Category Archives: Blog

Six reasons to consider voting third party

Throughout this election season, as in the last one, I have written and discussed here and on Facebook about the need to break the two party, Democrat-Republican dominated political system in the United States. The adversarial aspect of this system has led to a stymied congress, lies, deceit, and an ongoing “lesser of two evils” approach to voting.

voting boothThe election tomorrow seems to be potentially as close as any since Bush-Gore in 2000. Some have even speculated of an Electoral College tie between president Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Some of my friends have made the informed decision not to vote–and have been castigated for it.

The objection I normally face has been that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Barack Obama (if the objection is coming from a conservative) or a vote for Mitt Romney (if coming from a liberal). I reject this reductionistic approach as inaccurate and illogical. Others say a vote for a third party candidate is akin to throwing away one’s vote. On the contrary, I say voting for someone who does not best represent your principles and philosophy of government is throwing away your vote.

Considering such dominance from the Democratic and Republican parties when should you vote for a national candidate not among the two major parties?

1. When you would have to violate your conscience to do so. If an issues or issues important to you are ignored by the most well known candidates do not cast a vote for them.

2. If neither candidate has earned your vote. I do not look at my vote as something I give to a candidate. It is something they must earn. If he or she does not earn it, they do not get it.

3. If your state is polling overwhelmingly toward one candidate or the other. My state, Tennessee, has been Republican since before Obama was elected. It is not about to change; polling is not close to the margin of error. Because of the Electoral College, every single vote truly does not matter; only the total number of votes matter. For that reason you can confidently vote for the candidate your prefer with no concern you might rip the space time election continuum.

4. If you consider the lesser of two evils argument to be abhorrent. Some Christians will make the argument that we will never have a perfect candidate, so every choice is a lesser of two evils. I find this to be thoroughly unpersuasive. First because the “two evils” necessarily eliminates other, better choices. Second because the lack of perfection does not equate to evil. (Try that on your wife: “No, she’s not perfect. In fact, you might as well say she’s evil.” Good luck with that one.)

5. If you are more concerned about being the cure than spreading the cancer. Our political system, while functional, spews a dangerous toxicity. Abuses of power, mindless spending and selfish gain seem to be the norm on The Hill.

6. If neither major party candidate even begins to address issues of vital importance to justice. Most on the Right have reduced the idea of justice to abortion, while most on the Left have similarly reduced it to taking care of the poor. Where, in three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debates, were discussions about our unjust justice system, the unjust “War” on Drugs, concerns to address human trafficking, the NDAA, the unjust drone war? They were nowhere to be found. A candidate who thinks these major issues not worth a mention does not even qualify for the office.

Can you think of any other reasons to consider voting for a third (or “minor”) party candidate?

The real issue with abortion and the DNC

The closer the presidential election draws the more attentions return to the issue of abortion. Those on the left cry “women’s rights” while those on the right plead “right to life.” Both sides are passionate, and often enflamed in their attempts to solidify or overturn–respectively–Roe v Wade.

In early September 2012 the Democratic National Convention met in North Carolina. Amidst the debacle over “God” and “Jerusalem” the Democratic Party passed as strong a pro-abortion plank as has been ever hammered into a platform.

In the days following the DNC meeting ABC’s Cokie Roberts said

I think this Democratic Convention was really over-the-top in terms of abortion. Every single speaker talked about abortion. At some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.

On the same program Roberts challenged Newark, New Jersey mayor Cory Booker

on why the platform committee removed the phrase saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” which had been in the platform since Bill Clinton ran on that platform in 1992.

Below is the abortion plank from the 2012 Democratic National Platform called Moving America Forward. Read it carefully.

Protecting A

Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. (2012 DNC Platform, pg. 18)

Here is the thing implicit in the DNC platform: abortion and adoption are moral equivalents. This is the real issue with abortion and the Democratic National Convention.

That Democrats affirm the legality of abortion from conception to birth for any reason or no reason is self-evident and has been for decades. But it is startling they cannot even bring themselves to recommend adoption over abortion. This is slavish adherence to ideology at the expense of civilized thinking.

