Arrogance

Everyone knows I am an arrogant bitch. Ok, maybe that is too strong, but opinionated? Absolutely. Strong willed? No doubt. Always think I'm right? No.

For several years...since October 04, I have used this site to post comments, commentary and opinions - is that repeating myself over and over? - on topics of interest to me. Most commonly politics and economics. I think I have been consistent, in my positions and my logic.

Victoria has been dealing with a significant medical problem and I have been occupied dealing with all the issue associated with it. I have also been very active at the American Conservative Party (ACP) site and devoting a lot of time and effort there.

This morning I came down to work on work things. I started thinking about Victoria's request to CJ on what she was going to do with her summer - school is out in 2 weeks. Victoria is thinking that CJ should try her hand at a business - for no other reason than to occupy her and let her make a little money. So, I spent some time doing research on one possibility.

I also logged into ACP and checked into chat and looked at recent postings. I was thinking about the format of the site and thinking about things that might be changed to make following discussions easier.

I started checking my reader for posts received from other blog sites to catch up there. Found a site that was interesting and signed up for that - but had to check in with Facebook and MySpace in the process. It reminded me I have not done a BlogRadio show in a while and someone suggested an ACP connection a while back....so I updated that profile with ACP in mind.

While that was going on, I started making a little room on my desk and came across some notes on a project I wanted to post on...except there was no where for it to really go in the context of everything else I was already working on....so I considered starting another blog for that to go into.

If this sounds like I am a little all over the place today....you don't know the half of it, but I have not been doing my job.

That ends today.

I have work to do, and it needs to be done. Although my posting here is sporadic at times, this is the only place that gets to be the catchall.

Laters....

Consequences of Same Sex Marriage

From an AP report out of Boston:

After four years of legalized same sex marriages in Massachusetts, researchers have found some startling facts:

1. 3 in 10 straight marriages ended with at least one partner remarrying the same sex within 3 months;

2. An additional 3 in 10 marriages ended with both partners remarrying the same sex within 6 months.

3. The historical average of 53% of marriages ending in divorce increased to 84% for marriages between straight couples.

4. The number of marriages between opposite sex partners declined 65%.

Some respondents to the survey gave the following reasons for their divorce:

"My wife used to nag me every weekend when I played golf with my friends, so I said what the hell. I divorced her and married my best friend. Now we play golf every weekend and no one nags us."

"My husband would never just sit and talk with me. I spent so much time with my best friend, that we both got divorced and married each other. We both can sit and talk for hours now, it is great."

"Well, my parents got divorced when I was 14. Dad is still in jail for shooting my mom with a nail gun and Mom has learned how to feed herself again. I just didn't want that kind of marriage."

Gay is normal

for a small segment of the human population. Homosexuality has persisted throughout recorded human history. A small segment of the human population will always (if the past is any indicator of our human genome) be homosexual.

If it is normal to be homosexual, is any law limiting the rights of gays reasonable if it is based solely on being homosexual? Someone is going to offer some specific thing like: yea, homosexuals can't be around children because they will molest them - ignoring the fact that most pedophiles are straight.

Let's outlaw divorce.

WHOA!?!? Where did that come from?

The most common refrain from those opposed to gay marriage is that it will have a devastating effect in marriage. They have not, to me, provided any proof or specific example of what that effect might be, but it is devastating....

Ever watch a marriage unfold in a divorce? On a rare occasion we have two adults in the process, but more commonly we have one adult and a child (the other is actually an adult that is acting so childish as to appear a child in all but age). And watch out when we have 2 children getting a divorce.....no barbarian EVER considered leaving that much destruction in their wake, even the Romans did less to Alexandria. God help the children in those situations because nothing else will.

If people REALLY wanted to protect marriage, they would outlaw divorce. That will have a much greater impact that the potential damage (if any) gay marriage would have on straight marriage.

Principles of the American Conservative Party

Voting was held this week on the following principles and overwhelming majority of those voting approved them.

Principles of the American Conservative Party

Foundation

From this Foundation, all principles flow.

• The individual is sovereign
• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

• Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just limited powers from the consent of the governed
• We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.

Principles

Authority of Government

• The citizens of the United States are the sole source of power and life of the United States Government. All powers and authority not explicitly given by the citizens to their representatives remain with the states or the people thereof.
• The United States Government has the authority and obligation to protect its citizens and their liberties from all actual and perceived threats regardless of the source, location or scope.

Limitiations on Government

• The federal legislature may make no law that abridges or limits the Constitutional rights of an individual.
• No state may abridge a citizen's right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• Property currently owned or controlled by the Government is held in Trust for the citizens
• Regardless of compensation, no property shall be forcibly taken by government for private use or profit.

Citizenship

• Any child, born of a citizen, shall have all the legal rights of a citizen born or naturalized into the United States.
• Persons who are not citizens or resident aliens of the United States have no right to petition or benefit from any agency of the government except for petition of entry or asylum.
• A child born in the United States to non-citizens is not a citizen.

Citizen Responsibilities

• Each adult citizen is responsible for the health, education and welfare of himself or herself and their family.
• No adult citizen may call on the resources of another citizen or group of citizens without their explicit, expressed consent.
• No citizen or group of citizens, by expression of any character or physical trait, may call upon the resources, nor abridge the rights, of another citizen or group of citizens without their explicit, expressed consent.
• It is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in the political process.

