How to vote in 2008 (and why)

They ain't no good choices, folks.

Yore Cracker Aunty is sick over this election.


Both McCain and Obama is badly badly flawed men. Badly.

McCain is an ambitious hot head. He finished jes' 5 from the bottom at Annapolis out of a class of 899 candidates. He was a playboy an' a jerk. He left wife # 1 when she was in a car accident and left disfigured. He married $$ to finance his political dreams. So much fer "family values." McCain ain't religious, but will use the pro-life horse fer the first leg of the race. He is definitely an "elitist" who cain't remember how many houses he has. ("Ask my staff"). He is a "maverick" because he wants his own way--that is, the way that most showcases his ownself. He ain't a bi-partisan example at all, nope, jes' a pragmatic deal maker and if a Dem is part of the deal, well enough. He ain't held in high esteem by any true conservatives. Or Liberals. He ain't really fish nor fowl...jes ambitious to be remembered in the history books.

Obama was an affirmative action admission to Ivy League halls and has been proven to have plagerized liberally wherever need be. He hung wif campus radicals from the git-go. He has never had a real job, only "community" jobs as the foundation of a political career from day one. He has ZIP experience and is ignorant in early every crucial category of statecraft. After all, I think we at least oughta git ourselves a fella that knows how many states is in the Union. He as a fatal weakness fer terrorists and thugs. He doan love America or even what the Founders of America set up fer us. His African Muslim connections is indisputable. The Chicago constituents is WORSE off than afore he came to "save" them. He lined his pockets wif' money he channeled to Michelle's bosses, an' Rezko's (a Syrian) fundraisers. His hate-filled "pastor" is a Farakan intimate an' built his retirement multi- million $$ home in a white country club neighborhood. His own brother lives is abject poverty, but Obama doan hep him none. They is all laughing at us'uns fer being dupes.


So how does we choose from this miserable lot? Gag.

Ain't no use in tearing ourselves up over issues like abortion and taxes. Fergit it. We ain't gonna agree on it anyway.

How we make the choice is this: We is Americans first, and Donkey's or Elephants second. How can we keep makin' sure we's Americans, the main thang we's got in common?

Youse American smart or dull, rural or urban, rich or poor, blue grass or rap, latte or RC Cola, brie or cheez whiz...all that.

But Sweet Thangs, these two men is motivated differently, even though they's both snakes-in-the -grass.

One is motivated by personal ambition and glory, a place in history to top his Admiral Dad and Grandad. The other is motivated by ideology, a Marxist hatred for liberal freedom, and a violent need to fulfill his Marxist appointed calling to "change" things so that the world "unifies" under a Marxist vision of "equality."

Hold yore nose and pull the lever fer McCain. At least his idea of his place in history is only assured in a world where America still stands.

Obama's glory and "change" comes only when American as we know it is defeated.

Obama & Night of the Living Dead

From the mysterious Spengler in Asia:



DENVER - Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city's Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like think smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

Read more here

What BatMan and Bush have in Common

What Bush and BatMan have in common (read here) ...heh.

"....the appearance of righteousness", what does that mean fer you?

There is a lot to talk about on this--lemme know yore thoughts, Sweet Thangs

What's the Big Idea?

Every election cycle we'uns hear yakkity-yak about the "Better idea" or a "New Idea" or, God help us, the "Big Idea."

Sometimes these notions hide under the euphemism of "Change."

We done heard all that before.

THERE IS NO BIG IDEA.


There is no secret key to world peace (I prefer Whirled Peas!). There is no discovery of a political strategy that will advance the right causes or people. Global peace cannot be achieved by a global parliament under whatever guise ( See U.N.'s patronage for "the poor" or for "the environment" or for "a peace army.")

There is not even a local foolproof political system (feudalism, monarchism, communism, socialism, democratic republics, totalitarianism, despotism or any combo of same).

The problem, to borrow from Pogo, is that we are our own enemies--no matter what system we lives under--whenever we live against the higher nature of human beings--that is, beings wif' a soul.


(I know animals is dear, precious, loved and even some of us'uns think they's soulful--but they doan contemplate their existence or future or think about if they are "good.")

I reckon I'se sayin' doan be fooled by no call to a Big Idea or a New Idea. Ain't none.

So then, what?

To have a civilization we humans gotta organize ourselves such that we ain't always at each other's throats. Thas' why we have taboos, make laws, set boundaries --so we'uns can get along.