Perhaps pro-life Democrats should be added to the endangered species list.

The moral and ethical position of the DNC is abortion = birth = adoption. Whether a woman aborts a child, keeps a child, or gives the child to adoptive parents it is a morally equivalent decision. No recommendation is made for a preferred end. They “strongly and unequivocally support” all options. Dismembering a child in the womb is given no moral difference from one delivered healthy into the arms of its mother.

Author Steven Waldman noticed this very thing,

[T]he 2004 platform said abortion “should be safe, legal and rare” – language that’s [sic] casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately, the DNC does seem to have a moral preference in the matter though unstated. This can be derived from the statistics of the DNC’s preferred provider of abortion, pre-natal care and adoption referrals, Planned Parenthood. In 2010 Planned Parenthood (who, as seen above in the Booker link, was a prominent player at the 2012 DNC) reported the following:

Planned Parenthood did 329,445 abortions while it provided prenatal care to 31,098 women (90% less) and referred only 841 women to adoption agencies.

The number of women receiving prenatal care dropped significantly from 2009 to 2010, as the abortion business helped 40,489 women in 2009 — meaning almost 10,000 fewer women received prenatal support from Planned Parenthood last year than the year prior, or a drop of almost 25 percent.

The number of women getting adoption referrals also declined — from a low 977 in 2009 to 841 last year, or a decline of 14 percent.

Examined another way Planned Parenthood does 391 abortions for every adoption referral it makes and almost 11 abortions for every woman it helps with prenatal care.

The direction the DNC has taken this year is indeed tragic. They have increased their strident support for Roe v Wade to a philosophical landfill in which good and evil are comparable. To quote Javert, “The world is inside out. The world is upside down.”

Live chat the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate, October 22, 2012

Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat of the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate. As with the previous debates, we are given the illusion of fairness. All third party candidates–even those with a mathematical possibility of winning, on the ballots in 47 or more states–are banned from the Democratic/Republican party controlled spectacle.

Tonight’s debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer, will be held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. The format calls for six 15-minute time segments, each of which will focus on one of the topics listed below. The moderator will open each segment with a question. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Following the candidates’ responses, the moderator will use the balance of the 15-minute segment to facilitate a discussion on the topic.

(Seriously? The leader of the free world is being chosen based on two minute answers?? Good grief. No wonder people want to know who Honey Boo Boo endorsed.)

Human slavery banner

One of the subjects that has not been covered and will not be covered tonight is human trafficking.


Tentatively the topics as scheduled are:

America’s role in the world
Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Red Lines – Israel and Iran
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.

RULES FOR THE CHAT
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!

You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.

Chat is now closed.

U.S. drone use challenged in court

On March 17, 2011 at least 42 people were killed by a United States drone strike in northwestern Pakistan. Four have been confirmed as Taliban members, while the others were civilians, including tribal elders who had gathered for an administrative meeting. Reports the Global Post on October 10, 2012:

Opponents take the stance that these strikes are not part of an armed conflict and the rules of war, thus, do not apply. The armed conflict claim is a legal fiction and the United States is cherry picking the legal framework that protects its conduct under the rules of war, thus doing indirectly what they cannot do directly under international human rights laws. Shamsi contends, “I think the key issue here is that the US is claiming that the laws of war apply in places where they absolutely do not apply.”

Contrary to the US stance, this interpretation holds that, regarding Anderson’s explanation, “There is no war going on in a legal sense, and if there is, it is strictly limited to hot battlefields of Afghanistan. [Drone strikes are] governed by standards of international human rights and domestic law, and therefore any killings that take place under the circumstances are not protected by the law of war and instead are just extrajudicial executions, and frankly murder.”

Meanwhile, the CIA wants to up the number of drones that it denies having. Reports Policymic.com:

While the 2012 presidential election racket focuses on gaffes, Romney’s binders, and Big Bird, the CIA and the Pentagon are currently busy finding ways to increase their military power and influence around the globe. According to the Washington Post, CIA Director David Petraeus wants an increased drone fleet to “bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging Al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots.”