Obligations

A recent conservation discussed our obligation towards our fellow citizens. One example was a couple, he was disabled and she had become injured. The question was: if you were aware of the situation, wouldn't you help? I answered maybe.

Do I have the resources needed? Can I spare them and not risk my own family? While the disabled and injured suggests that the couple bore no responsibility for their condition, but the nature of their situation was not offered. Had they overspent? Had they acted irresponsibility? Is it my responsibility to mitigate the consequences of someone else's choices?

I pointed out that while I might have some obligation towards them, I certainly could not be forced to take it. To be clearer, while I might have some obligation towards my fellow citizen, I can not off-load that obligation onto government thereby making my personal obligation the obligation of all citizens. That is the point: government does not have a personal obligation towards the citizenship: promote the GENERAL welfare.

Organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed by people and supported by large populations that feel a personal obligation towards those that have suffered some calamity. This is the appropriate way to work together to deal with personal obligations. Turning to the government to force (and that is what tax collection is) citizens to contribute to the specific welfare of specific people is a taking for private use.

Crossposted to American Conservative Party

Economics

In this post, I commented on the disparity between what is being reported as inflation and what it more like really is.

There are several economic items that on their face appear to be holding their own, but looking further you can see the rot spreading.

The inflation factor means the government (and anyone else) that bases raises and entitlements can get away with lower increases. So there is incentive to cheat.

It appears that the banks that make up the basis for calculating LIBOR (the London version of the Fed rate) have been cheating about how much they have really been paying each other. The result has been a lower rate than is actually occurring.

The question is, if banks and others are lowering interest rates AND inflation is actually a lot higher than being reported....isn't the spread killing investors? Duh. Well, only if you are the idiot actually ponying up the actual money. Those that create the instruments of demise are doing, well, not so well either.

Why then is all this slight of hand going on? Because a 500 trillion dollar derivatives market is poised to collapse and the banks, the majority of the top 100, will collapse with them. The Fed and the ECB can't, won't let that happen.

Unemployment is skyrocketing. What you say, the numbers don't show that. Of course they do, unless all you are looking at is a reported measure of the numbers someone else is reading for you. Hours worked fell substantially in April. The equivalent loss of 400,000 jobs. AND, the job rate is based on a modifier called the birth/loss. This is where the gooberment estimates how many jobs were created by the birth or loss of small businesses - too small to actually report actual numbers. Over the last almost year, this measure has been, to put it nicely, nuts. It continues to show increases in jobs in new businesses in construction, real estate and finance. Without this incredibly false increase, the joblessness rate would be almost a full point higher.

The rate of building new homes has dropped almost 2 million per year. How many people do you think that has cost them their jobs? If you said, a lot, congrats. If you said, the industry added almost 200,000 jobs over last 10 months, then you can go work for the gooberment.

Inflation understated, unemployment understated, interest rates, understated.

Oh, by the way, foreclosures and bankruptcies are climbing.

I am on the look out for good news, so far, the only good news is that Victoria's business is going to continue to get better this year.

Conservatism = Social conservatism?

I have become more and more unhappy with the idea that conservatism is defined by social issues. I have used the term traditionalist to describe those that promote social conservatism in a political realm.

Their arguments are consistently along the lines that society should not just change for the sake of changing. It is a simplistic and often useless observation. Society doesn't JUST change for the sake of changing. People didn't wake up and decide that children should be in charge, they abdicated their responsibilities over several generations.

Further, they will often suggest that long history has determined what works and we should not just toss those workable solutions - the most common time for this argument is in the area of marriage and their opposition to gay marriage. But no one is suggesting straight people have to start marrying gays, or that straight people have to get divorced.

Social conservatives have been in the GOP because they oppose the Democrat/liberal positions - NOT because they are politically conservative. Seldom do they make their arguments from a perspective of individual/constitutional rights. They use history, tradition, and very infrequently except by inference, Scripture.

If you support socially positions, great. I think you should be active in your support. Just don't call it conservatism, especially in the political arena.

HATE and the Fruit Tree

From Powerline:

Barack Obama gave his "More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia on March 18 to tamp down the furor caused by the release of videos excerpts of his pastor's sermons. Obama himself had proclaimed the importance of his pastor to his life over the past twenty years in books and interviews. Both circumstantial and direct evidence demonstrated Obama's knowledge of Reverend Wright's sick and indefensible views.

Rather than forthrightly condemn them in his Philadelphia speech, Obama chose to give the appearance of transcending them. Obama reviewed American history going back to the founding, provided autobiographical reflections, and presented himself as the man come to redeem racial relations in the United States. Obama denied familiarity with the statements whose revelation gave rise to his speech and suggested that they unfairly represented the man. Obama's speech provided the larger context for understanding Wright. Here is the key passage:

Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my
Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

As long as they were black homeless, black needy, black HIV sufferers. Our personal experience with Trinity is that it is a racist, white hating, and clearly AMERICAN hating church.

The Reverend Wright is a hater. He HATES. It doesn't really matter what he HATES, a man of God would not HATE. Would he?

Barak Obama made a fine speech about supporting the man behind the public persona, now Obama claims to have bitten into the apple from the tree of knowledge. Now that we have all seen that man, we must question, no, we must HOLD Barak Obama to his claim:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother...

