When people tell me they don’t vote for the party, they vote for the man, I experience the same queasy sensation as when I used to suffer from acid-reflux.
Mainly because President Bush and his Republican cohorts are so wishy-washy when it comes to the plague of illegal aliens, I am hearing from a lot of disgruntled conservatives who are threatening to vote for Democrats in November.
I suspect that not too many of them will actually carry out their threat to cut off their nose to spite their face. But I do believe that if the Republican congressmen and senators continue to play follow-the-leader with the lemming who presently occupies the White House, come November, conservative voters will stay home in droves.
As foolish and as gutless as I consider the Republicans to be on this hot button issue, I will not throw away my vote by pretending that there isn’t a scintilla of difference between the two parties. That is why I have never understood people who proudly announced they were Independents, just as I can’t imagine why anyone elects to go through life voting for Libertarians or Green Party candidates. Why not just hang a sign around your neck declaring yourself to be totally inconsequential?
These folks claim they’re sending a message, but when, in election after election, your candidates are lucky if they garner one percent of the vote, what message do you imagine you’re sending? The one that’s coming through is that whereas the symbols of the two major parties are the donkey and the elephant, yours might as well be the flea.
I realize that those who wish to identify with a third party regard themselves as extremely sophisticated, unwilling to align themselves with parties they regard as the political equivalents of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In my opinion, they’re not sophisticated, merely frustrated. They dislike the compromises, the lobbying, and the trade-offs, that go with politics in America. While I don’t entirely blame them, I do regard them as hopelessly naïve.
The fact of the matter is that although every Republican is not a true blue conservative, and every Democrat isn’t a knee-jerk liberal, there remains a world of difference between the two groups.
Republicans believe in lower taxes because they have enough sense to recognize that the economy flourishes and jobs are created when businesses don’t see their profits sucked off by the bureaucrats in Washington. Democrats want taxes increased because it’s mother’s milk to them. By controlling the money supply, they are able to conduct social engineering on a massive scale.
Republicans believe in a strong military, whereas Democrats place their faith in the U.N.
Republicans believe in legal gun ownership, capital punishment, the three-strikes law, mandatory life sentences for child molesters, English as an official language, and a wall between us and Mexico. Democrats believe there’s no difference between your owning a gun and a gang member’s owning one. They oppose capital punishment, but are in favor of bi-lingual education, open borders, and ballots printed in a hundred different languages.
Republicans believe in private property, while Democrats believe municipalities have every right to take away your house and business, and hand them over to some other guy so long as he promises to increase the tax base by building a mini-mall on the site you once called home.
Republicans believe we are at war with Islamic fascists. Democrats believe there’s a lot to be said for the other side.
Republicans think this is the greatest country on the face of the earth. Democrats think that honor belongs to France.
Republicans think Ronald Reagan was a great president. Democrats think Carter and Clinton were. They also have good things to say about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. There just seems to be something about the letter “C” that strikes a chord with them.
Having said all that, I must admit that I dislike Independents more than I do Democrats because at least I know where liberals stand. But when people tell me they don’t vote for the party, they vote for the man, I experience the same queasy sensation as when I used to suffer from acid-reflux.
To me, it’s the height of arrogance for any of us to claim to know the man or woman based on what we get from TV. If you actually think you know George W. Bush or John McCain or Hillary Clinton, you’re fooling yourself. Every high-profile politician has been manufactured and sold through pretty much the same process that Madison Avenue employs to peddle a bar of soap or a bottle of beer.
Back in the days when Hollywood moguls ran the studios, they used to create stars in the same manner. If women looked and sounded a certain way, they would be typecast as wives and mothers, while others would enjoy careers as hookers, molls, and home-wreckers. What they were like in real life never entered into the equation. The same, of course, held true for the male leads. Sissies were often cast as tough guys, while heels were cast as heroes.
I vote the straight Republican ticket, not because I think the GOP is filled with great statesmen, but because, when all is said and done, I never want Democrats in a position to appoint federal judges. That’s the legacy that lingers long after the scoundrels have retired or gone on to that big pork barrel in the sky.
The way I see it, one Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lifetime is one too many!
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
Liberals are nothing more than the party of death, sodomy, and surrender. Still, with the exception of The War on Terror, Ronald Regan, some 30 years ago, would have made "W" look like all the other country-club republicans of that time who tried to swap spit with the democrats of that day. Bush republicans always think "bi-partisanship", that infernal syncretic spirit, will happen if only they bat their eye lashes at the liberals and cut the difference. No deals with the devil. Ever. Social conservatives have no other place to go. When will America elect an Alan Keyes/Howard Philipps ticket? Sadly, I already know the answer…
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 5, 2006
Burt's rant is an exercise in hyperbole, not logic, and as such we can afford to grant it some rhetorical leeway. However, there is one important point that deserves correction. Burt's dismissal of the independent voter is fundamentally at odds with the thinking of the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution. The Federalist Papers (as well as the other commentary from that time) hammer away at the point that the best protection against tyranny is a highly fragmented body politic. They saw safety in a broad diversity of interests pushing and pulling in many different directions. Such an arrangement, they reasoned, would insure that only those ideas enjoying broad support would be enacted into law. They were confident that nobody would be able to abuse power if it were decentralized among many different interest groups.
