A Plan to Fix the Primaries

I'd like to propose a plan. I'm tired of have 9 conservatives and 1 moderate run in the primary, only to have the conservatives split the vote and the moderate get cross-over independents / democratic party votes and take all the delegates in a winner take all election. We can't have a separate primary, it would cost too much. And it's a little too much to ask the 9 conservatives to "do their duty" and just step aside for one to run (and we also wouldn't get a say in such a process, it'd be another smoke filled back room deal).

So, let's get the people we think are true conservatives to make a pact, and publicize it. For the first three Caucus / Primaries, Conservatives will vote only for these people, in a sort of parallel primary. Then, no matter what else is going on, the winner of that group will continue while the others drop out. In addition, that candidate will stay until the convention. If they win the convention, fine. If not, they will be the conservative voice there. What do you think?

Also, this applies to liberal / progressive voters as well. I'm sure they're just as sick of not having a voice at the conventions. I'll take comments from anyone!

Addendum: For clarification, this was originally in reference to the U.S. Federal Presidential election, but can apply to other elections as well.

The Paradox of Freedom: Part I

The PROBLEM as I see it: We find our selves as a country wrestling with a conundrum, a living hypocrisy that is eating away at our body politic. That is, our country has been founded on the notion that there are some things that we as a collective society of individuals must agree to do together, in order to maintain our status as individuals. And therein lies the problem. Having accepted the premise that there are some things in which we must work together on (and hence sacrifice our sense of individuality), it now becomes difficult to argue which other things we must not be required to work together on.

Put another way, our founders decided that a nation of individuals, being a most high ideal, could not be obtained by those individuals remaining completely such. That is, for an instant in time they were indeed individuals, complete and sovereign (politically), owing no allegiance to anyone but themselves. But immediately after that moment they began to choose to join in compact with other sovereign individuals, for the purpose of defending against those that would remove their individuality.

But was this a bargain with the devil? When the first colonial said to the second colonial, "let's take up arms together, so that we may protect ourselves. We'll stand back to back so that no one may sneak up on us," was that the end of their lives as pure individuals? Or was the choice they made as individuals the very validation of themselves? After all, they chose to join together, and no one else made them to do so. And when a thief did sneak up and was shot by the colonials, did not they preserve themselves, to go on making choices?

"The freedom you enjoy, is the freedom enjoyed by others to use against you," they reason to themselves, after all while they walked where they would, so could the thieves! "But the freedom you sacrifice is the freedom sacrificed of others that they can no longer use against you," they reason further, and decide they have done a good thing. After they were joined, they could only walk where the other desired and vice-versa, but the thieves were denied walking behind the one or the other now.

Of course, the real question is can you make a choice to have no more choices? Can the first colonist choose to be joined forever to the second colonist? And is it really a choice if you cannot return from it?

Let us suppose that the colonists find themselves among many other like minded individuals, so many that the use of them all for a defense requires an overseer to coordinate the project. The overseer is chosen by a means agreed to by all the individuals, and performs his function of coordinating the defense of the group of individuals. The overseer then decides to coordinate the building of a wall around their dwellings, which the overseer says is also arguably for the defense of the group. The overseer then coordinates the building of public sewer systems within the walls, in case of prolonged siege, again for the defense of the group. Hospitals follow, along with safety regulations and management regimes, to ensure the group's resources are properly used, and that everyone is well fed and healthy to be ready for action "in defense of the group."

Soon the overseer has taken charge of every aspect of every individual action the "individuals" of the group might make. Many of the more trivial actions are permitted, such as which street to walk down, but the extent of those actions is approved by the overseer and documented in the group's laws. Did the individuals desire this outcome? The original purpose of appointing an overseer was so that they could conduct their individual affairs more freely by denying those who would seek to control and conquer them a divided and easy target. But in the end result, they have become precisely what they sought to avoid.

The first colonial decides, after reviewing the affair, that he would rather be shot in the back by a thief and at least have the freedom to walk where he liked without the by-your-leave of the overseer. After all, he reasons, "it is better to die trying to live free than to live as a slave forever. Perhaps I'll invite the second colonial as well, and we can go on protecting each others backs again as we used to."

The overseer cannot find anything in the book of the group's laws that say that "individuals" are allowed to leave the group. In fact, on closer inspection, the overseer cannot find anything about individuals at all any more, as everything has come under the purview of "the defense of the group" which does not contain the sense of individuals any longer. In fact, anyone who does not recognize themselves as being part of the group is then jailed for not contributing taxes for the "defense of the group."