But it ain't ever gonna be perfect 'cause mankind ain't perfect NOR IS HE PERFECTIBLE! (hence, the need fer laws--the fewer the better). Wanna say it plain: there is no hope in the Big Idea that if we had a chicken in every pot or a BMW in every garage a fiddy cent a gallon petrol that there would be peace on earth. Socialism din't make no wise heroes. Nor Marxism.

Capitalism works decently--but hyper competition and hyper capitalism morphs into monopolies--an thas' socialism. Besides, makin' money cannot be the prime focus of no actual civilization. Money is a tool to achieve a goal. Thas' all.

What good to be a billionaire who is despised? Who is never valued fer himself, only fer her money? Better to be an artist, a composer, a writer, a cobbler, butcher, baker candlestick maker who knows the transcendent joy of family and friends and satisfying work.

No Big Idea ( or gubmint) will make man better. That is an individual project.

If ya'll wants the gubmint to do stuff for ya' thas' the wrong idea. You do it. You make it. You build it. Your take care of it. Doan be tryin' to use the muscle of the gubmint to make yore dream happen. Some folks will always be envious of what others done. But doan moan over it. Life ain't equal and the principle of equality is NOT to make all folks have equal outcomes. The principle is simply to apply the law in equal manner to all citizens.

Under the idea some folks have of equality I ought apply to play wif' the Lakers iffin' I want, and be assured of gettin' on the team. How stoopid is that? The object of basketball is to make baskets. Iffin' I ain't got what it takes in height, speed, hand -eye coordination, an' all that, how in the hail is I gonna make baskets against 7 foot fast boys? But that doan mean the Basketball industry is ignorin' my "rights" to equality. Heck the Basketball boys does me a FAVOR when they show me I ain't fit material for them. That frees me to focus on a better dream fer my own talents, a dream that I can achieve.

The only thing gubmint needs to do is to keep others from taking what ya did do, did make, did build. An' to protect ya from systematic assaults beyond your ability to engage (like other gubmints or organized crime and organized terrorism).

The role of gubmint/ king/ feudal lord is to insure that each person has the best chance to tackle that individual project (we Americans call it "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness"--note that ain't NO guarantee of happiness. )

Iffin' yore idea of happiness is destructive to the whole culture, then gubmit/king/lord ought shut you down in order to conserve the good of the whole.

Heh. Conserve. Thas' the best idea, an' it is small--not a big. Big Ideas mean Big Gubmint. That is bad fer all.

Conserve and preserve. That doan mean anything about throwback to "better days" but it does mean to conserve the wisdom of the weight of human experience while we apply new techo-wizardry.

So when ya hears a siren call to a Big Idea or a New Idea go beat the hail out of it wif' a club.
It is a lie.

Shall We Have a King, Then?

I'se for democracy--mostly.

But Aunty likes her democracy as the Founders meant it to be--a system of government for folks who understood that government was "of the people" and them people knew that self-governing was the task of folks who understood theyselves as "under God."

The American Founders knew that government was an ill, a monster if not regulated.

A famous fella said Democracy wasn't that great, until ya considered the other options.

So, iffin' we misuse and abuse democracy, to the point of utter corruption of the whole idea, well, THEN, I ain't opposed to gettin' a good King (or Queen).



One that writes like this :

No King can be happy without his Subjects be at ease, and the people be secure of enjoying their own without the King be at his ease also, and in a condition to protect them and secure his own right; therefore preserve your prerogative,(as King)

but disturbe not the Subjects in their property, nor conscience, remember the great precept, Do as you would be done to, for that is the law and the Prophets. Be very carefull that none under you oppresse the people, or torment them with vexations, suits, or projects: Remember a King ought to be a Father of his people, and must have a fatherly tendernesse for them... be content with what is your own. Endeavour to settle Liberty of Conscience by a Law.



Our Blessed Saviour whipt people out of the Temple, but I never heard he commanded any should be forced into it; tis a particular grace and favour that God Almighty shews to any, who he enlightens so as to embrasse the true Religion, tis by gentleness, instruction, and good example, people are to be gained and not frightened into it, and I make no doubt if once Liberty of Conscience be well fixed, many conversions will ensue....


It be true that this king weren't perfect--but none ever are. At least when we have monarchs, we have a person that we know is human, not an impersonal system under which all manner of ill and horror can hide.


* * * * * * * * *

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of
moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
(John Stuart Mill)

Prelude: The Social Contract

Most of ya'll knows a series of essays on Islam is comin' to these pages any day now.

Meanwhile, Aunty wonders iffin' we might revisit our ideas on The Social Contract.

Whas' that? Ya know....stuff we learnt in school about how we give over some rights for the sake of the big picture of gettin' along in a society. The political science term is "social contract".

