This Moment Isn't What You Think It Is.

There are many historical factors at play in our current divisive political moment. A political class that has allowed itself to become disconnected from their bases, economic dislocation due to globalization and the Great Recession, a Millennial generation denied access to many opportunities but uninterested in traditional organizations that offered other benefits, political operatives have turned to psychology and social science to exploit natural differences, etc. It has dissolved many of the "glues" that held our society together and lead to an increase in partisanship and division. None of this is a surprise to anyone on Facebook, Twitter, or who watches political programming. Shouting and propaganda is the norm. Discussion and polite argument are nearly extinct.

While this is having a huge impact on our whole culture, it dawned on me during my morning walk just how much of an impact it is having on the Church. If you think back to only a few years ago, the Church as a whole was on a track towards unity. Denominations that had separated decades or centuries before were flirting with reunification. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who had condemned all Catholics to Hell were open to the idea of a brotherhood of all believers. Interfaith gatherings were becoming more common, and there was a common belief that radical Islam and the secularization of society were the true "enemies".

But all of that swing towards unification went away almost overnight. In my awareness, it came with the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. But I have read many others who pointed to other events as the start for them - the Great Recession, the Affordable Care Act, etc. Suddenly, society was fractured and the Church allowed itself to fracture along the same lines. People are leaving churches over political issues. And some Christians who used to sit side by side in the pew are calling each other heretics and worse over which political "side" they are on or which social issues they feel are most important.

It occurs to me that while we are all distracted talking about "Liberals" and "Conservatives" on social media, we're missing what the real point of this moment is. Political trends come and go. The supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson hurled accusations that make our modern disagreements look tame by comparison. But the wounds caused by and in the Church take far longer to heal. Those alienated from a local body of believers because they don't post the right memes may never return to any church. Congregations who can't speak to each other because of odious political disagreements can not be effective working towards the goal of spending the Gospel. Christians who confuse empathy for their brother with sympathy for a political cause will never be able to relate to him or stand alongside him in his hour of need.

"A house divided against itself can not stand" was not only spoken by Lincoln about the Union. Jesus said in Mark 3:25. The Enemy knows this. And I suspect this divided political moment is all about leaving us with a divided and ineffective church for a generation, rather than about which is the next Supreme Court pick or budget maneuver.

My two cents, for what it is worth.

Political Fallacies: "I don't understand" isn't an argument

There is a particular kind of weirdness that is common on social media these days.  A post goes something like this:

"I don't understand how anyone can be against this.  If you oppose it, you're a bad person."

The implication is that the writer's opinion is so self-evidently right and obvious that anyone who disagrees must be irrational.  If you're on the side of the writer than it probably has you nodding your head in agreement.  If you're on the other side, you feel disrespected and alienated.  Either way, it has succeeded in one thing - cutting off engagement and discussion that might have actually been beneficial.

This kind of statement is a fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.  In such an argument, the speaker states that something is true, simply because they don't know anything that would disprove it.  In the modern day, where the internet makes knowledge available to anyone with a smartphone, PC, or library card, there is really no excuse for descending into this error.  If you "don't know" or "don't understand", I guarantee you there are dozens of people ready, willing, and able to offer you the information or perspective that would dispell your ignorance.

Please note, the problem here isn't taking a position or having an opinion.  Even a strong one.  It is trying to assert that because you don't understand the other side, your side must be right.  It's like a blind man arguing because he can't see it, the traffic light must be green and anyone who asserts otherwise is crazy.

My challenge to you:  STOP USING "I DON'T KNOW" OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND" AS AN ARGUMENT. USE IT AS AN HONEST QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE.  ENGAGE THE OTHER SIDE AND LEARN THEIR ARGUMENTS, IF ONLY SO YOU CAN HONESTLY JUDGE THEM.  The only way to learn is with an open mind.  The only way to stop arguing is to start listening.

Political Fallacies: Protests are a feature of democracy not a bug

The modern attitude toward peaceful protest is weird and contradictory.