The second colonial gives up and works within the group, since he'd rather have the illusion of freedom than to be jailed and have no sense of freedom at all, although he'd still rather walk freely and risk being shot by a thief, given the chance. The first colonial tries to make a run for it, but he finds there is no where to run to. The walls of the group have extended to the very sea itself. So the colonial decides to start over again right where he is, and is promptly arrested for non-payment of taxes, and thrown into jail.

While he sits in jail, he contemplates the paradox that has brought him and his follow colonials to this point. Namely, that they agreed to have any of their liberty as individuals taken away, in order that they might preserve their status as individuals, and thus eventually had all of their liberty taken away, and became individuals no longer! He reckons this in two ways: By the first reckoning, when some amount of liberty was removed, he was protecting the latter half. But by this reckoning, it implied there was a happy balance of liberty lost to liberty gained. Why, he could even lose up to half of his liberty to protect the other half and still come out even in the end! But was it possible to have a happy medium? Is not a single shackle just as constricting as ten shackles?

And so he tries to reckon a second way. How does a shackle not become a shackle? When you have the key, of course! In fact, forget the shackle, and turn those agreements into ropes, ones that we hold on to, and more importantly can let go of any time we would like. In fact, the only shackle he wishes to have any longer, is the one that will prevent all others from taking hold. The only agreement he wishes to make is the one whereby he will always be able to "let go" of the rope. And therefore the only agreement of freedom without paradox is ironically to agree to be able to break an agreement.

"But surely this is Anarchy, is it not?" says the colonial to himself. Ah, but then he considers that the freedom to break an agreement is also the freedom to make agreement anew. The freedom to make and break agreements is not a statement of Anarchy, it is only a means to either Order or Anarchy, as seen fit by the individual. "Wherever agreements breakdown into Anarchy, individuals may choose to make new agreements to bring Order to Chaos." Or so his thinking goes, as he ponders the paradox that is the basis of the government of his world.

The Counter-Bureaucracy Revolution

I have an idea for the coming peaceful political revolution. It's called the Counter-Bureaucracy, and it works something like this:

Why should the government be the only one allowed to have a bureaucracy? Why should not the citizens have their own bureaucracy? Clearly, we avoid it like the plague, but that doesn't mean we can't have it and use it.

Imagine the following scenario: You go to your local public school to enroll your child. As the administrators are taking down your information you stop them and say, "wait, you haven't signed my form yet!" They look surprised as you pull out your own form, and start asking them for their information. They are even more shocked when you ask them to sign the bottom of the page, below a disclaimer reading something to the effect of "I understand that I am providing a service to the parents of this child in educating them, in return for the taxes being paid by said parents. I recognize the parents as the final arbiter of my conduct as the child's educator. I also recognize that the parent has the final responsibility for this child, not the state." And perhaps also, at the end, "I recognize that the parents do not have to choose public schooling for their child, and I appreciate them choosing our school to provide this service."

Or perhaps this scenario: The Child Protective Services decides to forcibly enter your house, because a neighbor complained you were homeschooling your children (because the public school refused to sign your form). You stop them at the door and say, "you can't come in until this form is completed," and hand them a "Proper Conduct Upon Forcible Entry Form 12/34-5." This form states that every 5 seconds of time spent within the premises incurs a $50 charge, for each person. Furthermore, upon the determination of unlawful forceful entry (as determined by the Home Office Review Board, a.k.a. the Parents), the state will be fined an additional $5,000,000 for each child inconvenienced by the event. If they actually sign the form, you hand it back to them and tell them it needs to be notarized.

Of course, no government agency or agent would ever sign such a document. But that's the point, isn't it? When they refuse to sign your document, you simply refuse to sign theirs.

The Other Problem with Socialism

As if there were not enough problems already with the evils of Socialism, there's this gem that I discovered this morning: Socialism not only views its own actions as a morally correct path, it defines them as the morally correct path. And not to follow that path is conversely morally evil. I don't see how you could see it any other way. So, when George W. Bush does not use the power he has to bring about Socialist policies, he is in fact committing evil, though all he has done is chosen not to steal from one person to give to another.

I hit on this perspective while considering the tipping point for various peoples to reject their government, after watching the movie "Valkyrie" last night. This is a dicey topic, to say the least, and I in no way reject our government beyond any of the legal political mechanisms that our founders were so kind enough to set in place. The fact that I had to spell that out is a sign of our times.

