On the Eve of Madness.....

So it seems that today is the last day of normality, since both main candidates, and their millions of supporters, are constantly telling us that this is a life changing election, with unprecedented implications, the results of which will leave our world forever changed. The implication here is that today, November 3rd, was a bad day. Of course I am assuming each candidate means "improvement", in place of the word "change", which could also imply "degeneration", "atrophy", decline", "deterioration", or "devolution"....but hey, it's a semantics game, isn't it?

So, moving on to the real point of my this blog.....undecided voters.
The bane of this whole year, and the depressing trillion dollar propaganda-fest, can be traced back to these undecided voters.
Sometimes in life a decision needs to hastily be made, and a person then has to quickly weigh odds, evaluate pros and cons, and choose the best option. Sometimes a person is given plenty of time, and these evaluations can be made with less haste, and the options can be better thought through, and perhaps you can come to the best possible conclusion. This is relative to the current election because Obama has been the official nominee since the end of August, and McCain since the beginning of September. Palin has also been part of the ticket for two months. Biden for more than that.
Having said all that, it now seems incredible that around 10 percent of of voters still haven't made up their minds. Obama girl has had her crush for over a year now.
Obama and Hillary have been the only two viable democratic candidates since the beginning of the race, two long years ago, and until June when Barack was the presumptive Democratic nominee. With the republicans it has been a little different. Eight different versions of John McCain started the race, each one being steadily beaten out by 'the Real John McCain'. With the obvious exception of Ron Paul, the RNC's eventual choice is a sort of stir-fry of all of the primary candidates. I'm sure everyone remembers that race that took place a year ago. McCain has been called 'the presumptive nominee' (I just love pop catch phrases!!) since at least February.
It is time again to stress how ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (ominous chuckle) has been spent to advertise for these 'oh-so-important' people. For over a full year we have learned more about these people than all of the American Idol finalists combined. I bet that same 10% of voters knew exactly who to vote for in each season of Idol.

So that is what I think about 'undecideds', now comes the question.
Having spent $1 Trillion on those people who can't make up their minds, we now see poll numbers so close between John and Barry that this election will be decided ultimately by that same 10%. Now think about that. Really think about it.
Does that make ANY sense???

50% of eligible voters will turn out.
That is about 150 million people. (105 mil in 2000, and 122 in '04)
10 percent of those eligible, likely voters STILL have no idea who they support.
That is 15 million people!
That, my friends, is FIVE times the difference for Bush's popular vote from the '04 election, and 14.4 million more than the difference between Gore/Bush in '00.
So, yes, you can infer that McCain has a very good chance of winning, given that Bush never got better than even in all his polls, and the media didn't even particularly like Gore or Kerry (add to that the fact that Socialist nominee Róger Calero from Nicaragua received barely a fraction of a percent of the votes in '04), I think it is safe to say that a Socialist like Obama, poll advantage notwithstanding, doesn't stand a chance in my country.

But, and this is a very bittersweet but......it's those 15 million undecided that have me scared. If they are that stupid to not be able to decide until now...what other insanity are they capable of??
After not having an answer with 10 months and $1 trillion in campaigning poured on their heads like hot coal, I will not be surprised if these mental heavyweights end up choosing a half American whose only traceable past includes controversial liberation theology, radical guerilla liberalism, relative inexperience and ineptitude, a sketchy birth, and unequivocal support of abortion, and not one shred of evidence of doing anything in the State and National Senate....not one bill, not one change.

Please excuse my lack of excitement in this election. I just keep thinking about those 15 million Americans who are going to decide our next President.
(that is, if they can reach a decision in time to drive to the poll, or not)

change of topic.......prop 8

A recent conversation I had about my stance on prop. 8 :


I agree marriage is God's institution. I support it. I hope to do it one day. My problem, however, is multifaceted. Homosexual activity is merely one of the perhaps unlimited sexual sins that the Bible refers to as porneia. A single statute in our state's constitution hardly deals with the problem of sexual sin. Everybody lusts and sins in their mind. God's wrath would be poured out on everyone of us because of this. Even if we, or anyone else, obeyed this statute, if doesn't keep anyone from sinning. It can't and won't stop fornication, homosexuality, or any other sin. I also think that our legislation should not be used as a tool to police our nation's morals. I know our laws and our country were founded on the Bible and its principles, but I believe the authors intent of toleration has been lost.