By their fruits you shall know them. Apparently, after 20 years of being a student of the Rev Wright, we all better acknowledge that Obama is THE fruit that has fallen not far from the tree.
And like an apple just fallen from the tree, it is just a matter of time for the rot to appear.

Big Lie #1

A while back I made some predictions.

1. The first recession in 26 years will last between 8 and 11 months and cause widespread dislocations specifically in housing.

10. A major financial figure will expose one, maybe two flat out lies that the media had been reporting in financial matters that leads to a rout of the dollar on international markets. Only the complicity of the EU in the lie prevents the dollar from ouster as the currency of trade.

One thing that I have been aware of it that inflation is being manipulated. There are important reasons for this: first, most government entitlement increases are based on inflation. Keep it low and government spending is less. Second, businesses are often faced with demands from unions and employees to increase wages when inflation increases their costs, keeping inflation low reduces business costs. You might wonder how or why I think inflation is being manipulated. Let me offer both an illustration AND an analysis from my betters:



Subtract this inflation rate from our growth rate and you would have been in negative growth territory in the first quarter. We will see what happens today.

Individual Sovereignty

Please post this under the same title today if possible.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

from On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

The entire work can be found here.

300

One would think that after 299 posts, I would have said something that provoked more than a casual glance. With the exception of a discussion that was carried over to to this blog, nothing I have written has garnered much comment - and from the number of people that subscribe to the feed, it hasn't garnered much interest either.

BUT! I didn't start this blog to build a readership. I built it because after reading a lot, I have to have a writing outlet. I have a directory on my computer that is titled: Essays. It is over a gig and nothing there is much bigger than 100k. I like to write. But, frankly, I will probably never get paid to.

I am still not worried or interested in building a readership but I am going to change up how and what I post. In the past I have seldom linked to other sites, that will not change, generally. I am going to begin quoting - in some cases extensively - from the works of others and then comment on the items. In some cases it will be other bloggers, but more likely it will be written works.

I am going to start off this change by looking at On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Enjoy.

From Chapter 1:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I found this while looking for the last four words of this paragraph. I had seen them before and from a political and philosophical point of view, was just blown away. As a foundation stone for the United States, those 4 words capture the entirety of WHY America exists.

The individual is sovereign.

Think of this. Our government gets it's power because we give it to it. My life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is inherently MINE, not because of some grant or law or bequest. I am a monarch in and of myself. As you are. We co-exist based on a choice to recognize that inherent completeness in each other.

Society however, is not the result of monarchs reaching a consensus on what is acceptable to them...it is peer pressure on hyper-steroids. Mill had something to say about that also:

In political speculations 'the tyranny of the majority' is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. Society.... practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,... penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.

Society is not, nor should not be, the arbiter of what is acceptable behavior on an individual level. IF the individual is sovereign, then society needs to limit it's apparent willingness to interfere or be reigned in by those monarchs that recognize the folly or oppression.

(I almost hate that last comment. Oppression is a dangerous word that is too often misused by those that fail, or wantonly choose, to defy some community standard. If that sounds like I am in favor of society imposing some standards, or a community doing so, blame my inability to be clear. Society, a community, should have a means to stop the idiot that decides to walk down the street naked. While Mill would suggest that the action does no harm, I would wager that Mills sense of responsibility and respect would treat such a person with scorn and ridicule. That is not oppression, nor is it "tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling". It is an acknowledgment that while I am sovereign, I must respect the fact, FACT, that so is the next individual. Respect is not just acceptance, or allowance. It is an understanding that with sovereignty, comes responsibility, to oneself, and to others. Mill does not expound on this because it was inherent in the demeanor of the average 19th century adult. It is something we have obviously lost in the general society, I think, because we have abdicated our responsibility to personally judge the behavior of those around us. Society is unable to 'police' people, and our reliance on it to do it for us has led to a coarsening of general society that Mills would just not accept.

I must respect the right of the sovereign to behave as s/he sees fit. However, I can, and should, call a kettle black when I see one. If a person prefers to smoke cigarettes, I am certainly not suggesting that I have any right to deny them their vice - however, I can and should point out, in the normal course of our interactions, that such behavior is stupid, dangerous to them and self-defeating. And, in my sphere - my home, my office - such stupid behavior will not be tolerated as it limits my enjoyment.

The idea that I should join with many others and BAN such behavior fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of the individual and it encourages the tyranny of the 'majority'.

So, for the first time, I think I have a philosophical foundation for Tracyism's first rule:

Always act in your own best interest.

We'll see.

MY positions

I am a Conservative. There are many misconceptions about that term and I thought I would offer something concrete. Do you agree? Or disagree?

At the state level:

1. Abortion:

* freely available until week 20;
* Week 20-24, with doctor opinion on the non-viability of the baby
* after week 24, limited - baby is non-viable or already deceased, no other reason.