In case you miss the significance here, the CIA is running a covert war using a kill list known to exist but which the president denies. Our “intelligence agency” requests even more drones at a time when the international community is already questioning the legality of how we are using them. In America there is little argument that “intelligence agency” = “paramilitary organization.”

Finally, the Daily Mail reports that two specific Americans could be investigated for murder related to their roles in drone strikes.

A damning dossier assembled from exhaustive research into the strikes’ targets sets out in heartbreaking detail the deaths of teachers, students and Pakistani policemen. It also describes how bereaved relatives are forced to gather their loved ones’ dismembered body parts in the aftermath of strikes.

The dossier has been assembled by human rights lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who works for Pakistan’s Foundation for Fundamental Rights and the British human rights charity Reprieve.

John A Rizzo

CIA attorney John A. Rizzo [Image credit]

Filed in two separate court cases, it is set to trigger a formal murder investigation by police into the roles of two US officials said to have ordered the strikes. They are Jonathan Banks, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Islamabad station, and John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s former chief lawyer.

[…]

The plaintiff in the Islamabad case is Karim Khan, 45, a journalist and translator with two masters’ degrees, whose family comes from the village of Machi Khel in the tribal region of North Waziristan.

His eldest son, Zahinullah, 18, and his brother, Asif Iqbal, 35, were killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone that struck the family’s guest dining room at about 9.30pm on New Year’s Eve, 2009.

Asif had changed his surname because he loved to recite Iqbal, Pakistan’s national poet, and Mr Khan said: ‘We are an educated family. My uncle is a hospital doctor in Islamabad, and we all work in professions such as teaching.

‘We have never had anything to do with militants or terrorists, and for that reason I always assumed we would be safe.’

History may ultimately adjudge our current drone war on the same level as the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war.

I’ve also written about America’s drone war in these posts:
The Drone War and the kingdom of God

One former British soldier talks about drone warfare

Eleven states needed to win the presidency

What is the fewest number of states needed to win the presidency? With our electoral college system it might be far fewer than you think.

You may not have misread the title, but you probably did not get the meaning. I do not mean, “The eleven states a candidate must carry to win.” I mean, “Any candidate can win the presidency by carrying only eleven states.”

Your now have the idea.

It is possible to lose the the popular vote and lose 39 of the 50 states, yet still be the president of these United States.

How? The Electoral College.

The Electoral College was approved September 6, 1786, for reasons known only to the members of Skull and Bones and makers of “corn likker.” According to Wikipedia, “Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.”

Can you say irony? Smaller states, for purposes of the college, are not determined by size, but by population.

While polls can be a good measure of popular sentiment, they are not sufficient to gage the electoral map. That is why you often hear of “swing states.” These are states candidate X or Y must get to reach the magical 270 electoral votes needed.

You can look elsewhere for more specifics on the electoral college. For now I just wanted to share the eleven states one can win to become president:

California (55 votes)
Texas (38 votes)
Florida (29 votes)
New York (29 votes)
Illinois (20 votes)
Pennsylvania (20 votes)
Ohio (18 votes)
Georgia (16 votes)
Michigan (16 votes)
North Carolina (15 votes)
New Jersey (14 votes)

electoral college map 2012

Electoral College map 2012 [Image credit]

You might be interested to know, based on 2011 data, 177,215,379 people live in those eleven states (total U.S. population 311,591,917). Another way of saying it is around 57% of the United States lives in these eleven states.

Interesting?

Halfway to 13.1: A half-marathon training update

About three weeks ago I made a decision to register for a half-marathon to be held in November. I wrote about that here.

For the two people interested in keeping tabs on me or learning something that might help you, here is an update.

I have continued to run one mile as fast as I can about three mornings a week. This remains, for me at least, a difficult run as it has more than 120 feet elevation loss and gain

running on the beach

This is not me. [Image credit]

over the course of the mile. The upside is it gets me in calorie burn mode early and helps strengthen my legs. Because I do it on an empty stomach I am hoping my body will burn calories more efficiently when properly fueled.

There is absolutely no proof that it will, however.