The argument Burt presents is directly opposed to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Burt seeks power, not right; a tyrany of his own, rather than a genuine, healthy democracy. Let us hope that tyrants like Burt Prelutsky are ignored by the wiser members of the electorate.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 5, 2006
It is people like you who are driving (conservative) voters away from the polls
in droves. There is an alternative to the Republicrats and Democans, the
Constitution party. If all the people who could have voted but didn't in 2004 had
voted for Michael Peroutka, like I did, he would be president today instead of the
Fascist that we have in the White House now. There is an alternative to the
Republican Party for conservatives. I can only think of two Republicans that
I would vote for for president, Ron Paul of Texas and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Non of the rest of them qualify to use the title "Conservative." Neoconservative
is just another word for fascist. What we need are true conservatives.
Will Mattison
Comment by Will Mattison | July 5, 2006
I do believe the writer is unfair to those of us who
are unwilling to give up our capacity for independent
thought to the party line. I vote for Republicans more
often than I do Democrats because very few Democrats
strike me as being people of conscience, or indeed, as
being supportive of this country's survival. But I would
vote for Zell Miller before I would vote for John
McCain, who is a Republican in name only. McCain's
campaign finance bill is a good example of why I
reserve my right to judge candidates on a case-by-
case basis, as McCain and the bill's other proponents
encouraged its passing, but would never explain
exactly what the bloody thing did. It must also be
remembered that a party can always be hijacked by
a charismatic leader who could lead the party down
a road that it would otherwise not follow. The National
Socialist party, for example, was relatively benign until
it fell under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. I will not
give my allegiance blindly to any party I myself do not
lead. I do agree, however, that Democrats are not
fit to pick federal judges, and that one Ruth
Ginsberg in one lifetime is more than enough.
Comment by Lane Russell | July 5, 2006
Sigh…I dislike this contemporary climate of polarization between our nation's two largest parties. The Democratic party is not the party of death, sodomy, and surrender, and nor is the Republican party the party of fascism, theocracy, and war, though there are grains of truth in every slander. But mudslinging won't do anything to explain the underpinnings of each side's respective views, only continue to agitate and to polarize the masses. I think one of the primary mistakes of this article is depicting a black/white world in terms of these parties. Both parties are not full of extremists, though many individuals get a spot in the limelight for the extremity of their views. Neither are individuals necessarily the best representatives of the groups they subscribe to. Nor will every elected representative follow the exact tenents of their party. Compare Anchorman John Stossel (votes Republican) to Congressman Rick Sanatorium (opps mispell :-) ). Big difference. One (RS) uses his political seat to publically lambast the use of contraception as degrading to women, while the other (J.S.) believes in the legalization of drug use and prostitution. As I said, big difference.
As for my voting habits, if a man or woman's stance on the issues is clear, so is my vote. I will choose the individual whose policies most closely match my political philosophy. No pretty packing tape could change that. I know my values; their party is of secondary importance.
As for my political party, I am and will continue to remain a proud Libertarian because they have the philosophy which most closely matches my political views. As a member of the flea party :-), I will proudly root for my underdog wherever possible and contribute to the democratic process, however slightly, while fully understanding the trade-offs of my vote. It's not just about who wins, but it does means a great deal to me that in this free country, I can vote for who I feel is the best candidate, and that I am not limited to the snide extremes of either major party, regardless of the outcome. I am willing to give up the power of the collective vote in order to make that choice. Naive or arrogant? Not really. I understand the individual power of voters and also when it is appropriate to help to engineer a quantitative outcome. In big elections, for example, when I Really don't want someone to win (let me think….em…Hillary?), I'll occasionally make a go for the popular candidate whose views are most consistent with my own. But I never forget my Libertarian roots. Feeling queasy yet? :-)
Comment by Melissa Hardison | July 5, 2006
Melissa: hear, hear! I don't agree with everything you say but I greatly prefer your approach.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 5, 2006
Although I despise everything about Europe, I think that we need to follow their Government in one aspect. We need more than two parties. We need the Republican party to be the moderate party it is today and the Democrats to become a moderate left-wing party. Then we need one or two right wing parties with one or two left wing parties. Any ideas on how we could do this?
Comment by Josh Satterfield | July 5, 2006
In response to Will Mattison's comment:
Neo-con is another word for fascist? While I am a true conservative, a Jeffersonian I like to think, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you never took a history class. Study the Nazis and Japanese during WWII and then please tell me what part of the neo-con movement is the same as fascists.
Comment by Josh Satterfield | July 5, 2006
Israel has more than two parties.
As do a number of Latin American
Narco Sta…er democrac…er governments.
I think we have a de facto third party right now. It consists
of the millions of disaffeted and angry American citizens.
Certainly the cultural conservatives are coming to
the realization that they've been punked by various Republicans
for over 30 years now.
The same 30 years during which they have racked up loss after
loss in the culture war they claim to be waging against the left.
They are part of that dissatsified group.
The 44% of Republicans who voted against Cannon/Bush last
week represent a significant number of Americans vehemently
opposed to Bush's open borders/free trade policies.
They too are part of that group.
There are the unions, the ethnocentric block, the sexual preference
block, various victims and special interest groups capable of
coagulating into some sort of hellish cannibal party as well.
They are a group in and of themselves. No sane person wants them
around.
Also, Americans being Americans, it is reasonable to assume
there are a number of sane Democrats unhappy with their own
standard bearers as well as the Republicans they currently
bristle under.
They too are a part of the group.
There are enough unhappy citizens to shake things up.
The question is who will be the beneficiary of all that discontent,
and will that individual break away from the beltway courtesans.
If the individual breaks and wins, then you've got a viable third party.
Perot was the only third party guy to pose a significant threat.
before he self destructed that is.
As for just starting up a third party like Micky Rooney and
Jusy Garland just puttin on a show?
Got me buddy.