2. Gay marriage:

* all state licenses are issued for civil unions of any 2 non-related adults;
* Marriage is a religious institution - marriage can be performed or denied by any religious institution. Marriage by itself - no license - is not recognized by the state

3. Taxes:

* Property taxes are limited to .20/100 and assessments are based on most recent sales price
* State income tax is limited to 5% on income that exceeds the state median
* Sales tax:
o State is limited to 8% on all goods and services except: food, energy and medicine
o Local is limited to 1% with same exemptions as state
o taxes are not used in support of or defense of local/state businesses

4. Limited Government:

* Departments or agencies that support a subsection of the population of the state are banned. Exceptions: education.
* Advertising by government agencies is a waste of taxpayer money - banned
* No agency of the government has a right of eminent domain for non-government use. Green space is not government use.
* No government position may have retirement benefits, except
o judges (in office more than 10 years);
o police officers
o fire department officers
o teachers.
* No agency, nor legislature of the state may limit or infringe upon the freedom of a resident or citizen:
o on or in their private property;

5. Citizenship:

* A citizen of Wisconsin is any legal resident of the United States that has resided in Wisconsin for at least 90 consecutive days
* A child born in Wisconsin of a non-citizen or non-resident is not a citizen or resident of Wisconsin
* Non-citizens, except for petitions for asylum or admitance, have no standing before a government agency

6. Personal responsibility:

* No citizen or resident of Wisconsin may call upon the resources of any other citizen or the State for their general welfare, to include:
o housing;
o food
* No citizen or resident of Wisconsin may, by expression of a character or physical trait call upon the resources of any other citizen or the state without their expressed consent;
* No citizen or resident of Wisconsin may, by expression of a character or physical trait limit the rights or freedoms of another citizen or resident without their expressed consent;

I recently had several long discussions on some of the above with others on the American Conservative Party website. If you would like more information, or have an interest, stop by the site by clicking on the logo ----> over there...

Notice

Victoria has a diabetic ulcer on the bottom of her heel. It is VERY bad. A diary is up here. We see the surgeon this afternoon to see if the foot can be saved.

Quick pick

It was once said that the only true way to anticipate someone else's decision, is to know where it is going to be made. Gobbledgook, right?

John McCain has the opportunity to select his Vice Presidential running mate. There is a lot of speculation on who it might be, let me offer my POV.

Polls show that:

1. If Hillary is the dem nominee, 19% of Obama's supporters will go to McCain.
2. If Obama is the dem nominee, 29% of Hillary's supporters will go to McCain.
3. McCain is the GOP nominee inspite of the loss of Evangelicals and Conservatives, arguably the furtherest right of the party.

Even if the dems that do plan on jumping ship were only 25% of the claimed amount. McCain would handily beat either Dem....if he had the 'base' of conservatives and evangelicals. Or does he? Interesting question that I think NO ONE can know the answer to.

But consider this. The Dems have a long and bloody battle for the nomination. All kinds of people are hoping for some 'white knight' to come and save the day...bring the party together. I don't think someone will show up. Unless, you look in a different direction.

For years McCain has been the darling of the media and some on the left as a Republican that will stick it to Republicans. Many dems said that if McCain had been the nominee in 2000, they would have voted for him.

So, if McCain wanted to unite the MIDDLE, the moderate mainstream that is disgusted (or soon will be on the left as is the right) with the extremes of their own party, what better way to do that than to select a running mate, just like him. Someone from the dems side that is a maverick; someone that stands apart from the loony left.

Joe Lieberman fits that bill.

Too many people say that McCain has to pick a conservative to firm up the base. Why? He didn't need it to get the nomination and conventional wisdom has often suggested that a candidate had to appeal to the fringe of his party to get the nomination and then move to the center to win the general. McCain is at the middle already. He doesn't need the 'base' if he can pull 10% of the dems AND most of the independents. What better way to offer the country CHANGE in the way things are done in Washington than to offer a split ticket. I can see him picking up 60% of the vote against either Obama or Hillary. 70% of republicans and 80% of independents and 20% of democrats....works out to...ummmm, winner.

Annual Easter Post

Written on Palm Sunday, 2006:

“It is done.”

He closed his eyes and the pain simply stopped. There was no fading, no gradual lessening. The pain was just gone. His arms previously numb from hours of hanging felt neither tired, nor sore. Even the oppressive heat of the day was gone. He opened his eyes.

EVENING

It was night although far on the horizon a glow, signaling the start or end of another day, seemed partially hidden by fog. The sky lacked a moon, or even stars. He was sitting on the ground but felt neither its roughness nor cold. Standing, glorious as it was without pain, gave him no sense of firmness. It was as if the ground, even the night around him, lacked substance. His eyes sought some feature to focus on. His toes, wiggling, sought to distinguish between grass, or rock or sand with no success.

Finally, a sound like a low murmur heard through a wall. It was voices but he could not determine their source or number. Craning his head first one direction, then another did not change their volume or tenor. Like his eyes seeking something to see, his ears strained to catch a discernible sound.

Another sound, like the faint rustling of leaves in the softest of breezes came from behind him. A sigh made without breath. He felt no wind, no cool change in the air but turned, hoping.

No longer facing the horizon, he saw, campfires? In the distance the faint glows did not flicker nor flare. Steady points of unmoving lights seemed to stretch into the sky.

Was he in a valley? Looking back at the glow on the horizon, it did not offer any clue as to the shape of the land between it and his position.

The voice, when it came, was a whisper that sounded as if it were spoken directly into his ear. His quick turn towards the voice upset his footing and he fell over but did not fall down.

“You glow,” it said.

It was the voice of his mother yet; it was of the same spirit as his Father. That was not possible for he knew his Father’s voice and this was not it.

“You’re brighter than the others though.”

“What others?” he asked.