But my connection between the two topics was made by blogersations (conversations in the blogosphere) with a liberal friend of mine. We argued about the election, and about the abject hate directed at Bush. She said it was justified based on Bush's actions. Given that these people were comparing Bush to Hitler (not in passing, not in jest, but actually really giving them the same standing), I think we had better start examining EXACTLY what those actions are, what Hitler's actions were, and what actions we truly think ought to spark a revolution.

Again, this was from the words of a liberal friend of mine, who thought the comparison was justified. Maybe they don't understand what making that comparison means. Maybe after watching the movie I just watched they'll understand. What I think it means, although I think there was a lot of smoke being blown as well, was that they thought some kind of non-political revolution might be justified, particularly if Bush was not gotten out of office (and a political-clone was not put in to replace him). But, that is the beauty of our political system, that we can blow lots of smoke and have it exorcised when we vote. Even if we lose, there's a certain catharsis to having at least cast our vote.

Finally, the point is that Socialism's tipping point in determining the evils of a president or leader is not in terms of whether he thought torture was good, or had some personal scandal of monumental sin (boy, Bill Clinton proved that!), but in whether they implemented Socialst policy. If he had used his power to advance Socialism, then all would have been forgiven about the War on Terror, etc. (As if he needed to apologize for what the Terrorists did to us). If they thought he was trying to bring about Socialist utopia to Iraq, and the far off reaches of the earth, the conflict would be justified. But to bring about anything less, then forget it, no dice, no pass, you're Hitler.

I leave you with one final thought, a topic for another article another day. Since I as a conservative believe that Bush has embraced Socialism, at least tentatively, where does that leave the Socialist Left? Their anger was predicated on his lack of Socialism, but here at the end he has given them everything they wanted and more. If this had happened at the beginning, would things be different?

"Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." - I Peter 1:17

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Against Sodom

It has been argued by Christian proponents of the Homosexual movement that the sin for which Sodom (& Gomorrah) was destroyed was not the sin of homosexual immorality, but rather the sin of greed. This argument in itself presupposes an argument against homosexuality, that because of the homosexual nature of the inhabitants of Sodom, God saw fit to destroy it.

I reject the first argument, and therefore the response by the pro-Homosexual movement. My view is that it was not only homosexuality that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather a host of sins, including homosexuality, greed among them. I firmly believe that sin does not exist in a vacuum, but rather where there is one sin, you are very likely to find many sins. Which came first, greed, then sexual immorality (of all types, I'm sure)? Probably. The point is, it's preposterous to try to claim that when the cities were destroyed it could not have had anything to do with homosexual behavior.

At the very least, we must conclude that it was possibly the reason, and perhaps continue to look for guidance on the matter, perhaps from other Leviticul sources. It is also dangerous to think that there was only one sin for which the cities were destroyed, and that somehow by avoiding that one sin we too can avoid destruction.

2008 Federal Election Position Paper

This post is a little late, a little obsolete. But, not completely so. I believe in putting things down for the record, for myself if no one else. I don't believe time ends when an election is over, so it's really not too late to put down my position on election. So, that said:

Caveats / Preface

I. COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM

I have decided that Socialism, whether National or International, Violent or Non-violent, is morally wrong, like Communism and Marxism in all its derivative forms. I cannot find anything in this vein of philosophy that justifies forcing the transfer of one person's blood, sweat, and treasure into the hands of another person. I cannot accept the premise that the ends justify the means. The means of all forms of socialism is stealing, which I believe to be morally wrong.

Why is it that we don't think it is okay to take things from our Neighbor to give to someone we feel is more deserving, but we do think it is okay to authorize our government to do the same? Also, why is it that we make a distinction between so-called peaceful Socialism, and its more violent cousin Communism? Can I opt out of either system? Am I allowed to refuse to contribute to either system? Will the police not come and arrest me for refusing to be stolen from, or not supporting a system that will steal from others just the same under Socialism as with Communism? Not only do the ends not justify the means, but the means do not justify the ends, when the ends are themselves morally wrong.

Socialism takes away my choice, my freedom, to give of my own accord. It assumes I am not compassionate, and forces it upon me. It takes away my own ability to decide who is deserving, who is needy, and gives that authority to, who? Is it given to some vastly greater alien intelligence, who is unaffected by the human condition? No, the authority is given to other humans, politicians who consistently demonstrate the principle that all humans are corruptible, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The moniker of government does not erase their humanity, it enhances it through the addition of power and authority.

Socialism, et Al., seeks to erase a human condition through force that in fact can only be erased through the changing of people's hearts and minds.

Barack Obama is a socialist. His voting record, his associations and political alliances, and his own words all bear this out. And Joe Biden? See section II. John McCain is not a socialist, although he tolerates socialism in the interest of being bi-partisan (ick). Sarah Palin is not a socialist.