It jes' means that I ain't akshully free to do ANYthing I want, cause I *freely* gave over some of my personal preferences to ya'll--that is to my fellow citizens--so that we can form an orderly society. I gave up my ideas on how fast I can drive my buggy in order to cooperate with whas' best for the most. Some of ya'll gave up playing music at mach 5 at 4 am , for the sake of the good of the whole. We calls it the "consent of the governed." We freely live by self control because we believe we profit MORE from living in harmony and order.

Now they's only two thangs that can keep a society glued together: fear or freedom.

Whar' tyrants rule, it is reprisals, gulags and beheading that maintain the order, wif' the aid a lots of goons to spy and bully even assassinate. In this model of social order, fear keeps folks in line. The reason that the tyrant has to rule wif' an iron fist in this manner is that the citizens under his rule would *not*t choose to behave/ live as he demands them to, so the tyrant enforces his personal law with force & fear. Tyrants do not trust the freedom of the people.

Whar' people share a common idea of whas' good for the society, they choose to live by that idea and no major force is necessary. The choice that holds this free society together can be administered by a constitutional monarch or a president in conjunction with parliament (or congress). But the significant feature is that the citizens *voluntarily* conduct their lives in an orderly fashion according to the concept of order that they have chosen. In this model all citizens in good standing are free to participate, regardless of differences. Whar' I choose to be ruled by a set of laws that more or less reflect my understanding of what's good, then ya doan need to beat me into keepin' the law.

Of course thar's exceptions, (slip-ups happen) but we doan need to mention them as it drags us off topic. The major indicator of the global preference for societies ordered on free cooperation is the direction of immigration. The mass numbers of immigration is out of tyranny and into freedom.

Membership in any given society is by largely by kinship, language group, race, territory or religion.

"The West" is an idea (since non geographically West nations have become "western" such as Japan) . That idea is that people with differing views on the significance of religion or kinship or race can form a high functioning society together.

Why?
The underlying glue for the West is the idea that a multifaceted peoples can be self-ruled by a political process in which they participate. The people freely bind themselves to that process and live accordingly.

All the rest of the people of the earth is ruled by raw power.

The underlying genius of The West is that religion and state are separate spheres, though each is a support for the other. In religion, we freely submit ourselves to the teachings we find persuasive. Thus to our religion (if any) we are subjects (we submit voluntarily to precepts) , but in the sphere of the state we are citizens, not subjects.

Why are we citizens in this sphere? Because the participatory political process is dynamic--it changes according to the needs and developments of the citizens. Where the citizens are dissatisfied, they have the duty and the privilege to change the rules to which they have given their consent.

By contrast, religious belief addresses the "permanent things" and is thus static. Those who agree with what any given religion teaches, subject themselves to that view of the "permanent things."

This separation of religion from the governing task of the state provides an elastic "space" whar' folks work and live in harmony and social order. The In the Social contract, freedom and obedience are the same--we freely agreed to obey the precepts we've chosen. Western legal tradition is sustained by this social contact. (Rousseau, Kant). States founded on Social Contract endure because they must respect the rights of the citizens who can deny consent to be governed by its laws. Hence "WE the people..." Minus that "WE" a state would have to dissolve or resort to force (tyranny).

The legitimacy of the law, then is based on the consent of the people to process of enacting that law. Even whar' I disagree wif' certain laws, the process permits me to work to change the law.

This dynamic process makes possible a nation whar' folks from many different languages, cultures and faiths can still cooperate freely to achieve the secure, harmonious society necessary for the "pursuit of happiness." A people freely pursuing their idea of happiness is productive, innovative and typically have healthy economies.

This is what The West has that inspires others to seek citizenship in "western" nations. This model of a free society is a threat to tyrants (religious or political) everywhar'. Some threaten to overthrow " The West" precisely because it offers people another view of how man can live.

It is also why the case is made that the Western model of social organization is the better model. While post-modern theories insist that no society or culture is better than any other model, that premise is purely abstract.

In actual practice, the Western model works best, is the most productive
(far outproduces slave labor), insure the greatest freedom and is the least insecure. This doan mean non-western folks gotta act like the west--again, Japan makes a good example, along wif' South Korea, of Eastern folks who have adopted the Social Contract of Western legal tradition as a political model of organization, but who kept their own cultures.

One of the unstated attitudes in any discussion of Islamic nations vs. Western Civilization is that too many folks fear to admit that the West is better--functions better, is worth defending, worth preserving. Some folks hate the Islamic confrontation because it forces them to reevaluate the entire post-modern premise that all cultures are equal. Some cultures are clearly superior, and that truth is uncomfortable for some.