“The others that glow.” It was said so matter-of-factly that any question he may have had died before getting a chance to be spoken. He looked again at what he thought were campfires and realized they had shape and they were not as distant as he first thought.

“Why?” he asked.

“Don’t you know?”

He looked down at his hands. There was no pain, no bleeding, but a definite brightness that varied only slightly around the wounds. His feet showed the same variations. He did glow, but it did not add any illumination to the surrounding ground.

“I have my Father with me,” he proclaimed.

“No, you are alone.”

“He is with me always, even as you are now.”

“He is not, nor am I.”

He knew the second the other spoke that it was the truth. His Father was not here. He could not feel the comforting presence, nor hear the whisper of his approval. Even his eyes still sought focus onto the other with no success. And once again he felt the despair he felt on the cross. The pain had become his companion, his foundation. In the absence of his Father, he held onto the only thing he felt, his pain. And now, with it gone, the loss of his Father came rushing back to him.

“Why are you doing that?” the other asked.
The pain of the loss grew. He felt it in his chest and squeezed his arms together in a tight embrace.

“If you continue you will join the others.”

He did not want to listen, the pain spread and he fell to the ground.

“Was that him?” asked a new voice in the distance.
“No. See. The glow is fading already.”

The pain quieted the voices. The pain was familiar. He could feel the spikes again in his hands and feet. The shouts of the crowd boiled in his ears and he could feel the warmth of the blood on his face. The pain was like strength, it flowed back into the darkness.

A sharp scream turned his head, pain momentarily forgotten.

“NO, NO, it’s mine, MINE!”

A figure came running from the direction of the glowing horizon. It did not block the view of the horizon so he is not sure why he knew where it was coming from, but the outline of the figure was running very fast.

“MINE I tell YOU, MINE!” it shouted.

Like the voice that had been talking before, he knew this voice. Again, it was like the spirit of his Father but not his Father. He wanted to reach out to the figure as it ran closer. His pain forgotten, he could see and hear the pain coming from the shouts.

“NO ONE ELSE, MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE!”

He stood and moved towards the figure.

“No, don’t do that!” yelled the first voice he heard.

The figure slammed into him, knocking both of them down. He, he was sure now it was a man, was freezing. Every touch seemed to drain heat from his body.
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING? TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY? IT’S MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE, MINE!!”

He was kicked and struck and the man jumped up and resumed running.

“FOREVER MINE, NO ONE CAN TAKE IT, MINE!”

The figure quickly was lost in the darkness but he saw others that were glowing move away from the direction of the shouts.

“What were you trying to do?”

“He was in pain.”

“So were you.”

His pain. Forgotten for the moment had fled again. This time he knew if he wanted he could bring it back but shook his head. Why seek out pain? Why take on pain when you did not need to?

“Because it was yours,” said the other. “You’re glowing again.”

He looked at his hands and feet and saw that the blood and spikes were gone, the glow had returned.

“But he…”
“Could not have been helped. He wanted his pain, he would not have given it up now. He can see and feel and hold it like a treasure of immense wealth. If he were to give it up, he would cease and he will not.”

“Do you know him?”
“No, but there are many like him. Soon you will see and hear them often.”

“How do you know?”
“I’ve been here awhile.”

“What is your name,” he asked.
“Name?”
“Yes, your name?”
“I had a name. It was…”
“Asrith. Your name is Asrith.”

“How do you know my name when I can not remember it?”

“I am,” he replied. And the glow grew.

MORNING


“Is he the one?” whispered the voice.
“Maybe,” replied Asrith.

“How long have you been here Asrith?” he asked.
“Time has no meaning here. I have been here. Before, I hunted. My brother and I were close to killing a wildebeest and I awoke here. I have been here since.”

“Where are you from? Palestine? Greece? Rome?”

“I do not know those places. My village is Antgara. It is by a river near the White Mountain.”

“There is another by your side,” he proclaimed.

“He was here before me, he does not have a name, or does not remember his name,” responded Asrith.

“I know him. He is Weiyou.”
“It is him!” exclaimed Weiyou.

“Who am I Weiyou?” he asked.
“You are the one the will end the night!” Weiyou said.


AFTERNOON


“How?” asked Asrith. “Can you?”

“The night is part of the day. To end one is to end the other. Why would I end the night?” he asked.

“So that we might wake up,” cried Weiyou. “The Sun sits below the horizon, not moving. No stars guide us, the Moon has failed. There is no warmth, no food. We do not sleep. We sit and wait. Some glow as yourself, but most sit and wait.”

“Except the runners,” added Asrith.

Weiyou seemed to move closer. His voice spat, “Runners, always runners. More and more. They burn if you touch them. And they make you tired. Not enough to sleep, but a lot.”

He could see an outline of both Asrith and Weiyou. Like a new moon on a clear night. Darkness on darkness. But neither drained heat away like the ‘runner’.

“Do the runners always run away from the horizon?” he asked.

“I have never seen any do otherwise. They always shout, although it is not always the same, but often it is. I have never seen one that glows run.” Weiyou added.

“How long have you been here Weiyou?”

“Why do you ask again? Asrith was here after, you were here after, others were here before. I have seen no sunrise, no moon. I was left by my tribe, I was here. Has more than a day passed? When were you here?”

“I just arrived,” he said.

“Really? I have known you longer than Asrith.”