Comment by David Tatosian | July 5, 2006
Everyone has a belief system that guides their political tastes. What often calls itself "libertine" or "rational" is just thinly veiled secular humanism, a "religion" that even The Supreme Court has identified as such and the inimitable pheonom , Madame Ann Coulter documents so well in her most recent, #1 best-seller, tour-de-force. "GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism". I hear youthful exuberance in Ms. Hardison's post. Yet today's nihilistic narcissism often becomes tomorrow's cynical hopelessness. A word of caution to the wise. Yea, if they had ears to listen…
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 6, 2006
J. Muscoreil, I realize that I am committing felony topic drift here, but I find your equation rationalism = secular humanism = religion unbelievable. We can skip the secular humanism part and end up with rationalism = religion. That's the equation I object to. Since when is rationalism a religion?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 6, 2006
(In case of confusion, I consider 'independents' anyone not affiliated with the republican or democratic parties.)
"Why not just hang a sign around your neck declaring yourself to be totally inconsequential?"
And the author can hang a sign around his neck declaring "Tell me anything (and I'll still vote for you)"
I'm registered Independent, but I tend to lean toward conservative republicans. However, as much as I may agree with what the party stands for (the party platform), I too can get awfully tired of republicans not always standing up for that platform. Illegal immigration and the border fence come to mind. As a group, they also tend to forget why the hell they were elected because they are so busy trying to make the democrats "like" them. Compromise is a wonderful thing, when necessary. It isn't the ONLY thing. Democrats seem to understand that, I don't know why republicans don't.
Yes, there is the "I know the truth and you're just stupid sheep!" people in the independents' camps who look down their noses at the rest of us, but if you look you'll see that there are those same kinds of people in the major parties too.
I think the reason that independent candidates don't get serious consideration is because of lack of media exposure. Ralph Nader got some exposure, so some people knew who he was. Ross Perot got LOTS of media attention when he ran and that translated into votes.
Will I vote for an independent next election? I don't know, but I will certainly examine those candidates and see what they stand for. I'll just have to weed out the communists/socialists/weirdos folks. Will I be throwing away my vote? I look at it as exercising my independence.
Comment by Ron S. | July 6, 2006
It makes no sense for a mouse, cornered, with young to protect, to show it's teeth to the lion. Why not run away? Philosophically, Rationalism, proper, has it's 19th century fathers, it's worldview, and it's adherents. Fathers, presuppositions, and believers=religion. When one looks at "Rationalism", one sees what today is called secular humanism. If one is just honestly trying to pursue truth, one has to allow for the existence of forces, powers, principalities, and designers not readily apparent thru the senses, but using reason what clearly discerns. Aquinas, Pasteur, and Pascal all give reasonable proof to an existence of an independent mind harmonizing perefectly creation. Call Him what you will. Aristotle and Plato, using reason alone, argued for the existence of a single God or Super-God controlling everything else. Reason is a friend of religion, but Faith is a gift. I pray you receive it soon. Pax Christe.
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 6, 2006
Well, J. Muscoreil, your arguments strike me as faith-based, not rational. I have yet to see a rational proof of the existence of any supernatural being. You are talking about Rationalism as a philosophical school, but the concept of relying on reason long predates that — and I treat rationalism as a reliance on reason, not faith. Hence, in my thinking, rationalism is antithetical to faith. Best wishes.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 6, 2006
I think the writer confuses the issue. Its the politicians who work for us, not the other way around. Its bad enough the politicians have forgotten that and turned the average american into a slave for one group of victims or another but I am leaving the Repugs for the Constitution party. Bush, Spectar, McCain and the rest of those rinos have turned me off. If it takes a removal from office to teach those idiots who ran both major branches of government a lesson. Then so be it. They will not learn a thing about conservative ideals by threatening us with: "oh it will be so much worse with the dems in office." That may be but at least those Rinos will be gone. Vote for the third party and teach both major parties a lesson.
If the nitwit author feels that even with having both branches of lawmaking Repugs are only capable of stemming the tide of creeping liberalism then it doesn't make any difference. The only way those fools in office will learn is for them to lose their jobs the next two elections and for the Repugs to rethink their strategies. I am going for the third way, its too late for those idiots in office now anyways.
Comment by Dean | July 6, 2006
We will leave theology to the Saints, but one more try. You can not see gravity, radiation, or various microbes that affect the air, but I know you believe in them. You believe without seeing. You believe others who tell you and you are able to reason, or discern, the effects of same in the world. Seems to me you are showing faith in saints, er, rather, experts, who explain things to you and you believe. Secular Humanism has it's "saints", the culture calls them "experts". Another attempt. Take off your watch. Disassemble the band from the face of the watch. Put the watch-face and the band in an empty shoe box. Cover the shoe box with a lid. Keep shaking the shoe box till an "evolution", "a big bang", or "natural selection" kicks in and your watch, in only two pieces, "randomly" reassembles itself. Post again when this atheistic miracle happens. After 20 or 30 years you might allow reason to overcome your pride and admit if it takes so long for order to be brought to this watch, how much more control, design, will, and power it must take to create, install, and maintain order in life cycle of a bumble-bee, to say nothing of the universe…
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 7, 2006
J. Muscoreil, there's a huge difference between accepting experimental results and religious faith: I can check out the former, you choose to accept the latter. That is, if any scientist reports something that I find hard to swallow, I can go into the lab and repeat his experiment and find out for myself. In fact, lots of scientific results are double-checked and triple-checked by other scientists. Thus, scientific results can be checked against reality; religious results cannot. I do not say this to denigrate your faith, but to deny your claim that your faith is no different than my reason.