Like John Locke said " That the Church of Christ should persecute others, and force others by fire and sword to embrace her faith and doctrine, I could never yet find in any of the books of the New Testament." In Locke's works (which were used as strong inspiration for our nation's founding and laws) he is very clear that a person's civil enjoyments were not to be prejudiced because of their church or religion, or lack thereof. For this reason I hold that the interests of a church need to be fundamentaly seperated and distinct from that of the state's, and vice versa. Another point is that I believe marriage to be an issue of the church. It is a matter of worship and faith. A worshiper in the church is subject to the church's laws, and also to any law his government makes. We are to obey the laws of land, and of course not do anything that the Bible tells us not to, but this proposition does not require anything of christians except to be tolerant of non-christians. A law of the church is incapable of saving a man's soul. It has even less influence over a soul that is purposefully running from God. Instead of waging a war for temporary political domination, we should be fighting in spirit and truth. Not against a non-believer, but on his side. How can we win him over to Crist with Truth, when we are forcefully trying to oppress him? Of course I am for calling wrong what is wrong, and right what is right. But before you try to instil the law into someone's heart who does not want to hear it, we should ask the Spirit to work, Since it is only He who can change hearts in the first place.

As far as God's wrath, in that passage He states that it was He that gave those vile men over to their wicked hearts and evils passions. And in the next chapter he warns us against judging a person who marries another person of the same sex, when we ourselves are at the same time lustful, because God judges impartially. It is His goodness alone that leads either one of us to repent of sins, not by laws of man or the church.
I hope that clears up my position!

bailout - revisited

"Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners for the right and left, hoping to secure approval in the House"
RTFA

WHAT?????

What do you do when you want someone to eat something that they do not want to? You add some other flavor that they may like; salt, sugar, honey, cinnamon, etc.
Is that the same thing that has happened with this bill?? If you are trying to pass a bad bill, (kudos to the Repubs who blocked it monday!) and you know its a bad bill...WHY NOT RETHINK YOUR ACTIONS???? Instead the geniuses in our congress decided to mask the bad scent of this horrible bill just to get the votes. Just listen to what Dirty Harry said today : "Inaction is not an option."
How on Earth could these 100 people have ever successfully conducted a campaign, and got any votes??? I just don't get how the 535 smartest (supposedly) people in our county can think this way! What would happen if we did in fact do nothing?? The people who messed up would see consequences, and more than likely Americans would never let that happen again! When will our government understand that they are relatively powerless to change or improve our nation? It is the people who do this! Doing nothing is exactly what our congress needs to do!
I am sorry that I keep ranting about this one thing....but I feel so hopeless thinking about the future of my great country, and how it will most likely be run by more of these types of idiots who think they can always fix any problem, or perceived problem. I foresee a US government growing increasingly socialistic and collectivist, being ruled by a populist ruler always seeking a larger, more powerful state; and that freaks me out!!
I see McCain pushing for this Bush sponsored initiative for the federal take-over of our biggest mortgage companies and it has my head spinning. I guess we can finally say good bye to the GOP as we knew it. Sorry Ol' Gipper.

(epos part III coming soon!)

Bailout...

So there have been many blogable topics in the news recently. It is funny have my brain has changed this last week, so that I now process what I hear and read by how I can blog about it. Fun.
One topic that has been out there a bit, an is unmissable; the morgage bailout.
I just refuse to believe that we have a sitting republican president who is pushing for a trillion dollar bailout. Yes I know it could end really bad for some people if the levels continue to lower, but isn't that the definition of risk? That is why they 'play' the stock market afterall!
Things got overinflated, but if you're looking for someone to blame, try blinding consumerism.
The real issue here, what has me incredulous about it all though, is the fact that Bush/McCain wants to inject our tax dollars into the economy, the 'free"--market economy.
So as far as precedents go, we can probably no longer enjoy the lack of significant government interference. I really hate to be the guy that yells "we're goin' socialist!!", but.....could this be a first step? It doesn't mean neccisarily that we are now going to be socialistic, but I would imagine this would help that cause. Now if we find that this move "helped", ( I use quotes because even the market fixes itself, congress' loan will get credit for any upswing) it will only reinforce the fallicious ideas of Kaynsian economics.
Let just hope there are enough cajones on the Right side of the Hill to challenge Bush's proposal.


Here's your pork-barrel John!!!

epos; part deux

it took me awhile to feel ready to try and define conservatism..

its hard to think about it from the outside, when it is part of your life..

Conservatism in most senses relates back to the original traditions and philosophies that we say our nation was founded upon.  Today in America a conservative holds most dear the traditions of our new republic because he thinks that our founding system and structure happen to be the best way to organize a government, and ultimately sustain a people. 