This shocked him. He knew the truth of it. He had known Weiyou longer than Asrith but he met Asrith here first. But he knew both. Asrith had many children but Weiyou only had a daughter…she too was here. His eyes looked over towards the horizon and rested on someone with a glow within and knew it was Shuwei. He turned back to Weiyou and looked at him.

“I know you Weiyou,” was all he said.

Asrith turned and moved away.

“Where are you going?” he asked.

“Runners are coming.”

Weiyou and he turned towards the horizon and heard the shouts. “Many of them. We need to move out of their way.”

“Why?” he asked.

He followed them as they walked neither farther nor closer to the horizon. “Their pain will become yours and you will run with them if too many run into you.”

“How do you know this?”

“Did you not like your pain?” Asrith asked.

He thought of his embracing the pain and how easy it was to want to feel, something, anything, again. But he remembered that he stopped seeing and hearing everything else also. And he had a name for the pain.

“Sin.”

“Call it what you will. Pain. Sin. It is the same thing. It takes away the world from you. It becomes more important than anything else. It takes away from anyone that touches it. Runners never let go. They would rather have their pain than to give it up. Your pain did not belong to you. You welcomed it, but it wasn’t yours. If you had kept it, eventually it would have become yours. But when you heard the runner, it fled from you.”

He looked at Asrith. There was no glow in Asrith but he knew that Asrith understood. He reached out and touched Asrith.
Weiyou gasped and both turned to him.

“What have you done?” he yelled. Weiyou fell to his knees and appeared to be crying.

He and Asrith looked at him and then back towards each other. He was astonished. Asrith was glowing.


EVENING


They stood over Weiyou for a long time as he cried. When the crying became slow sobs Asrith knelt beside him.

“Come on my friend. Why are you crying?”

Muffled, but strongly, Weiyou replied, “My daughter. I see her in you. It is as if I see you and her as one. I know you are not her, but I know you as I know her. It is not sorrow, or it is but not pain, that I know that she glowed even in the brightest day. And I know now the source of the glow.”

He stood and put his hand on Asrith’s shoulder. “My friend.” Weiyou turned to him. “You are the one. You are the source. You will end the night.” He sat down but continued to look at him. “I can wait.”

Asrith looked first at Weiyou and then at him. “He is right. We can wait.” He said down next to Weiyou and looked expectantly at him.

He looked at the two men and sat next to them. The runners passed by shouting but he did not have the desire to go towards them. At first he thought he should be ashamed for not wanting to help but knew he could not even if he tried. They were lost in their pain.

He thought about the runner that had run into him. Why did he feel so strongly about that one. It was his voice. Like Asrith and Weiyou, his voice was familiar, but different. He knew their voices, but he remembered the runners….Judas.

The runner was Judas! NO! He bowed his head and started sobbing. Asrith and Weiyou waited for a time before speaking.

“You knew him.”
“I did.”
“His pain is his choice.”

“That does not make it any less.”

Asrith sighed. “Do not make his pain yours. Runners do not wait for the day. Their focus is turned inward. He had a chance to make a choice. He made his choice.”

“If I had given him more attention, maybe it would have been different.”

“And who would you have given less attention?” snapped Weiyou.

“Was that my choice? To give one more attention than another? To say this one is more worthy than another? I would rather none make that choice,” he cried.

“Really? Because it seems you did make a choice. You took all that pain and started to make it yours. Why didn’t you keep it? It was comfortable. You knew it well. Why did you choose not to stay in that pain?” yelled Weiyou.

“Because it was PAIN!” he yelled.

Weiyou stood up and leaned over him. “Right. Amazing how comfortable pain can be when you don’t think anything else is there. But you know there is something else, don’t you. Or do you? What are you waiting for?”

He was confused. “What?” he asked.

Asrith said, “Weiyou asked what are you waiting for?”

He looked at them both. “I….”

“We are waiting for you. What are you waiting for?”

MORNING

What was he waiting for? He looked at the horizon and then back to his companions.

“You have been good friends,” he said. “I would like to spend more time with you….”

“Oh really!? And how much time have you spent with us so far?”

He could see a smile on Weiyou’s face. Like Asrith, Weiyou had started to glow and the light from within he knew had always been there, became visable to Asrith also.

He turned to the horizon and knelt.

“My Father…”

“My Son…”

And dawn broke…

Anti-conservative, Conservative

In our debates, Travis noted that marriage as an institution had been around for "150,000" years. This is false. Pair bonding has been around for closer to a million years (maybe longer as it is clear that it occurs in many species). Marriage as an institution, formalized by society has probably been around for maybe 15,000 years, certainly for our recorded history of about 7,000 years.

Of course, whether it is 7,000 or 150,000 years, Travis' point is that the institution of marriage has been a man and a woman for a very, very long time. That debate also brought up this definition of conservatism - stolen from Gribbit's site:

a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

The problem of course is that this political philosophy is not based on individual rights. I brought up slavery as a traditional, established institution that was ended in this country not by gradual change, but by war.

Pair bonding among gays has been going on as long as our recorded history. The fact that a government institution imposes restrictions on it's benefits because of a prejudicial and anti-individual viewpoint should be cause for concern, not rejoicing.