As to your watch example, it contains its own disproof. You suggest that after 20 or 30 years I might grow tired of the experiment. Indeed I would. But life didn't evolve in 20 or 30 years — it took several billion years. And it didn't take just one fool with a box of parts — it took place all over the planet with trillions of tiny efforts taking place over billions of years.
If I may, I'd like to expand on this point. Often opponents of evolution claim that life is so intricate, so special, that it is extremely unlikely to have evolved by chance. And they are right — in the microscopic scale. If you toss a bunch of molecules into a cardboard box and shake it, the odds that you will get life appearing within a year would be trillions to one. But if you get trillions of boxes and try trillions of times with each box, the numbers change and life becomes not just possible but almost a certainty.
The common problem here is the failure of the human imagination to understand huge numbers. The number of molecules in a mole is 10**23. Nobody can imagine a number that large — it's so utterly beyond our experience that we cannot fathom its magnitude. The only way we can deal with phenomena involving such huge numbers is to rely on mathematics. And the mathematics of evolution is quite clear: the formation of life on this planet was not a fluke, it was a near certainty.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 7, 2006
Josh Satterfield
Again, NEO-conservative is another word for Fascist. I see parallels in history between the neocons and the fascists of an earlier generation. Virtually the first thing that fascists did is build a strong military. If that doesn't sound like GW, I missed something. The second thing they do was invade other countries. If that doesn't sound like GW (and his father), I missed something. Then they amassed greater police powers. If that doesn't sound like GW, I missed something. While the neocons haven't called for the confiscations of all weapons like the fascists of the middle twentieth century did, I say just give them a little time. Hitler and Musillini didn't rise to their full power in five years. I am not a NEOcon, I am a true conserative and I cringe every time I hear GW calling for more power. Where are we headed?
Will Mattison
Comment by Will Mattison | July 7, 2006
The theory of evolution depends on random mutation of desirable attributes and the natural selection leading to the creation of entirely new species. There's nothing repeatable to test with regards to your scientific method. Never in the 150 years of Evolution drivel has there ever been any proof. Darwin believed in God. You could believe in evolution and still believe in God. You would see God as the "prime mover". The first law of science is there must be a force acting on another for it to move. Evolution is the lynchpin of atheists argument. Reason suggests then if there are laws and order in nature among inanimate or lower life forms, what are the laws and order for men. Non Serviam is the same disobedience and the incessant lies since that first defection has been the bane of us all ever since. Simply, show me how the amoeba happens among the inanimate and how it somehow mutated into a whale, an elephant, a dinosaur, the recently discovered life form at the bottom of the ocean, and the creature yet to be discovered on a mountain we've never been. You want me to except your imagined fantasy of millions of years and yet you trivialize a Faith that has given you what no other one has in any 2000 year perion in recorded history. Have a nice day.:)
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 7, 2006
You are mixing theory with observation. Yes, you can prove an observation by experiment. No, you cannot prove a theory. Never in history has any scientific theory been proven. I do not rely upon proof to accept a theory — I rely instead upon the preponderance of evidence. If you look at the same preponderance of evidence and conclude otherwise, that's your business. Science does not demand that anybody believe it or accept it on faith. If you care to learn how evolution works, I will be happy to teach you, and there are many books that will teach you. If you have already made up your mind about it before learning about it, then that's fine with me, too. I don't expect every person I meet to understand how to write a program in Java, how galaxies rotate, how the Federal Reserve Bank controls interest rates — OR how evolution works.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 7, 2006
I think the primary idea that Mr.Prelutsky was focused on was simply seeing things as they are and dealing with them accordingly. Prelutsky was in no way advocating lockstep allegiance to a political party's beliefs whatever that means. A political party is composed of individuals and individuals will vary in their conclusions about any and all issues. His point was that 1) There is a difference between the two parties even if it becomes blurred in some areas and that 2) There are only two parties and will only be two for the foreseeable future. If you wishto remain relevent, particularly in the arena of national politics, you must vote for one or the other and convince as many people as you can to vote that way. As Michael Medved has pointed out time and again, one must inject oneself into one of the two parties of consequence and attempt to change that party in a way that the individual believes proper. I will never vote for a Democrat for national or state office because I know the primary philosophy that guides the forces in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party seems to understand this reality far more clearly than conservatives, libertarians or independents. This is not doubt rooted in our basic desire to be seen as individuals and not just lockstep robots taking orders. The basic fact remains in todays reality that a vote for a 3rd party is essentially a wasted vote. You may as well have not voted at all, for you will neither effect the outcome of the election or the direction the party chooses to take in the future.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 8, 2006
BTW Will, your rant reminds me of some moonbat peace rally with brightly colored signs splashed in fake blood for some reason. You need to go a little deeper in your analysis perhaps and focus on more specific details of your theory that Neoconservatives are fascists. The whole "Neocons build up the military and that is what fascists do" argument is a little lame. The "fascists invade other countries and that is what President Bush and his neocons have done" argument falls a little short as well. Either of those two examples could be cited in numerous historical examples as being applicable to nations nobody would cite as fascist. For example, The U.S both build up its military and invaded countries in WWII. Ditto for Great Britain. Fascism is generally considered a political philosophy where the glorification of the state is held above the sovereignty of the individual. Building up the military and invading other countries can take place for reasons directly opposed to the above philosophy.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 8, 2006
Robert, I'd like to comment on your observation that "The basic fact remains in todays reality that a vote for a 3rd party is essentially a wasted vote." What, precisely, do you mean by a "wasted vote"? Let's apply some logic to this issue:
Think of the problem in terms of you as "the last voter". In other words, consider your own vote in terms of all the other votes that have been cast. What is the probability that your vote will have any effect on the outcome? It will only affect the outcome of the election if the election would be a tie without your vote. To put it another way, if the total vote count is, say, 2,345,678 votes for Candidate A and 2,356,987 votes for Candidate B, then your vote is wasted, because it does not change the outcome. But the conditions under which a single vote can affect the outcome are exceedingly rare. The probability that your vote will affect the outcome is inversely proportional to the size of the overall vote count. Thus, it is possible that your vote might affect the election for county supervisor, but almost impossible that your vote might affect the outcome of the election for President.