Most of us look back on historical protests with affection and admiration:

• Martin Luther:  Overthrew the dominant position of the Catholic Church on European life and theology without ever swinging a sword (although, his writings sometimes provoked violence on both sides).  He is admired by all Protestants and seen as a key figured of history.
• Mahatma Gandhi:  Gained independence for India from the British Empire without firing a shot.  He is admired and widely quoted on social media.
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:  Lead the Civil Rights Movement for African-Americans which ultimately brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  He has his own federal holiday and is nearly universally admired.
• Tiananmen Square:  Because of the nature of Chinese media, we don't know the names of the peaceful protesters.  Even the famous man who blocked a column of armored vehicles is only known as "Tank Man".  But these brave men and women are admired around the world. 

But when a peaceful protest pops up in the modern day, it is sure to be condemned and excoriated by its opponents.  Marchers against racial injustice face the opposition of not only white supremacists but also people who want them to "Get over it."   Picketers in favor of Confederate statues face opposition not only from African-Americans in their community but also people who want them to "Sit down and shut up."  Protesters for the "Me Too" movement calling for gender equality face opposition not only from sexists but also people who want them to "Go home."

Odds are at some time since Donald Trump became president, you have condemned someone's peaceful protest because you disagree with them politically.  Odds are even better you shared or re-posted a meme that implies or openly states that your opponents should have their protests shut down.

But peaceful protest isn't a "bug" in our democracy.  It is a feature and an essential part of how the American experiment works.  The American Revolution didn't begin with the "shot heard round the world".  It began with the Boston Tea Party which was a (relative to the time) peaceful protest against unjust taxation by Britain.  Peaceful protests from the very beginning have been a way for the people to express grievances to the powerful without having to resort to civil unrest, riots, or uprising.  They allow even the poorest and least powerful amongst us to communicate their concerns and priorities to the community and to their leaders.  This is why the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in the Bill of Rights right alongside the right to free exercise of religion and free speech.

But why are protests needed in the Age of the Internet, when anyone in the world can post to social media or start a blog or website to communicate their ideas?  There are a few very simple reasons:

1. Online speech is solitary - one voice in the wilderness - whereas Peaceful Assembly brings together people to work together towards change.
2. Anonymous speech is useful but may imply a lack of courage.  Peaceful Assembly requires the protester to put themselves into the public space and declare their position.
3. Written speech can be ignored by looking away.  Peaceful Assembly forces its way into the attention of the public and the powerful.

My challenge to you:  STOP BASHING PEACEFUL PROTESTS.  INSTEAD, LISTEN TO THEM, OFFER A THOUGHTFUL CRITIQUE OF THEIR POSITION, AND JOIN YOUR OWN ASSEMBLY TO GET YOUR POSITION OUT INTO THE PUBLIC SQUARE.  And keep in mind the right is to *peaceful* assembly.  Feel free to bash any group - Right, Left, or Center - who uses a protest as an excuse for violence.

Political Fallacies: Don't Trust Anyone

There is an old axiom amongst journalists:  "Follow the money."  There is another old saying from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  And, of course, there is the old scriptural chesnut:  "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." - 1 Timothy 6:10a (ESV)

Money is a useful thing and not evil in and of itself.  It allows us to trade and exchange for goods and services without having to barter for each and every transaction.  Money allows us to live.  And because of that, money becomes an easy lever to manipulate people.  Whether we realize it or not, any threat to our source of income is a threat to ourselves.  And we will act to protect it.

The problem is, this normal human reaction is not restricted to "bad people" or "corrupt politicians".  It happens every day in the news that you read.  Every news organization has to be sensitive to the people paying the bills.  PBS is dependent on donors and government funding.  CNN and FoxNews are dependent on their big corporate advertisers.  Facebook is dependent on its network of both big corporate and small-scale advertisers.  And because of this, all of these news sources have to ensure their reporting never offends their supporters to the point where funding is withdrawn.

This was most recently and dramatically seen in the case of Laura Ingraham and David Hogg where a casual insult by the conservative host against the Parkland, FL teen caused her advertisers to pull their funding.

This means that every news source you value is inherently biased.  It is not that the journalists there intend to deceive, but they and their editors consciously or subconsciously slant their reporting to keep the money flowing.  It is well known that CNN tends to liberal views and FoxNews tends towards conservative views.  But even your local paper will inevitably be biased by its own local sources of revenue.

What is the problem with this?

1. No source of information can be trusted 100%, no matter how honest or sincere it is.
2. You'll never have all the facts if you rely on a single source.
3. Any attempt to "fix" bias will just lead to new biases driven by new funding sources.

