket, set a timer to it, and all they really have is the thing pointed in the direction of the base. They have absolutely no concept of trajectory, or how high it's gonna go or anything. All they know is that it's facing in the right direction (it's not even facing the right direction all the time) and they know (based on their timer) when it's gonna launch. Other than that, it's pretty much like little kids shooting bottle rockets, except for the stupid little kids didn't put the bottle rocket in a bottle ... they just kinda launched it. The rockets that these goof balls set off the other night wound up way off over by the air field, but not even on a runway or anything. It's a fucking base in the middle of the desert. These goofy shit heads missed an entire base. Nevermind the broad side of the proverbial barn. I'm mean really - more than anything, that's just funny.