On the advice of counsel core strengthening exercises have become part of my routine. Some of them feel kinda weird, but hey, maybe it will work. (Click here to see some suggested exercises from the Mayo Clinic for killing yourself strengthening your core muscles.)

My Saturdays are for longer runs. The past few weeks I have increased from 5.08 to 5.79 to 6.21. I will need to skip a seven miler and go to eight in order to close in on 13 before race day. Positively, though, my pace is staying mostly consistent even when adding length. My last three Saturday runs (in whole miles) are

Distance: 5.08
Splits: 7:23, 8:09, 8:10, 8:15, 7:52

Distance: 5.79
Splits: 7:17, 8:10, 7:58, 7:50, 8:00

Distance: 6.21
Splits: 7:56, 7:34, 7:53, 8:35, 8:30, 8:35

I went out much too fast on a difficult first mile during the last run, and wound up out of gas. Have to be careful of that on race day to be sure. An 8:00 min pace goal for the race seems within reach.

I would be remiss not to shout out to Adidas for a really good running shoe, the adiZero Sonic 3. I have run with Nike, Fila and Adidas. I much prefer Adidas.

An open letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates

Dear Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry,

Like many Americans I am interested in the direction of the country. Others have said they are “concerned,” and still others “burdened.” Still others claim this 2012 presidential election is the most important in the history of the republic.

denver 2012 debate

The Denver presidential debate, October 2012 [Image credit]


You cannot be ignorant of the reality that the presidential debates help frame how voters view the candidates each presidential election cycle. Indeed, this is part of the reason for your existence. Your mission, in part, is that the Commission should:

provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates.

I am writing this open letter to address some concerns I have, concerns that may be shared by others. It seems these might be addressed through your organization.

Your bi-partisan make-up does not translate to the moderator phase of the debate. This silly idea of an unbiased moderator has created a pill too big for most of America to swallow. Following the most recent debates Jim Lehrer was demonized by the Left for being too passive (milquetoast was used by one liberal communicator), Martha Raddatz was slammed by some conservatives for her repeated interruptions of Paul Ryan, and Candy Crowley has all but admitted to assisting one of the participants, President Obama, by “correcting” Mitt Romney on a point of fact. (This, notes Canadian journalist David Akin, was not within the bounds of her assigment.)

Clearly, you have problems with this debate structure. The October 22 debate, moderated by Bob Scheiffer, holds little promise for a cure.

These debates would be more effective if the moderators were specifically chosen because of their bias or biases. Without a semblance of being non-partisan viewers would be better prepared to anticipate questions and reactions. Informed viewers are not deceived by such a fraudulent presentation, but viewers depending on the debates to fully inform their decisions stand in danger of deception.

No one would consider Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham unbiased, but as I present it they would need not pretend they are. Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews? Liberal as they can get, but at least it would be in the open. John Stossel or Neal Boortz as Libertarian leaners would disrupt the narrative major party candidates and the moderators tend to inhabit.

One from the Left, one from the Right, one from the Outside, and, finally, a college level debate professor as moderator. It is interesting these debates feel so much different than educational or philosophical debates. After watching many debates online, I have found the role of the moderator is to read the rules, ring the bell, keep the time, signal transitions, thank the participants and attendees, and announce the end. The moderator should disappear, not take center stage.

Also, at this stage of our country’s history requiring a candidate to poll at 15% before being invited to participate is appallingly controlling and unnecessarily exclusive. Even when they are included in five major polls (as you require) the results are rarely included by any major media. For all intents and purposes the media presents two–and only two–candidates for the presidency. You follow this problematic path since you are controlled by the same two parties.

The major parties do not have all the answers. In fact the debates reveal all-too-clearly their representative candidates have fewer and fewer answers as time rolls on. America would be better served be allowing candidates from qualifying third parties to participate. Requiring the candidate to have at least a statistical possibility of winning the electoral college (by getting on enough state ballots) would allow the Libertarian or Green candidate, for instance, without having to admit the Ball in High Weeds candidate. Keep the your latter requirement, but drop the first.

Your website says,

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.

As long as you continue to wall-off non-major party candidates you are failing to provide the “best possible information” to us.