This founding, in a structural sense, had a great deal to do with the social contract, which bound the citizen to the governing 'triumvirate' system. The crux of this system is the interweaving of power between the branches, and the inter-dependency given them all. A very treasured after-thought of the signing of our constitution is the bill of rights. Conservatives hold very sacred this document, as it is an insurance policy against any undesired growth in the power of the ruling body. A conservative heartily believes in the integrity of the system, but not in the heart of the members.  Since our nation was founded on the belief by some men that we aught to be free to rule over ourselves, we overthrew an oppressive government and took on that one self-evident liberty of autocracy.  For this very reason, conservatives react very negatively at the hinting of another government body meddling too greatly into the lives of the people. It is a sort of reminder of the initial motivation for the revolution.   The colonists were very self-reliant, and for this reason the tradition remains within conservatism that the citizenry is capable and an overbearing government is unnecessary.  

the actual definition for the well-being of the citizen can be somewhat ambiguous, but what matters most to a conservative is that that citizen reaches it himself.  Equality becomes an important issue insomuch that each member of the society has equal access to attain what his/her well-being might be; and since this is decided by the citizens themselves, only they should have that power and authority. 

this may seem like incoherent ramblings, but I hope to soon draw some funny dichotomies from all of this mess.... so stay tuned!!                           (boy was that cheesy :/)

politics epos

this will be somewhat of a political epos; a series of blogs dealing with a fundamental topic of political theoery. I may wonder, but I hope to, at some point, end up at some point.

consider this an introduction to the problem. 

in American politics there seems to be two distinct paradigms with which citizens view the landscape. there is a liberal viewpoint, and a conservative one. i really don't want to delve into origins or histories of either one,(mostly cause i'm ignorant there!). let me focus on the liberal point of view first the liberal seems to view the state as a sort of caretaker. this means that the role of state is one that plays an active role in securing and individual's liberties, security, and status quo. they view the state the primary vehicle to equality and prosperity. liberals strive to adhere to our constitution, while promoting the progression of ideas. liberals look to the state to accomplish the collective will of the people. in acheiving this, they tend to value pragmatism more than the previously established traditions of the people or the state. while this is merely a brief overview, my intention is to focus on one specific point. and that point is the tendency of liberalism to lean heavily on the reliance of the state to acheive its goals. while most citizens will agree that the goals of liberalism are not bad by any means, it may be the means that cause me the most problems. i too desire liberty and justice for all, and i tend to think that the defense of human rights is a most honorable duty.  I think that the success of a nation can be measured by its progress, economic stability, health of the population, and morality (amung others), i see the liberal as needing a 'greater' vessel than the actual population to acheive this. There is much importance given to alruistic behavior, looking favorably upon work being done to promote universal human rights and providing equal dignity and opportunity to all. In fact, this seems to be a mandate placed upon the state by the people; a well negociated agreement within our mutually binding social-contract.

Does that, for the most part, accurately summerize the world view held by most modern liberals?

Feel free to help me better understand if I got something wrong.

Some questions..

these are some old questions that I found

while digging through and old hard drive,

it would be interesting if anyone had any of the answers.....

We have Philosophy. We have Theology. 

Some people address philosophic issues 

according to their beliefs of God. Other 

people evaluate their beliefs of God 

according to their philosophy.  I see two 

beginnings that can govern your flow of 

ideas, or can dictate the rationality for 

your mental paradigm.  You can start 

with God, or Philosophy.  I believe they 

are both good means with which to 

measure or filter our ideas. 

But they don't seem to mesh very well 

when thinking about origins and causality,

and what we can know about existence.  

They tend to create more

questions than they answer. 

God is stable and rational, but not 

philosophically speaking.  Philosophy 

is logical, but not theologically speaking.  

They both talk about each other, often 

negating principles and ideas of the 

other.  And they are both, theoretically 

or supposedly, truth.  As a Theist, how 

ought I use philosophy? As a philosopher, 

can I presuppose the Truths and Principles 

of God, as knowable truth?  Is human 

understanding adequate to examine God?  

Can you not explain God in accord with 

a philosophical understanding?  Will God 

line up with that, or ought we to line our 

philosophy up with what God is? Will the 

idea of God be clarified by means of 

philosophic inquiry, or will Philosophy 

be further clarified after an 

understanding of God is reached?

So while you are trying to understand what I was thinking about during freshman philosophy, enjoy this picture I took of a bird. A yellow bird.