Now let's turn to information theory, and think of elections, not in terms of simply who wins or loses (in which case there's simply no point in voting), but in terms of elections as means for the electorate to communicate its views to the politicians. In this case, every vote is a single chunk of information that communicates something to the politicians. But if we use information theory to measure the information content of that vote, we end up with a surprising result: since a vote for a mainstream party is expected, it communicates little information, while a vote for a third party, because it is unexpected, communicates more information than a vote for a mainstream party. Thus, in terms of "sending a message" to the politicians, you accomplish more by voting for a third party than by voting for a mainstream party — exactly the opposite of your claim! Surprising, no?
Lastly, I'd like to repeat my earlier point that the whole idea of voting along party lines is inimical to the concept of the republic of many interests that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 8, 2006
I'd like to add another point to this discussion: I just realized that the Founding Fathers had (unconsciously, I'm sure) hit upon the most information-rich concept when they thought in terms of a multitude of parties. That is, each person's vote is maximized in information content when there are a large number of political parties from which to choose. The absolute worst case, in terms of information content, is the two-party system. That robs voters of the ability to express their political views clearly.
This is the huge advantage that parliamentary democracies have over our own.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 8, 2006
There is no difference in your logic and that of the bro down in the hood when
he votes for the Dem's.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | July 8, 2006
Ivan, I didn't realize that the bro down in the hood was so well-versed in information theory! Or were you referring to the Founding Fathers?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 8, 2006
Although it is no longer the case, I was involved in partisan politics for many years & still
consider myself a political & public-policy junkie, GOP-style, of course. So I understand
fully the inherent value of a two-party system in that context. One only need watch C-SPAN
when it airs parliamentary proceedings from other countries to have this understanding
underscored. I mean, fisticuffs on the floor of the chamber in Taiwan or the unwashed, back-bench, ultra-
religious rabbi from the splinter party in the Israeli Knesset sitting with his arms defiantly
folded waiting for plurality-holding members of larger parties to kiss his unshined shoes
to get his issue-deciding vote. Sure, there are flaws in any system, but you can revise Churchill's
old saw, "Democracy is a terrible form of government; all the rest are much worse," by substituting
"Democracy" with "A True Two-Party System …" If someone, albeit it a RINO, says he or she is a
Republican, then I'll take them on their word, rather than vote for a like creature who declares
himself a Democrat. Finally, dovetailing on Burt Prelutsky's Bader Ginsburg tagline, just consider
the Supreme Court, the enter federal judicary from top-to-bottom & all of the Cabinet & subcabinet-
level appointments a president (or any governmental chief executive) makes, and ask yourself
which party warrants the voters' anointing. If you think that homesexual, pro-abortion, union-boss,
tax-and-spend & race-hustling lobbies should do your bidding, then by all means vote
Democrat. — Phil Ross, Denver
Comment by Phil Ross | July 8, 2006
An oh-and-I-forgot postscript from my just-previous posted comment: I failed to mention
the anti-American, pro-U.N., pro-gun control, pro-drug & pro-illegal immigration lobbies, among
others, that also hold sway when leaders whose names begin with "C" take power. I'm frightened
that, starting with the '06 Congressional elections & the '08 presidential derby, if the Dems
get back in power because of inherent ignorance of far too many Americans, our country will
seroiusly be in literal danger unlike anything we've ever seen — and I don't just mean
morally. — Phil Ross
Comment by Phil Ross | July 8, 2006
Inherent Ignorance? Are you joking?
What in the world do you suppose the liberal/democrat cult could
inflict on the American people that the Republicans haven't already?
The useless, gargantuan dept of homeland security?
Could they possibly try to force an insane and destructive
path-to-citizenship/worker program/ amnesty down our throats?
Perhaps one of those leaders whose name begins with a "C" might
try to radically alter our future (without our knowledge or consent)
through the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.
Would a democratic majority also exhibit dutiful obeisance
in the face of a President who regularly employs "signing statements"
that grant him de facto lawmaking powers not found in the constitution?
Nonsense.
Our country is already in literal danger unlike anything we've seen.
pro-un? so what? how does the blustering of bolton facilitate the
removal of the un from our soil or significantly curtail our lion's
share of funding? You will note that the plan for the United States
to finance the remodeling of un headquaters, at exceedingly low interest
rates, has not been scrapped.
Pro-guncontrol? The NRA endorsed Cannon. How does some Republican
who supports the second amendment stop the flood of illegal aliens
swarming across the border?
Pro-drug and pro- illegal immigration?
Well, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that to be
pro-illegal alien is to be pro-drug.
That being the case, here's two words: John freakin McCain.
The only inherent ignorance at play here is the reflexive and
hysterical fealty rendered by loyal party members
Sorry, but at this point in our history, said fealty is anathema
to reasoned discourse.
Also, the degree to which a loyal party member swallows whole
the party line is the exact degree to which they deny reality
and abandon their fellow citizens to their fates.
Look around.
Comment by David Tatosian | July 8, 2006
Chris, being a responsible voter means understanding your role as a citizen is to both go down to the ballot box on election day and vote and also to convince as many people as you can to organize around a candidate or group of candidates who support principals that you generally agree with. If all I do as a voter is go and cast a ballot on election day you would be correct Chris. This however is not my approach to my duty as a citizen/voter.