I oppose the positions of anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption because they are all positions where the state is used to enforce a moral viewpoint upon the liberties and freedoms of others. Any argument supporting those positions is inherently based on the premise that the state has a right, an obligation, to enforce a moral behavior by individuals on individuals in spite of their inalienable rights and I reject that premise as did our Founding Fathers.

Update: Last night I was working on the above post in my head...it actually kept popping up each time I stirred overnight. By the time I sat down this morning to write it, it was gone, but I tried to get it back and basically failed. The above was a flailing about a concept that seemed to have deserted me.

The point of my post last night, that I finally recalled upon listening to Rush while going for lunch, was traditionalism:

an established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

After living and working with Victoria all these years, I have learned the legal concept: words have meaning. Isn't that Travis' point? That marriage means something that gay marriage does not? Maybe. Pair bonding has gone on, is going on, without any benefit of 'marriage'. People form bonds AND THEN get societies blessing in the form of a public marriage (wedding) and a legal marriage (license). Except in a few societies and cultures where marriages occur and then everyone HOPES there will be a pair bonding, the bond is the issue addressed by all the moral hand wringing.

Traditionalists want what has been good to be kept and what was bad to be left behind. But WHEN does something go from good to bad? How does anyone know except when others challenge the tradition/status quo?

People want traditionalists to reflect on the value of their customs on a more frequent basis. It is possible, even likely, that what might have been good 1,000 years ago, isn't now. Too long a time frame? It is possible what was good, slavery, 250 years ago, isn't now, or wasn't 150 years ago.

Pair bonding among gays has been going on as long as pair bonding among straights - that is MY opinion but based on recorded history, it is likely true. The fact that the number of same sex couples is small - then and even now - does not make it less 'normal' for a population. Interracial marriages were banned for centuries - still are in many places; inter-religious marriages were/are banned; They were/are banned because some tradition decided that pair bonding across some groups was detrimental to society. Some may argue that there is a qualitative difference between interracial/inter-religious couples and same sex couples and in general, I don't disagree. But as those banned marriages were in fact constructs, not functional differences, it is clear that traditionalists are not bound by simple things like gender and that the constructs were restrictions based on 'because we think it is wrong...'

Travis pointed out that gay couples don't procreate and therefore, don't work - in the sense they don't support the need for society to grow. This is a false argument. Society does not need every couple to replace itself. Society doesn't care if one couple has one child and another couple has 10 as long as in the end, there are sufficient children to grow society. Our, my, argument that couples past child-bearing age or non-capable couples do not result in society banning them from marriage. But that is beside the point, over thousands of years, gay couples continue to exist. It is a NORMAL variation in the species. You can't breed homosexuality out of the human genome (at least not yet). It is as ingrained as pair bonding.

To deny gays the same rights, because of a genetic difference, is at the heart of prejudice.

Travis complains that we seek to redefine marriage, an institution that is part of our genetic makeup. He is wrong. Pair bonding is what is at the heart of marriage. The institutions that society has created to formalize and bless those bondings are part of a tradition that NEEDS to be questioned and tested for relevance and value regularly.

Those traditions that deny the rights of one group are incompatible with our Constitution, incompatible with the principles set down by our Founding Fathers. That it took us 80 years to abolish slavery - the consequences of which are still with us today - speaks more to the intransigence of traditionalists than to the ability or inability of our institutions to change.

Our society is changing, it is only going to happen faster as we move forward. There are potential events on the horizon that will shake traditions and institutions to their core and unless we establish a foundation (already done for us, we just need to really embrace it) that has the ability to change with them, we will not survive, as a society, maybe as a species.

Time for traditionalists to embrace Conservatism.


Cross-posted with American Conservative Party (subscriber only discussion)

A three legged stool

You started here:

The gov't can do a lot of things, but it can't change the dictionary. Words mean things and at no time has marriage ever meant anything other than what it means.

It was clear over five or six thousand words, that the definition of marriage was the most important thing to you. Despite my repeated attempts to bring the discussion to rights - an area of conservative discussion - it kept coming back to this idea that the definition of marriage was historical, biological, sociological and psychologically ingrained in our makeup.

No amount of logic is capable of swaying what 150,000 years has set into genetic stone.

But. :)

In the mythical universe where I am the benevolent dictator (I know, God Forbid!) I really do think you would be pretty comfortable. If your partner died, you would inherit all custody rights, no one would cut off your retirement benefits from your partner if present. No one would take your kid away from you. No one would object to any special ceremony you would wish to perform, and there would probably be some simple way or form of legal paperwork that would allow you to live your life as you please and no one would threaten, fundamentally, your way of life. I would pretty much insist on it.

What would you call this benevolent offering of rights and priviledges?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I don't care about 'marriage'. I have been having several long chats on here about this issue - people can review them by reading the archived chat logs - and I have acknowledge there, and do here, that a significant MAJORITY of the left and some few on the right, are equally stuck on the 'marriage' issue. The left does, as you say, want you, you specifically Travis(!), and everyone else to proclaim "I now pronounce you ...whatever..." which I think is just a monumental waste of time and effort. First, there will be people on the lunatic, fringe, way out of their mind right that will SHOOT people coming out of a church. Their cousin on the fathers side never removed, will BLOW up the damn church. Now, just because some nutjobs will be criminals is not a reason do do something, it does however suggest a certain level of ingrained, social, biological inability to change that will always be with us.