II. VIETNAM

The salient point here is this: Not long after John McCain was rotting in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Joe Biden was voting to suspend all aid to South Vietnam, dooming them to slavery under Communism (and everyone else in the region not protected by a good size chunk of ocean). Also about this time, Barack Obama was being introduced to a highly regarded Communist intellectual in Hawaii.

The sheer fact that Biden and Obama were involved with undermining what McCain was fighting for and being mentored and tutored by the cause that McCain was fighting against, is enough to boil my blood and pull the lever for McCain.

III. TAXES

See section I., Socialism.

IV. CONCLUSION

McCain is possibly my last choice for a Presidential selection, at least on the Republican side. However, given the overt proclivities of Obama / Biden towards all things socialist, I have to make the statement against them by voting for McCain. Even then, I do not think I could do so if not for Sarah Palin. As McCain has taken her as a political hostage, I feel compelled to bargain for her political life by voting for her, even though it means voting for McCain as well.

In addition, I find myself in the position of not being able to "Not Vote," which would truly be my preference, as I do not feel I have a viable alternative. As always, I pray for the best result, and I cast my vote asking that God will bless it, and use it for his purposes.

Okay, I wrapped this up way sooner than I wanted. I just have too many other things to do! I had several other pages on Vietnam, which I guess I'll post another time. Darn the inherent slowness in converting thoughts to words on a page. Of course, I can't read all the stuff I want to as it is, so I guess that's a good thing in the end.

Render Under to Ceasar

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God’s.” – Jesus Christ

This verse seems to be used constantly to berate Christians into not only paying their taxes but to also try and make them feel good about paying their taxes, since it was Jesus who said it. There are so many things wrong with both of those assertions, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with the case of one Christian arguing to another Christian that they should not mind higher taxes, or progressive taxes, according to this verse. Specifically, they are arguing that we should vote for a political candidate who plans to do just that. They actually want the higher taxes on rich people, and the rich people should not mind, because we should “render unto Caesar.”

The first thing we should consider here, is who is who in this little mini-parable. It seems that the first Christian wants to be Caesar, or at least support the rise of a Caesar, to whom we all should then be obligated to give money to. I didn’t read anything in the parable or its context to suggest that Caesar was a good guy in all of this, that it was a good thing for him to be collecting taxes. Caesar (pick one) was the guy who burned Christians at his parties as human candles, to save even more of the taxes he collected for more important things, like exotic lions to eat more Christians at the Circus Maximus.

Jesus wasn’t saying we should vote for Caesar so we can pay him taxes, he was saying that when the evil, murdering, thuggish, tyrant Romans came looking for their blood money, you should pay them what they want instead of stabbing them in the eye and crying ‘Revolution!’ Why? Ah, now the important part.

Render unto God what is God’s. That’s the real crux of this verse. That’s where the Jews who were trying to trip up Jesus got tripped up themselves. They were arguing to keep, deservedly so, the fruits of their labors from Caesar. But Jesus said to give to God what is God’s. What is God’s? Everything. Which Christians can say that some part of their lives is their own and not God’s? Specifically though, I think he was talking about our hearts. That is, don’t worry about your money, it’s not important compared to the spiritual connection with God, and the state of your heart. It’s nothing squared, so let Caesar have his bits of metal that will rust, that will fade and disappear. I’m the Son of the God of the Universe, I don’t need “taxes,” I want your heart and soul, bought and paid for with my blood.

I don’t even think Jesus was saying “revolution” was out of the question, but that’s another topic for another day. The important thing was that the Jews were consumed with the occupation of their lands by the Romans, when they should have been consumed with the renewing of their hearts and minds through communion with the Most High God.

In summary, this verse says nothing to me about the actual morality of taxation. For a discussion of the morality of taxation, see “The Morality of Taxation.”

Caveats

First Caveat (in no particular order of priority):

Caveats are my way of listing out a bunch of things that apply to all my articles. In programming parlance it would be a header file. I guess in writing terminology it is a preface.

Second Caveat

I will respect other's political opinions as I want others to respect my opinions. (Note the similarity to the Golden Rule, that's the sixth commandment on that set of stone tablets). Just because I have arrived a certain conclusions leading me to certain convictions, leading me to certain moral and political positions, doesn't mean that everyone else has, and I respect that. If I take moral position on a subject that you are on the opposite side of, I'm not calling you immoral, I'm not judging you. This is just ideas, not a sentence from a court. If you feel judged, then you're judging yourself, I don't need to do it!