Luckily, the solution is relatively simple:  Get your news from a variety of sources.  While any one source is driven by it's internal biases, it is unlikely for two news sources to have exactly the same bias.  And the more diverse your list of news sources, the clearer your picture becomes.

My challenge to you:  CREATE A LIST OF DIVERSE NEWS SOURCES THAT YOU CHECK ON A REGULAR BASIS, INCLUDING SOME YOU DISAGREE WITH.  It doesn't have to be an everyday thing.  But try to stop by every site at least once a week.

Here are a few sources offering different viewpoints:

• http://www.realclearpolitics.com:  Presents opinion pieces from Left, Right, and Middle
• https://news.google.com:  News aggregator from Left, Right, and middle
• http://www.bbc.com/news:  Reporting from outside the USA which has British biases instead of American ones.
• http://www.drudgereport.com:  News aggregator for Conservative news sources
• https://www.drudge.com:  News aggregator for Liberal news sources

Political Fallacies: Yes, Virginia, We're All Hypocrites

I have bad news for you.  You're a hypocrite.  Yes, the epithet Jesus consistently applied to his enemies also applies to you.  Think I'm wrong?  Consider this:

• If you're "Pro-Life" on abortion, odds are you support the Death Penalty
• If you're "Pro-Choice" on abortion, odds are you oppose choice when it comes to Gun Ownership

"But," You shout, "You're oversimplifying these issues!  These are complex problems that can't be completely covered by a label!"

Exactly.

If you've spent any time at all in the politics of late, you see one kind of story shared and re-shared relentlessly, whether it be on social media, blogs, or traditional media.  The basic template is this:

1. Such-and-So said this about a political issue
2. The same person also said the opposite about a different political issue
3. This proves they are a hypocrite
4. Therefore, you should ignore everything Such-and-So says

This technique combines three different kinds of logical fallacy:

1. Genetic Fallacy:  Discrediting an argument by going after a person instead of addressing the ideas they raise.
2. Straw Man Fallacy:  Discrediting an argument by presenting an oversimplified and incorrect version of it.  
3. Whataboutism:  Discrediting an argument by raising another issue that is irrelevant but alarming, instead of addressing the ideas they raise. 

Make no mistake.  The originators of these posts know exactly what they are doing.  They are trying to get you to stop listening to their opponent and walk away.  It's the laziest way to win an argument.

What is the problem with this?  

1. A confidence artist convinced you to turn off your brain.
2. It's impossible to convince an opponent you never engage with.
3. It's impossible to learn anything unless you engage those you disagree with.

My challenge to you:  STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER YOUR OPPONENT IS A HYPOCRITE AND ENGAGE THEIR IDEAS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE; YOU JUST HAVE TO LISTEN HONESTLY.  You may be surprised to learn your opponent has a point... or you may find an opportunity to show them your side of the issue.

Political Fallacies: Ideas vs Teams

A recent study confirmed what I have been observing over the last dozen years or so.  In the USA, politics is no longer a battle of ideas but a competition between teams.

Of course, it has always been so to some extent.  Politics is the science of forming coalitions to further personal goals.  This is why we have a Congress to pass laws instead of an enlightened king or executive: only by forming coalitions can we ensure that the top priorities of the maximum number are achieved. This is also why we have political parties:  to allow people to come together and form an alliance that achieves goals that not everyone wants but that everyone in the party can live with.

But while parties and coalitions drive votes, it has been ideas that have driven the parties.  From the beginning of the nation, political parties worked to ensure their top priorities were based on more than personal preferences and piques.  Federalism and Anti-Federalism were defining issues because the first generation had severe disagreements over whether centralization or decentralization were better for the freedom of the individual and the good of the nation.  (We are still fighting that battle in the Gun Control debate, among others.)  Kennedy to Reagan defended Democracy over Communism not only as a practical matter but also in the arena of ideas as they fought in the Cold War.  As recently as President Bill Clinton, the debates over Health Care Reform were over the idea of a government-run universal system and a privately-run independent system.  Which was really better for the consumer, the nation, and the world?

Something different has followed the rise of social media.  We no longer are talking about big ideas.  The formation of echo chambers where we only speak with those who agree with us have eliminated the need to defend a position.  Instead, we defend our "friends" against all attackers, right or wrong.  Our political parties have turned into teams.  And like the Yankees or the Red Sox, it no longer matters who has the best players, best managers, best philosophy, or best mascot.  We support our team simply because it is OUR team.