You also said:

I am not against state's streamlining contract law, or procedures to make sure that visitation rights, rights of inheritance, or custody, etc. are honored, as in ANY contract, between ANY two people, gay or straight. I trust Federalism and the laboratory of the states, and the democratically elected legislatures (not the Judiciary or the Fed. Gov't) to work out the wheres and whys and hows.

Today, government licenses all couples that want to wed. A couple can go into a church and wed without that license and while the Church will recognize the marriage, the state will not. A couple can, once licensed, have a judge or justice wed them pretty much on the spot. The state will recognize the marriage, the Church will not.

With one exception, all the issues of divorce are handled legally, drawing from the 'contract' that the 'wedding' implied. The exception is adultery. Unless you get the Church to relieve you of your marital obligations, a legal divorce does not. Churches are different, and I don't want to get into the dogmatic issues there.

We are slowing getting to my point:

WHO, may I ask, is restraining your freedom?

There is a context to this comment that I have omitted, not to (hopefully) take you out of context, but to reduce the 10 paragraphs that preceded it when I don't think it will be necessary. That said, I linked it back to the original in case anyone wants to check.

I do think Gay marriage is wrong. I do not think it would be the end of the world as I know it. There simply aren't enough gays to matter frankly. That, and I trust in the family to survive any assault. We are already rebounding from the ruinous experiments of the sexual revolution. We can weather this too.

The comment I quoted 'out of context' and this one lead me a particular direction.

It led you there too:

It does not bother or diminish my marriage in any way because your relationship does not meet the requirements of marriage in any significant way. It is undoubtedly beneficial to you personally, but it does not provide anything like the same dynamic that my relationship does. And the evidence is that most gays are even less familial oriented than your partner and yourself.

The last line first. It is absolutely true. I don't understand, well, yes I do: it is not a bond of love as you have for your wife. This will sound WRONG to everyone but yours is not a bond of equals. You would be 1/2 the man you are, if you were not married. Your wife would be 1/2 the woman she is likewise. The joining of the two halves results in a sum greater than one. I know you UNDERSTAND this intrinsically because you are part of it. Gay relationships - the vast majority of them are the sum of their parts to one. The only gay relationships I have seen survive long term involves, very clearly, a pairing of unequals. Then, it works long term. Because most gay relationships fundamentally are based on a pairing of equals...now I will get shot at by both sides...

But the rest: our legal relationship will not diminish your marriage. Even if it were to be called marriage, it would not. First, as you say, we are too few. Second, if it did, your marriage would be a sham and it probably wouldn't deserve to survive. If the pairing is that dependent on outside comparisons that have zero to do with the couple, it is a dead relationship anyway. But it is not necessary to call our legal relationship marriage. Despite the loons that are stuck on the concept, it IS irrelevant to the fundamental goal - equal benefits under the law.

And you have already stated both your personal and fundamental support of those rights. Now all you have to do is give it a name you can live with.

We simply refuse to let you redefine the terms to suit your purposes.

You pick the term....

From a conversation on American Conservative Party

Lesser evil, or greater good...

Reading the Federalist Papers I realized how inadequate my education has been and that the Founders were, incredible.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

Our choice is not to be the lesser of two evils, but greater good. These two posts I have made of the Federalist Papers excerpts are NOT meant to support John McCain. If anything, the Papers reveal a strong aversion to consider the personalities but rather to consider the principles espoused by the Constitution. I of course have a bias, even a prejudice, to consider the principle of the matter before even considering the positions for or against.

therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good;

It is not whether the public good is being served, but whether the power is necessary in the first place. As a society, right now, we fail to even consider this.

Cross-posted to ACP

Why Hillary?

People...ok, men, need to be aware of this, because you may not get it. I noted elsewhere that Victoria is voting for Hillary because Hillary is a woman. I thought that was a bad reason to vote for her, and still do, but I did realize something this past weekend when all the pundits were all but calling Hillary dead in the water.

I would miss not having a woman as a potential Presidential candidate. Really, when you think about it, even Republicans are ok with the idea of a woman President. But other than Hillary, there are NO women even close to the point of running. THAT is what is supporting Hillary. For the first time we have a woman really, possibly, in a position to be President. If Hillary fails, it may be years, maybe decades, before another woman gets to the point of running with a serious chance.

I am opposed to Hillary on principled grounds, but anyone that dismisses the power of her run BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN risks pissing off 53% of the electorate. I apologized to Victoria.

Standing in line...

Ever go to a store and after wandering the aisles, head for the checkouts, and face 8 or 10 or 15 lines of varying sizes? Pick one that might be moving just a little faster than the others. Upon picking one that seems to be moving, you get in line and it seems that the clerk and everyone in front of you falls asleep. Meanwhile, the longest line has been reduced to the shortest. In total disregard for all the time you spent in the first line, you jump to the faster moving, shorter line. Only to have it stall and the line you were in, empty in record time.

Every time it happens you are reminded that you need to make your choice and stick to it. Well, Michigan and Florida are learning the hard way.

Disenfranchised by their own actions, they want something no one else is getting, a chance to do over their vote. And instead of actually doing the redo with the 8 or 10 candidates that existed at the time, there will be only 2 choices.

For years Republicans have complained that the Democrats were ignoring personal responsibility. It was only a matter of time before Democrats actually did so in a Presidential Primary Election (a P-Pee).