I organize and I debate with others the virtues of ideas and try to convince them that they need to support a specific candidate of one of the two major parties who has a chance of winning a subsequently a chance of enacting policy. Tell me this, what ideas regarding policy of the Reform Party where enacted in 1993 when Bill Clinton was sworn into office? According to your theory of politics, the voters who voted for Ross Perot must have communicated their concerns during the election process and consequently Clinton responded right? What was it he responed with, refusing to endorse NAFTA perhaps? Or maybe Clinton decided to try to reing in government spending based on the concerns of all of those Perot voters? Negative my friend. NAFTA was signed and government spending increased. So there you have both wasted votes and wasted energy. It would have been far better for Perot voters to get involved in changing the direction of either of the two parties that best suited their fancy not tossing their vote down the toilet in an effort to distinguish themselves from both of the establishment parties. But perhaps you can cite examples from some 3rd Party where their cause was actually advanced by throwing away their vote. Green Party? Constitution Party? Peace and Freedom Party. Natural Law Party?
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 9, 2006
The good quote for your faith in information theory as it applies to voting might fall somewhere in Ronaldus Magnuss' thoughts about economists ,
"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory". You are sure that in theory your approach works but in practice you see no tangible results for it.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 9, 2006
Robert, you assert that third-party votes have absolutely zero effect on political behavior. I disagree. Politicians adjust their positions in anticipation of challenges from the right or left. You demand examples at the Presidential level, but that's the level at which everything gets averaged out and it is impossible to discern small effects. What about the Congressional level? Are you quite certain that zero Senators or Representatives take notice of the votes that go to third party candidates and adjust their behavior accordingly? I would think that a politician who closes his eyes to votes is a politician with a bleak future. You're thinking in black and white terms of winning and losing elections; I'm thinking in terms of shades of gray as politicians tweak their positions in response to political conditions.
Perhaps the best argument against your position is your own comparison of information theory with economics. You dismiss economics as useless theory. Would you rather have truck drivers running the Federal Reserve?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 9, 2006
All this courtesy Ann Coulter's chapter on evolution. Darwin knew nothing of the cell or DNA. Bill Gates has said a single cell id more sophisticated than the latest super computer. Please google Michael Behe , Lehigh University Biochemist, and his Book, "Darwin's Black Box". Explain the eye. A single cell has can have up to 200 complex proteins that have to act in unison or the organism dies. Behe states, "That life at the molecular level is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design." Explain the evolution of the eye. When did this amoeba evolves from a amoeba-tick-horse-eagle-dinosaur-whale-ape-man decide it needed to see. How come we don't find creatures with no eyes or eyes-in-the-making? Google Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, awarded the highest doctorate (Sc.D) ever given a scientist. Maybe he could teach you something. The above scientists ran the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. Crawford, pick up a crayon. Write 1. Now write 40,000 zeroes. That's the mathematical probabilty of evolution happening the way you believe. Google Francis Crick and David Raup. Maybe they can teach you something. Maybe true scholarship isn't your thing. After all, you might be wrong. Your not much of a teacher. Screaming into a cavernous crypt of emptiness and waiting for the echo your very good at. Good day.
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 10, 2006
I have read Dr. Behe's book and I found it fraught with error. His reasoning is sloppy and he distorts the data.
The evolution of the eye has already been explained in many places. I'd suggest "Climbing Mount Improbable" as the best of the nontechnical books on the subject.
You are incorrect in stating that we don't find creatures with varying degrees of eyesight. They're all around us. There are fish with simple light detectors lacking optical imaging systems. There are insects with simple compound eyes with resolution of just a few hundred pixels. There are plenty of animals that detect only a limted range of wavelengths. The entire range of possible eye configurations exists among the creatures of this planet.
You describe a calculation that results in an extremely low probability. I have seen what I believe to be the calculation you describe, and it is flawed. The authors calculated the probability of single pathway, not the range of pathways available to evolution. To use a simple analogy, they showed that there is only one change in 36 of rolling two dice and having the first die come up with a six and the second die come up with a one. This is true — but there are 6 chances in 36 that you'll roll a 7. For the purposes we're discussing, it's rolling a 7 that matters, not rolling a six on the first die and a one on the second die.
There's an excellent book on the dynamics of protein systems: Investigations, by Kaufmann. It's dense reading, but well worth it — the explanation of how reaction cycles of proteins could develop is one of the most stunning ideas I have encountered in a long time.
When you analyze life from a thermodynamic perspective, you find that the amount of negentropy input into the earth by the sun is at least millions of times greater than the net negentropy of the biosphere. With all that negentropy flooding all over the earth, it's difficult to imagine how life could NOT have arisen.
Lastly, your tone has taken an ugly turn; you're starting to use insulting phrasing. I have no desire to argue with you; if you have no desire to discuss this amicably, perhaps we should terminate this interlocution before it becomes unpleasant.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 10, 2006
The eye is an easy one to explain. Blind humans sometimes develop light sensitive cells on their faces, did any of you know that? In a similar way early fish developed light sensitive cells on the surface of their skin. They could tell night from day and sense objects passing in front of them, a definite competitive advantage in evolutionary terms. Gradual mutations occurred that made the patch of skin with the light sensitive cells become concave, thereby enhancing the ability of the fish to determine the direction of the light hitting it. Later still skin forms over the increasingly concave hollow, which with enough time becomes transparent and forms a lens. Much later still the concave hollow becomes autonomous and muscles develop around the outside to control which direction it is pointing in. Before you know it, abracadabra, you have any eye.