What is the problem with this?  There are several, which you have probably noticed in the politics of the last 8 years or so:

1. If you support a Team instead of a Philosophy, you find yourself loving or hating people based on their allegiance instead of their character.
2. If you support a Team instead of an Idea, you find yourself supporting and defending things that you don't actually believe.
3. If you support a Team instead of an Ethical System, you see no problem in hating someone simply because they support the other team.

My challenge to you:  STOP SUPPORTING YOUR TEAM, RIGHT OR WRONG, AND GET BACK TO LOOKING AT THE IDEAS YOU VALUE.  You may be surprised to find out who you've been helping or hurting while you were busy playing the political game.

America, We’re In the Forge

I’ve recently become a major fan of the History Channel show “Forged by Fire”.  It is a reality/game show where contestants compete to turn raw materials into finished knives thru the process of bladesmithing.  It’s endlessly fascinating watching artists turn raw steel or junk into beautiful weapons or tools.  The show turns the messy process of bladesmithing into four general phases:

1. Heating in the Forge:  Softening the metal so that it can shaped
2. Shaping:  Hammering the hot steel into a new form
3. Quenching:  Cooling red-hot steel to transform it into hardened steel
4. Finishing:  Fine work to turn a blade into a knife suitable for all kinds of useful work

The 2016 election season has been scary for many.  They feel like the country is spinning out of control.  But I suspect this is because we are focussed on this moment, rather than taking a longer view of history.  Our current political world was born out of the fires of World War II and the Cold War.  Republicans and Democrats were forged in opposition to big ideas and big foes.  These shapes have served both parties well for 70 years.  But the Great Recession has shown up the cracks in both parties and it is time to forge a new political reality to last the next 50 to 100 years.

Heating in the Forge:  In this context, the populism of Donald J Trump and Bernie Sanders makes sense.  This is the fire which is softening up American politics.  We’re in the forge now, and the old political alliances are coming apart.  This is necessarily a painful time because the shape we’ve all grown up counting on is changing and we don’t know what the new one will be.

Shaping:  The next four to eight years will be critical and painful, because they will be the time when American politics is reshaped.  Steel is moved by the force of powerful blows of a hammer.  And not just one, but repeated blows over and over again.  We shouldn’t expect the current protests or the conflict we are seeing to go away, because they are the hammer blows.  They are useful and they are necessary to the process, just as the Boston Tea Party was necessary to the forging of the USA in the first place.  

Quenching:   We’ll know the shaping is done when a major event occurs that solidifies the new reality.  After that event, the protests and debates will end as the heat of populism is quenched.  Then we’ll know the final shape of things.  The fear and pain will be over, and the hard work of using our new reality to drive history begins.

Finishing:  Once the new form is set, we’ll have a time where the

new political reality dresses itself up for proper use.  New political legends will replace the facts in our memories (Does anyone really think George Washington would never tell a lie?)  New symbols will be created to reflect the way we have redefined ourselves.  New language will arise to allow us to effectively debate the issues that matter to the new world.  Then we’ll use this finished reality to drive the country forward.

In conclusion, don’t be afraid or lose faith over this moment in history.  If a bar of steel could talk, it would certainly cry out in pain and terror when it is heated and hammered.  But that same bar of steel would one day take great pride in the effective tool it becomes in the hands of an expert bladesmith.  Have faith that America will feel that same pride again on both sides of the aisle. And apply grace liberally to friends and enemies as we suffer through the heat of the forge.

In Defense of Voting Third Party…

Introduction

2016 is bringing us a very unusual presidential election.  On the Republican side, we have an outsider with a decidedly politically-incorrect resume and stye has been nominated to be the party’s standard-bearer.  On the Democratic side, we have the ultimate insider with an impeccable resume that lacks notable accomplishments who is out of sync with her own base. The party traditionally known for hawkish international exploits and free trade is arguing to build a wall and abandon treaties, while the party traditionally known for workers rights and domestic concerns is arguing for more open borders and focusing on international issues.  Neither candidate is well-liked either within their own party or outside of it.  In fact, both are most notable for having the highest negatives of any candidate their respective party has ever run.