Please fix this. Your model is broken. What you are trying to accomplish is admirable and appreciated. What you are actually accomplishing is short of that goal. You should strive for more.

We the people may not deserve it, but we need it.

If you agree share this post on social media. You can also email this post to the Commission on Presidential Debates: comments [at] debates [dot] org

Live chat the Obama-Romney town hall debate, October 16, 2012

Welcome to the Kingdom in the Midst chat room for tonight’s town hall-style debate at Hofstra University between president Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney.

In true two-party dominance and pansy Presidential Debate Commission style, no third party candidates will be allowed. This ensures most actual ideas will remain sidelined. Despite this sad occurrence the Democratic and Republican contenders will have an audience of about 80 undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization. CNN’s “Complaining Candy Crowley” will select from among questions on foreign and domestic policy submitted by the audience, and most likely try to insinuate herself into the debate as well. As she is on the record for hating Mr. Romney, it is unlikely she will issue any substantive challenges to the president.

The debate will begin at around 9:00pm Eastern Time (8:00CT) and last until around 10:30ET. For a refreshing change, watch the debate on C-Span which seems to be much less shrill than Fox and MSNBC.

RULES
1. Be clear.
2. Stay on topic. Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden, their policies and performances are inbounds. Their families are not.
3. Try to be concise. If you try to write a novel the comment to which you are responding will be gone.
4. When appropriate use the name of the person to whom you are responding. For instance, “Terminator1: I think you are misinformed.”
5. NO SWEARING. If you cannot express yourself without stooping to gutter language go back to the SPIKE movie you were watching.
6. Please share the post via social sharing buttons at the top. The more the merrier.
7. Have fun!

You can login below under a username and your Facebook or Twitter accounts. The latter two will use your avatar; comments will not post to your timeline or Twitter feed.

The chat is now closed.

Eight sure ways to keep your kids from serving God

Years ago I heard a preacher say this:

When I was a young pastor–before I was married with children–I used to preach a series called, “Ten Sure Fire Ways to Get Your Kids to Live for God.” Now that I’m older and have kids of my own I changed it to, “Here’s a Few Things You Might Want to Try When Raising Your Kids. They Might Work and They Might Not.”

I can appreciate the sentiment.

After quite a number of years pastoring a few different churches I think that approach, though humorous, sees the issue from the wrong direction. Perhaps a question we could ask is, “What can I do to ensure my kids will have little interest in following God?” Though the question sounds backwards and unproductive, it will lead us to a number of truths.

If you want to make sure your kids do not follow Christ, I recommend the following:

1. Never even attempt to apply what the pastor teaches week after week. Your kids will readily pick up that it is not that important. They will eventually wonder why you bother to go, and, when old enough, will not go themselves.

2. Pick apart the pastor’s sermon every week. Your kids will soon figure out that you are not expecting God to speak to you. They’ll soon conclude that the message probably does not apply to them either.

3. Fight and argue all morning, and in the vehicle all the way to the service. But, when you get to the service be all smiles and laughter. Act as if the morning fighting never happened. Repeat this ritual every week.

4. Pay more attention to what people in attendance are wearing, how they look, how they smell, etc, than to the message, music and mission. Doing this will train your kids to be distracted from God’s activity by focusing on trivial matters.

5. Be more concerned with making good citizens of your kids, but not so much with making disciples of them. Teach them to be good, to mind their manners, make good grades, etc, but never about walking with God.

6. Make Sunday is the only important day in the religious ritual. Never pray before meals, never pray together as a family, never pray with your kids about issues they face: tests, romances, jobs, life decisions. Let them learn to handle things just like their unbelieving friends.

7. Talk about God’s power, but worry about everything as if He has none. Make sure to express uncertainty about the future as if God has turned His back on you.

8. Never participate in the mission of God apart from church attendance, and hinder your kids from the same. Complain about the cost of mission trips, ministry events, or the difficulty of getting them to service opportunities.

If you do these things you will doing more than enough to assist the evil one in his efforts to destroy the spiritual lives of your children and keep them from serving God.