Conservatives, read some books!
Comment by Max Godwin | July 11, 2006
The tone you percieve may be my frustration at the sheer hypocrisy of your arguments. You go chasing after your own opinions. Darwiniacs always have to have a new theory ready because, if anyone really tests the hypothesis-du-jour, the evidence of the imaginings of the Godless are dwarfed even by the sole amoeba they so much adore. Where are nature's mistakes? If things are happening randomly shouldn't there be millions more mistakes or partial mistakes in the fossil record? The facts are before the Cambrian explosion the only fossils that are found are those of sponges and worms. During the Cambrian explosion, animal life is found where there had been none. No evolutionary evidence of sponges turning into reptiles. Using your own convoluted thinking, why are there no fossil records of the millions of the-not-so-fits that nature discarded. The truth is there are no transitional species. No animals until the Cambrian period. Darwin's finches are the same way he found them on the Galapagos. They were the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why hasn't any species evolved so it could adapt to the menacing humans that dominate the earth? Imagine if the whale walked, the tortoise tallked, the American Eagle learning the way of the Ninja, or a grizzly mastering a grenade launcher? If evolution is random everyone has a shot. Why is the earthworm still the same. Perhaps it's evolved into a masachist similar to liberals who run for national office. Reader, Chris Crawford knows about the frauds in the peppered moth experiments, Eugenecist Haeckel's embryos, the Miller-Urey experiments, the radiocarbon dating chicanery, and the myth of computer simulations showing the evolution of the eye. Chris Crawford knows that evolution states we get the whale when a bear fell in the sea and the bat when a squirrel fell out of a tree. Chris Crawford knows that the Scientific American in December, 2005, apologized for accepting fairy tale of evolution. Chris Crawford knows that scientists have never once evolved even the tiniest change in the smallest organism despite having every genius and billions of dollars at their disposal. Chris Crawford knows atheistic scientists Gould and Eldredge's work on "punctuated equilibrium" totally destroying chance and infallibly showing design. An atheist with a passion for truth and scholarship instead of blindly following the blathers of those whose only refute is "You believe in God! How could you be right about anything?!"
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 11, 2006
Chris C, the genius who believes the government's own studies are non biased and serve a better good. Chris you come across as either a college sophomore, or one who has never lived in the real world, ie. a college professor/pseudo intellectual. Which is it?
Comment by Dean | July 11, 2006
First, I implore both J. Muscoreil and Dean not to soil this discussion with personal invective. Please do not accuse me of hypocrisy, call me a "Darwiniac", accuse me of adoring an amoeba. Please do not declare that I know my assertions to be false. Please do not call me a sophomore or a pseudo intellectual. Please, let's just discuss the issues, without getting personal, OK?
As to the issues: J. Muscoreil, you scatter an avalanche of declarations, all of which are distorted, misleading, or just plain wrong. For example, you ask, "where are nature's mistakes?" The minor mistakes are in your own body. Ever gotten hemmorhoids? They happen in humans because we stand up, and the sphincter muscles around the anus were not designed to handle the increased pressure from an upright stance. Unless, of course, you'd prefer to thank God for hemmorhoids… ;-)
Nature's major mistakes are extinct. Yes, we have have mountains of evidence for extinct species. Unless you reject the existence of dinosaurs, you have in them a huge array of species that don't exist now. They were one of nature's mistakes (although, in strict terms, "mistake" is the wrong word to use. Species evolve to maximize their position in their ecosystem. That's not a mistake. But the ecosystem can change, and the species is no longer adapted to fit in that ecosystem, and it goes extinct.)
You declare that there are no transitional species, but there are literally tons of bones showing the steady transition from one species to another. The evolution of equus in North America is a particularly compelling example.
You assert that there has been fraud. Yes, there has been some fraud — you fail to mention the most egregious example, Piltdown Man. But Piltdown Man was, we suspect, more of a practical joke that went wrong than a deliberate attempt to alter scientific opinion. (Editor's Note: On interesting published theory suggested that the hoax was perpetrated by Arthur Conan Doyle; yes, that Arthur Conan Doyle for precisely that reason.)
And the other cases you cite were more a matter of poor interpretation than deliberate deception. The Miller-Urey experiment was most definitely NOT a fraud. It was an important experiment that established a basic principle.
You ask why no species has evolved to adapt to humans. Just go to the Serengeti for your proof. The herbivores of the Serengeti fear humans and avoid them. The herbivores of North America had no such evolved fear of humans and so were mostly wiped out by the first humans to reach North America.
You refer to "the carbon dating chicanery". I suspect that you misunderstand the events. There were some problems calibrating the carbon dating system, and a big surprise came when they were able to provide an independent calibration of the carbon dating system using a tree in the White Mountains of eastern California. That triggered a major re-evaluation of the dating system, which is now more solidly established. There was never any chicanery.
I'd love to see the actual quote in which Scientific American apologized for accepting the fairy tale of evolution. In the absence of that quote, I am leery of accepting your interpretation.
Your assertion that punctuated equilibrium shows design is just plain wrong. Please provide the reasoning by which you arrive at that conclusion.