While we have exceptional candidates breaking every tradition of politics, we hear the same old argument.  “You have to vote with your party.  A vote for anyone else is a vote for the other party!”  Notables within the party power structures and outside of it are making the same point over and over.  “We have a two party system.  Choose one or the other."

But why?  If both Coke and Pepsi both offered you an unacceptable product, you’d look to someone else to provide you with an alternative.  Why should it be different in the political realm?  In fact, the United States has a long history of third parties.  And third parties serve critical functions in our Republic.

What is the function of a political party?

When the Constitution was signed and the first Federal government was formed, common wisdom said that political parties were bad and to be avoided at all costs.  But it quickly became evident - much to the disgust of George Washington - that parties had a critical function to serve within our political system.  Jefferson and Madison formed the first party - the Republicans (who, despite the name are the forerunners of the modern Democratic Party).  And Adams and Hamilton formed their opposition - the Federalists.

Political parties serve important functions:

• They bring together diverse coalitions with diverse interests 
• They advocate common goals
• They centralize fund-raising and communication
• They coordinate political actions for common benefit

How do political parties and presidential elections relate?

The creation of parties was not primarily about electing a president.  But over time, the selection of President has become a proxy battle to decide the core values of the party for the next 4 to 8 years.  The core values of the Executive become the core values (i.e. platform) of the party.  Ronald Reagan’s election brought about the “Reagan Revolution” for modern Republicans  The rise of Bill Clinton put the values of the “New Democrats” at the forefront of the modern Democratic Party.

Conversely, the defeat of a presidential candidate brings about the defeat of their core values as guiding principles of the party.  No one is talking about “Romney Conservatism” or the “McCain Revolution” after their electoral losses.  Winners run the party and create the future.  Losers take their lumps and go home (though they are always free to try again.)

How do THIRD PARTIES influence the political process?

Since the very beginning, there have been two major American political parties.  Republicans vs Federalists, Democratic Republicans vs Whigs, Democrats vs Republicans, etc.  Instead of breaking up into a myriad of parties who form short-lived coalitions (as in the English system), we pull broad coalitions into long-lived major parties.  These parties generally represent the majority of American voters and their interests, and the intersection between them is the “dynamic center” where the majority of voters generally agree on issues.

Third Parties exist to represent issues or positions which are unrepresented or underrepresented in the two major parties.  These may be issues which have fallen out of favor (see: The Prohibition Party) or issues which are gradually rising in popularity in a major party but have not yet reached critical mass (see:  The Green Party).  Or they may be issues present in the platforms of the major parties, but not given sufficient priority in the eyes of the third party (see:  Libertarian or Constitution Parties).

Overall, Third Parties serve a few key functions:

• They provide a place for new ideas to incubate which may eventually be adopted by the Major Parties
• They provide a place for old ideas to gracefully die out without bothering the Major Parties
• They provide fertile ground for new broad coalitions to form which will replace one of the Major Parties (the Republican Party was once a third party)
• They provide a place for protest votes when neither major party is representing a pool of voters

So why might I want to vote Third Party in the coming election?

This election is unusual in that neither major party candidate is considered the best person, the best philosopher, the most qualified, or the best representative of their parties values within their own parties.

• Donald Trump, Republican Nominee:  A political outsider who has surfed a wave of populist discontent against both parties for failure to listen to their constituents and provide tangible advancements since at least the economic crash of 2008.  Mr. Trump wasn't a political figure until fairly recently, has never held political office, does not appear to have firm philosophical or political views, and has supported the Democratic Party and its candidates publicly on numerous occasions.  Mr. Trump has also had numerous public lapses of personal ethics and has a pugnacious and impulsive temperament.  He is, however, the clear choice of the Republican nominating process.
• Hillary Clinton, Democratic Nominee:  A political insider nearly her entire life, Mrs. Clinton lost to Barack Obama in 2008 but survived politically by becoming Secretary of State within his administration.  She defeated insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders and laid claim as Barack Obama's heir to win the primary.  Mrs. Clinton has an impressive resume - lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the USA (under President Bill Clinton who called her his “co-president”), Senator, Secretary of State, etc.  But she is hard-pressed to point to specific victories or accomplishments.  She has been dogged by scandals throughout her career - both her own and her husband’s - and as her party has moved Leftward she has remained a New Democrat staying close to the left side of Center.  Recent leaks of DNC e-mails raise questions of whether there was a level playing field for her nomination and thus whether she is a "legitimate" candidate

In short, we are being asked to choose either:

• Republican:  An unethical narcissist with no Conservative resume
• Democrat:  An unethical scandal-plagued candidate whose values are not in line with her own party

Either choice requires voting for “the lesser of two evils” by the voter’s conscience.  Either one is sure to put someone in the White House that will  likely be a disappointment to their party and to the people of the USA.