Third Caveat

I'm always working on my thoughts and ideas. My posted, published items, even one's I consider "finished," are snap shots of my thought process. They are a condensed form of the much purer, more complex, are probably more accurate model of the world that resides in the my head. There is always error in translation, and I am translating ideas from my head to the page.

Fourth Caveat

There is error inherent in my thought process, and indeed in anyone's thought process. This is because what we think of as the world is in fact a model of the world constructed in our minds through use of our senses. Models are inherently flawed, in that they interpolate and extrapolate new data using a smaller amount of observed data. You can never know what the true data is that you created, you can only at best bound the error in your model.

Fifth Caveat

My editing skills are poor. I will always strive to improve them, but this was not a subject I focused on in High School or College, relying instead on intuition (too much, always too much), and spell checking. Consistency and all the other hall marks of an excellent command of the English language are desired by me, though may often be lacking.

Piecemeal Politics

I'm just too much of a perfectionist to lay out all my ideas in one position paper, so I'm just going to start dumping it all out in little bite sized pieces. Hopefully that will keep me from becoming too wordy as well.

First Piece: CAVEATS! These are my caveats to everything else I have to say, which I can conveniently refer back to when I most need them (until I get so many that I can't remember them, or keep track of them).

Paper says Socialism code word for Black

Original Lucianne.com Article

David Horowitz did a good job of explaining how the communists wanted to use the race tensions in America as a wedge to help destroy the country.

The idea was to pick a cause that American culture was vulnerable on morally, and exploit it. By siding on the moral high ground and equating the cause with Socialism/Communism, they could both insulate themselves from criticism, and have a natural constituency for their movement.

Race just happened to be a convenient vehicle, and has worked fairly well for them. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

-Harald Bluetooth

McCain - Palin Campaign Advice

Obama says he won't be bullied by Sarah Palin. Palin / McCain should be responding with:

"Oh, I'm sorry, am I being to harsh with you? Do you want me to back off a bit? Would that be okay dear? Well, what are you going to do when you get to OFFICE? Are you going to start whining about being bullied by Russia? You should be saying, 'I welcome this fight, because when I win, it will make my position stronger and my win that much more important.' But, you didn't say that, I said it, and now all you've said is that some mythical school yard bully is picking on you.

Come back after you've had your lunch money stolen and I'll go and beat the bully up and get it back for you."

To Vote or Not to Vote, 2008

There’s a raging debate in conservative circles about whether we should vote in this election or not. The No Vote proponents argue that we’ve voted against our principles long enough, and it’s time to stand up for ourselves, let the other side win this one, hope that everything blows up on, and then hope that there’s anything or anyone left to pick up and put back together after they’re through (including us). I think they’re using the wrong model.

I suggest the following analogy: We’re all driving in a car, and all the voters have their hands on the wheel. There’s a bunch of crazy people pulling the wheel to try and get into the left lane, and a bunch of more rational people trying to pull the car into the right lane. Now, the conservatives are generally out there yelling that we not even on the right road. But we’re all still in the car! I’m not going to sit in the car in the back seat yelling we’re on the wrong road, while everyone else is fighting over the wheel. I’m also not going to hope that all the people fighting for the wheel pull our car into a ditch, and hope that when we fly out the windshield that I’m still alive and can crawl back to the car to turn it around. Rather, I’m going to pull that wheel as hard as I can, all the while yelling that we’re not on the right road. Eventually, we may lose the struggle and end up in the left lane, with some oncoming traffic. I’m hoping there’s time to let go of the wheel and jump out the door before it hits us.

Basically, if we can’t turn the car around, and take a different road, then we need a new car. But frankly, cars in this analogy are darned expensive and there’s not many out there. So again, while I'm in this car-of-state, I'm not going to let go of the wheel. And the moment I do, I'd better be prepared to jump out of the car.

The Looming Republican Civil War

I'm still not doing this the right way, posting from my own personal database of thoughts and ideas, but I can't resist not posting a couple of items:

1. I believe the reason John McCain is getting the Republican nomination is entirely due to his service as Veteran of the armed forces. Every Republican nominee since 1948 has had that distinction.

2. There is a civil war going on in the Republican party. Conservatives are being asked, indirectly and subtly, to choose sides. On one side, go with the consensus candidate who has cared far less about conservatives and Republicans than we are being asked to care about him. On the other side, abandoning the Republican party for a write in, or even voting for the Democratic candidate to ensure John McCain is not the nominee.

These are very interesting and tumultuous times, and I haven't decided which side I am on.