Lastly, I do not reject your claims because you believe in God. I assess them on their rational merits, and reject those that have no reasonable basis. If you provide a reasonable basis for these, I will surely reverse my assessment.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 11, 2006
So much to respond to. When one makes himself the sole arbiter of good and evil, paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, one is either God, a lunatic, or a liar. So which is it? You are plainly wrong on almost every count. A cell can not live if but one of it's proteins is defective. That most amazing computer, microscopic, but more sophisticated than anything man made, will, essentially, crash. Hemmorhoids are the result of dietary choices, among other reasons, that people make. If God made hemmorhoids, I think we popularly know them as secular humanists, i.e atheists..:) Evolutionary mistakes would have left MILLIONS of transitional species in the fossil record. There are NONE. We should fing goats with gills, wombats with wings, but we'll sooner as see those as we will see the cow jump over the moon. If a single cell dies if over 200 functions are not harmonized perfectly, what does that suggest about species? Animals running from buckshot is not exactly what Darwin meant when imagining evolution. There's nothing useful about fraud. It's like adherents of Freud suggesting the rape and molestation, of Anna, his daughter. for all the insights that were gained. (Anna Freud became the first and foremost child psychologist. Please read her. She was brilliant. Her father just another atheistic pedophile, but I digress..) You need only go to the Scientific American website. I only need you to walk to the door. I don't have to bring the room's contents to you. Unless your afraid, respectfully. Listen, I appreciate the Logic 101, Mr. Spock thing, but it's getting old. There's this joke about science's three stages: 1.) It can't possibly be. 2.) It's not important. 3.) We knew it already. Adieu, my friend.
Comment by Joseph | July 12, 2006
Joseph, I'm sorry, but I can't make hide nor hair of your comments. You make a lot of statements but I don't see anything along the lines of reasoned progress from Point A to Point B. Many of your statements seem to come out of left field: "wombats with wings"? A few are obviously false, such as the comment that there are no transitional elements in the fossil record. Almost any natural history museum has at least one good exhibit of just that kind of thing. And I don't understand the point of arguing that cells are complicated mechanisms. Yes, they are… so? Lastly, if you think that diet is the primary cause of hemorrhoids, you should talk to any mother or truck driver.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 12, 2006
This from a person who casually uses "negentropy" when posting. Using field vernacular to obscure issues is not exactly sporting either. Marshall McCluhan, thought to be the Father of Communications, once said, "The mode is the medium." Simply, you may be the most brilliant god, er , rather, man who has ever lived, but if you don't present material in a way that the most people will understand, your message is lost and thus meaningless. That's why Eternal Wisdom used parables when speaking. Ivory towers are places people hide. Lofty perches are for birds. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that Lucifer was essentially an immense intellect who would not serve. Satan desired to put his throne above his Maker's. The "horns" of the demon stand for the envy and pride that makes one mad. Good day.
Comment by Joseph | July 12, 2006
Sorry, Joseph, for using 'negentropy' without explaining the term; it was an error on my part. Negentropy is the negative of entropy; I find it a more useful term than entropy. Negentropy most easily described as orderliness. It is a scientific term with a precise mathematical definition, but the basic idea is that highly orderly or unlikely arrangements have lots of negentropy, while messy, confused, disorderly arrangements have low negentropy. Thus, a living creature has high negentropy, while a rock has much less negentropy. The basic point I was making was that the total amount of negentropy put into the earth from the sun is much much greater than the negentropy of all the living creatures on this planet. The fact that there's a million dollars' worth (metaphorically speaking) of orderliness on this planet ceases to be a wonder when you realize that the sun has showered us with a trillion dollars' worth of orderliness.
Having explained myself, am I no longer Satan in your eyes? ;-)
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 12, 2006
You are clever enough to know I said no such thing. You are singularly loved by your Maker and mine as if no one else existed. It may be metaphors are not your strongpoint. I'm still deliberating about the "millions/trillions" example. I'll get back to you as insight requires upon completion. I'm hoping that some heavenly negentropy enlightens your conscience. Good day.
Comment by Joseph | July 12, 2006
"I’m hoping that some heavenly negentropy enlightens your conscience."
I prefer reason, thanks. ;-)
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 12, 2006
I never allow political parties to claim my loyalty, primarily because to be identified as a member of one party or the other applies a series of labels to a person that may not all describe the person or his attitudes. I give you the present administration, which was peddled to us as a conservative one, but which has outspent many a liberal administration and appears to want illegal immigrants to come here in their millions and stay for always and always and even to become citizens before they have even a shred of loyalty to the U.S. To allow oneself to be labeled in such a manner means that you have to explain how your stance differs from that of the party when being questioned. I confess that I don't pay much attention to how the Republican Party does or says things, and I certainly never believe that I can know much about candidates, unless I am personally acquainted with them. I just don't like to get that close to politics. I mean, it's fun to watch, but if you get too close, you could get some on you. Insofar as possible, I study the issues and mostly make my mind up that the offerings of the Republican Party are the least objectionable on the table. Nevertheless, I never fool myself that they are the only game in town. And unless they find their collective voice this year, I may, as we say here in Texas, "go fishing on election day."
Comment by Hill DeWolfe | July 17, 2006
Of course, this guy knows nothing about what anyone who disagrees with him thinks. He pretends to think that Democrats love taxation like mother's milk. That is unhealthy and untrue, if not perverted of him. The best alternative to having "faith-based" (read 'fundamentalist manipulated') aid with MY tax dollars, is to acknowledge the true role of government. It is the civilized manner that mankind cares for its own, that the species ensures its survival, and a viable gene-pool.
It is how we express mankind's love of his neighbor, and follows the Golden Rule.
If Kennedy's Country is to do ANYTHING for ANYONE, it needs to be able to pay the piper. Are we supposed to spend non-existent billions weekly on foreign adventurism in Iraq, but not ask for any tax money to pay the bill? Are the 'spend and bankrupt' Republicans and other anarchists TRYING to sell the country to China, and dissolve the country and the government simultaneously? That is the effect, unless we can quickly complete the colonisation of the mid-east.
Comment by PietVA | October 24, 2006