This seems like the best possible time for a protest vote to a Third Party candidate which would:

1. Clearly communicate to the leaders of both parties that the nominees are unacceptable
2. Demonstrate a rejection of the candidates’ platforms and personal pedigrees
3. Potentially keep one of the major parties from adopting the platform and identity of an unacceptable candidate

But what about all the arguments against voting Third Party?

There are plenty of arguments being floated by party leaders on both sides worried about voters abandoning their candidates.  Let me address just a few:

• Voting Third Party is throwing your vote away and the equivalent of staying home on Election Day.  
• Election Day is about far more than the President.  By not staying home, I still decide who are my local, state, and national representatives which is more likely to impact my daily life.
• A vote cast for a third party is a protest vote.  And by voting for a candidate which better reflects my values and priorities, I send a message that party leaders can easily read by poll results.  They can then factor that into the next election.
• If both candidates are completely unacceptable, what advantage is there to voting for a “lesser evil”?  If leaving by the front door will get me eaten by tigers and leaving by the back door will get me trampled by rhinoceroses, I am wisest if I find a third option.
• Voting Third Party could get the other guy elected!
• If I distrust both candidates equally, then either one winning is a loss for me.
• If I repudiate both candidates equally, then either one winning will be a loss for me.
• There is still the potential - however remote - of a third party candidate gathering enough votes to capture the presidency.  Our system allows for it and even presupposes it.  If enough Republicans and Democrats walk away from the nominee to someone else, then that someone else could win.
• What about the Supreme Court?  The winner of this election will decide who serves and could swing future cases!
• The Supreme Court is designed as the last line of defense of the Constitution.  A bad law should first NOT be passed by Congress, then SHOULD be vetoed by the President, and only should reach the Supreme Court if everyone else failed.  It is better to focus on getting the right people into Congress in the first place, and in putting pressures onto the President to toe the line.
• If I do not trust either candidate, then what assurances do I have that the “right one” will nominate justices who reflect my political and philosophical opinions?  George H. W. Bush was a great man and a moderate Conservative, but he nominated David Souter who has consistently sided with the Liberal wing of the court.  
• If a bad justice if nominated, the Senate can still shut them down.  Again, better to focus on Congress.
• The court should not serve one party or the other, regardless.  Their role is to be an impartial interpreter of the Constitution.  They can’t help but bring their own world views to the table.  But ultimately, a good justice is better than a bad justice, regardless of their political affiliations.
• What about [Insert Favorite Issue Here]?
• If I do not trust either candidate to do what they promise, then my favorite issues are already in jeopardy.  Neither major party candidate has a resume showing faithful support for the issues closest to the heart of their base.
• There are few issues so dear to me that I would abandon all else for them.  And none of those issues are obviously more or less safe with either major candidate.   

So are you saying everyone should vote Third Party?

Not necessarily. Voting is a grave civic duty that calls upon the best intentions of every citizen.  Each of us should make their own determination and vote their conscience.  If you like and trust Donald Trump, then cast a vote for him.  If you like and trust Hillary Clinton, then cast a vote for her.  

But stop acting and speaking as though a Third Party vote is irrational or unethical.  And if your conscience is calling upon you to vote that way, strongly consider it.

Thank you for your attention.

"Occupy" protesters target Iowa Caucuses?

Normally, when you are trying to make an argument, you lay out your facts, show how they hang together, express your strong sentiment, and then let your listener respond. Apparently, not so for the Occupy Wall Street Movement who is threatening to "shut down" the Iowa Caucuses (both Democrat and Republican) unless their demands are met. Those demands remain nebulous.

The plan, Cordaro told CNN, is, “people coming to Iowa, occupying every presidential (candidate’s) office, shutting them down until they start talking real turkey about what’s going on in this country, where the 99 percent of the people who are not benefiting, at the expense of the 1% who are getting away with murder.”

