Category Archives: government

Florida And Michigan Must Be Counted.

Posted on by

If the Democratic Party leadership does not find a way to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, either by holding a re-vote (which I think is needed in Michigan, as all the candidate’s names were not on the ballot), or finding some way to count the votes that were cast in the Primaries, McCain will win by default.

John McCain will become the next President.

Not because the nominee will be un-electable.

Not because legions of disgruntled Obama or Clinton supporters will cross party lines to vote for McCain.

Because the election will be stolen.
As it was in 2000, and in 2004.

And a party that has selected its nominee on the backs of the blatant, public disenfranchisement of millions of voters will have no moral authority to stand up to sneaky tactics like “malfunctioning” machines, misleading poll information, confusing ballots, hackers, misdirection, ID challenges, and caging lists. Much less a U.S. Supreme Court that leans even farther to the right than the one that handed George W. Bush the election he lost.

And I know, I know, there are “rules” that were broken. But here’s the thing. Those rules were broken by politicians playing games.

Not by the voters.

We didn’t all get together one day and decide we didn’t want our votes to count.

So the next time you hear someone say, or are tempted to say yourself, “They broke the rules,” I want you to try something. I want you to replace that phrase with one of these ones:

What were you doing on the street at that hour?
He ‘matched the description’ of the suspect.
If you don’t want ‘attention’ don’t dress like that.
Their parents are here illegally.
They’re ‘pushing their lifestyle’ on the public.
She was ‘leading him on’.
He’s a ‘problem child’ who can’t learn.

Because you’re basically making the same argument.

Thanks DNC, for helping our votes not to count

Posted on by

I’m on the way out the door, but this just makes me mad.

It’s now even more useless to vote blue in this reddest-of-red states.

Here’s a vastly oversimplified timeline:

  1. GOP-controlled Florida Legislature decides to play the “we wanna hold our primary first” game.
  2. Florida Dems decide not to hold a whole separate election even though the existing date would have us voting ahead of the “approved” early voting states.
  3. DNC punishes Florida voters by stripping our delegates (yes, kiddies, that means Florida Dems have no say in who runs for Prez) and telling the candidates not to campaign in the Sunshine State

ARRGH!

i’ll write more later, i have more to say, and i’m sure there’s more to all this that i’m not informed about, but right now it’s just one more reason I’m disappointed in the Democrats.

Who’s Your Moral Daddy?

Posted on by

Recently, my work on mundaneastrology.net and on my upcoming book 1648 (sorry to plug at your expense, but guerrilla marketing must prevail!), I have thought much about morality, not the thought of dying, but who provides our moral structure. I speak not here simply of your everyday “though shalt not steal” kind of stuff, though these morals obviously still matter. What I speak of here are of the trickle down variety. Who provides our overall moral guidance? Who should we listen and why? This simple question has many ramifications.
The Church mostly lost is authority on the basis of its overtly corrupt practices. It is doubtful that such an overburdened institution–the Church had become with every aspect of life throughout every class–would have been able to keep up with the demographic changes that Europe rolled out through the 16th to 19th centuries. Nonetheless, the Church’s obvious hypocrisy opened the door for Luther to enter and for Protestants to rush in. Very apparent question arises here. Since the Church, the self-proclaimed arbiter of behavior, could not be trusted, when did the lack of trust began? Did it occur evenly across the classes? (Doubtful). Who won the authority over your morality? Catholics? Protestants? Christians? Did anyone win?
All of these questions become prominent when you consider these questions for people that have great influence on society. Who provides the moral center for our representatives? Who decides it is morally ok to move to Montana, overburden their infrastructure and contribute far less to the economy than you take away? Who provides the morality that ignores global warming? The one that says Wal-Mart is OK? The one that says being loyal to your oil buddies is worth all of the lives sacrificed to your cause?

I think in our shift to a more secular viewpoint, who determines our moral structure has never been addressed. The Church rejects secularism so it has little authority to answer related issues. Protestants too obviously have trouble reconciling their faith and the post-modern world. Governments should govern, but expect a certain level of adherence to social code. Very few concerns prove black and white anymore. For instance, what is the the moral code for projects that have down-the-line-effects? Is it morally righteous to invest in a project that could damage the environment long after you are dead?