The irony of asking for an expression of the public mood, then threatening to shut down a public forum, is apparently lost on Occupy Iowa.

“It’s ironic that this group would choose to disrupt the most grassroots-oriented process in national politics – the Iowa caucuses,” he said, explaining that that those who volunteer in campaign officers are trying to make a difference in the country’s direction and demonstrating “true grassroots.”

Does the "Occupy" movement really have an agenda and a plan? Or are they just trying to keep the fun going as long as possible, regardless of outcome?

As a moderate with sympathies with their original stated goals (holding people accountable for the market meldown), I am losing patience waiting for an answer.

Turning the tables...

Not exactly funny... but true!

Does the Death Star make economic sense?

I am a Star Wars geek. I know far more trivia about the Original Series, Prequel Series, and Expanded Universe than is healthy for me. And Wardo, CRChair, and Sean can attest that we've had more than our share of conversations about the minutiae of George Lucas's universe. But I am not sure we have ever had a discussion quite on the level of this analysis of the economics of the Death Star (WARNING! There's some salty language in spots) which uses various economic and political theories to analyze whether or not the Emperor's pet project - THE DEATH STAR - really makes sense on a macro-economic scale.

The more you spend on bureaucracy, the less control you have directly over your Empire. The less you spend on bureaucracy, the more you have to tighten your grip, and the more star systems slip through your fingers.

So, the Emperor and Tarkin focus on making one really huge, high-impact investment: The Death Star. They throw in Alderaan as part of that investment. This doomsday weapon will supposedly free up their resources to spend less on administration, personnel and infrastructure, and continue to function without a Senate. It seems like a big investment until you realize how much they save by not actually having a functioning government.

This is an attractive option even today, as politicians look to pay for tax cuts and handouts to core constituencies by laying off or cutting salaries and benefits for bureaucrats and government workers, as well as by skimping on infrastructure.

The problem, of course, is that it doesn’t work. The underpaid, undermotivated, poorly managed stormtroopers can’t even track down the Empire’s most wanted fugitive androids in an extremely sparsely populated area where they have undisputed control. If Tatooine still had meaningful senatorial representation and local government, Luke never would have gotten off the planet.

If you love Star Wars, I must say this article is a must-read piece.

Are we ready for another 1 Party Government?

Back in the days of George H. W. Bush and Clinton, I can remember thinking "If only Congress and the President were from the same political party. So much more would get done!" Unfortunately, I was right. Both under President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, we have seen the presidency and the Congressional majority from the same party. And the results were the same - massive overreaching, no attempt at compromise, and ultimately a painful correction afterwards. Not to mention a clear incentive towards corruption, without any watchdogs around. My opinion has shifted and I believe a divided government - president from one party, congress from another (or split between parties) is the way to provide the best product from a republic like our own.

But some are already speculating that 2012 may see a Republican sweep with a super-majority in the Senate. Count me among those who would see that as a bad thing. Conservatives AND Liberals, Democrats AND Republicans need the loyal opposition to keep them honest and level-headed.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it

Eric Allie political cartoon from Townhall.Com.

Why is the United States so quiet on the Jasmine Revolutions?

Well, the so-called Jasmine Revolutions are still rolling through the Middle East, and are lapping at the shores of Asia. Tunisia and Egypt have thrown off their decades-long dictators, and countries like Bahrain and Libya are struggling to do the same. Even Iran and Yemen are seeing mass demonstrations against tyranny. And yet, the United States has remained relatively silent. We have engaged the conflicts only after the victors are clear or the attacks on demonstrators are so monstrous that they can not be ignored. How is it that the country that regards Freedom and Liberty more highly than any other, has so little to say?

My best guess is that or leaders - primarily President Obama - is thinking one of these thoughts:
1. We're hated in the Middle East, so our support may hurt more than it helps.
2. We've supported too many Middle East Tyrants to credibly support democracy.
3. We can't afford to send money or troops, so we won't support with words.
4. These revolutions have nothing to do with America.

Unfortunately, all of these thoughts are incredibly cynical. Especially when we're lead by a man who campaigned on "Hope" and "Change". Hope and Change are coming to the Middle East. I'd rather we go down in history as standing with them, than standing on the sidelines.

No, Virginia, Mubarak was NOT the worst dictator the USA supports

International politics is always a combination of high ideals, and tough-minded realism. The tough question is always "When is it worth it to work with Evil, in order to server a greater Good?" Hosni Mubarak - the dictator of Egypt - has been one example of America's "tough-minded realism", but there are many worse men who are our friends. The best line from the linked article - that illustrates how much we compromise out values - has got to be this one.

The thing that makes Karimov so special is his penchant for boiling his political opponents to death.

Of course, there is nothing new about this. Iraq's Sadaam Hussein was once our ally as well.

Egypt's Next Choice

Mubarak says "No Mas!"

After a week of non-stop protests across the country, Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, will announce he is not running for another term. A powerful reminder that political change can happen without violent revolt.

President Obama's special envoy delivered a message to embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday about the need to prepare for an "orderly transition" of power in the country, a U.S. official said.

Word of the meeting between retired ambassador Frank Wisner and Mubarak came as Al Arabiya television reported that the longtime autocratic leader would say in a speech that he will step down at the next election but stay in office until then to meet demands of mass protests now rocking the nation.

Tunisia has been transformed. Now, Egypt. We are seeing a transformation of the Middle East. The question is, will it be for the better or for the worse, long-term? I am hopeful. But nervous.

Southern Sudan votes 99.57% for Independence!

It has been a LONG time in coming, but the Sudanese finally got a chance to vote for the independence of Southern Sudan. How sure are they of their desire for separation? They voted 99.57% for independence! And unlike most votes of this magnitude, there are no charges of fraud being bandied about in the international press.

Six of the ten southern states registered a 99.9 percent vote for separation, with the lowest vote in favor of secession came in at 95.5 percent in Western Bahr al-Ghazal state, which borders Darfur. The long-awaited referendum produced an overwhelming turnout of 99 percent among voters in the south, one of the poorest and least developed regions on earth.

In northern Sudan, voter turnout was only 60 percent, and a modest 58 percent of voters – southerners who live in the north – were in favor of the oil-rich south breaking away. Many southerners opted to leave their lives and work in the north to move home ahead of the referendum, and the United Nations says it expects another 100,000 southerners to make the north-south journey within the next month. More than 190,000 southerners have flooded back into the south since early October, though the most recent arrivals were not able to participate in the referendum, since they had not registered to vote in either the north or the south.

Keep in mind (and your prayers) that this does not end the matter. The North still wants large portions of the South, and especially their lucrative oil fields. There are a number of issues to be worked out. But the fact that the vote took place - without violence - is a hopeful sign that peace may finally come to this poor war-town nation.

Tunisia had a revolution! Did you notice?

"Revolution" is a big word for Americans. Our own nation was founded by a Revolution where our founding fathers wrested control from a monarchy to found a Republic. So, whenever another country cries "Revolution", we are usually quick to sit up and take notice. But not so much with Tunisia, the north-easternmost country in Africa and a neighbor to Libya.

On December 17, a 26 year old Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi reached the end of his rope. An unemployed university graduate, Bouazizi had become a seller of fruits and vegetables in the southern Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. When authorities confiscated his wares to punish him for selling without a license, Bouazizi set himself on fire...Bouazizi’s suicide struck a chord with other frustrated Tunisians. Thousands took to the streets in Sidi Bouzid to protest widespread unemployment, government corruption and lack of opportunity. Another frustrated youth in Sidi Bouzid, Lahseen Naji, killed himself by climbing an electricity pylon while crying out “No for misery, no for unemployment!” before grasping the high voltage line. The Tunisian government responded by sending baton and teargas-wielding reinforcements to the city and by promising future economic development projects...The director of Mr. Ben Ali's presidential security force was arrested in the afternoon, and after nightfall army special forces battled armed units loyal to the former president that had holed themselves up in the presidential palace on the outskirts of Tunisia...Tunisia's caretaker prime minister said a new coalition government would be announced Monday that includes members of the country's opposition and some leaders, like himself, from the previous regime—a move that could fill the country's power vacuum and help stabilize the tense North African country.

But America has barely been paying attention, distracted by the shooting in Tucson and the NFL playoffs. Now is the time to catch up with your knowledge of Tunisia as this revolution is expected to have international repercussions, and may trigger other revolutions across Africa.