Tag Archive for mccain at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'mccain'

Don’t Waste Your Vote: Vote Third Party

Published by Casey Huxley October 6, 2008 in Politics. 13 Comments

It has been said (unsurprisingly often by supporters of one of the two main parties) that voting for a third party is wasting your vote. I beg to differ. In fact, it is often voting for one of the two main parties that is a waste of a vote.

Consider this year’s presidential elections. Already most states have been decided. There are only about a dozen or so states where your vote could possibly make a difference. If you live in Massachusetts for example, why vote for Obama and run up the total on what will be a certain victory? Or, for that matter, why vote for McCain in an already doomed effort?

However, a vote being “not wasted” is about more than just having your vote decide something. It is about expressing your views in a way that matters. So often, we hear that many people are voting for the lesser of two evils. Well, when you do that what you get is still evil, and you will never have anything else. Why not vote for someone who does actually share the majority of your views?

Now, for those who feel their views are adequately represented by either the Democrats or the Republicans, I’m not telling you to vote otherwise. The true tragedy of our system is that many people feel they have to vote for one of the two main parties and don’t even examine other candidates to see if they would prefer one of them.

Therefore, today I’m pleading with you to take the time to examine the positions of third party candidates. Below are some links showing many of the major third part candidates and their parties. (Note that due to overly strict ballot access laws not all candidates may be on the ballot in your state).

Third Party Links:

Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party

Bob Barr - Libertarian Party

Cynthia McKinney - Green Party

Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA

Ralph Nader - Independent

Cocktail of Crises

Published by Colin September 22, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 4 Comments

I also thought about titling this post; “At least part of the reason I have chosen to leave the US and obtain other citizenship.” I do not want to rush, like many libertarians and apocalyptic Christians to hasty conclusions that the sky is falling. I don’t think we’re even near that in the civilised world. In fact, I would even argue that the whole thing is being exaggerated and perpetuated mostly by the media, politicians and business which seek to profit of people behaving like chickens with their heads cut off and reloading CNN every two minutes, asking for more government handouts/power and looking for sales in guns, oil, water, food, gas, metal, gold, silver and so on to go up.

However, having said that, I suspect that most people are missing the real crisis - the wider crisis. In the determination to focus on something like gas prices or civil liberties in detail, perhaps how these elements combine and mix in the current climate reveals the nature of the “crisis machine” that is being built. In other words, the bail-outs aren’t really a catastrophic problem in and of themselves, but combine them with say, inflation, lost civil liberties and foreign policy - and now you’ve got a little cocktail being mixed that might do some damage.

The essence of this comes from one of my few favourite quotations by one of my favourite men, Henry Hazlitt:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So, while various plans drawn up to solve one particular problem might stem the specific leak, these will weaken other-areas in a greater and greater ways. If we continue to pay more than what we are getting on the whole, if we borrow more from ourselves than we gain back in any given solution, then we are gaining momentum on the path to bankruptcy.

I don’t think that any one crisis would really damage the United States, but if crises are continually paid-forward with short term fixes at the expense of the aggregate, we’ll have a huge queue of multi-industrial, multi-dimensional problems bursting the seams of law and order that tie them down.

So I want to look at how some of the following areas have or may, in the future, combine to compound a larger crisis for the US:

Foreign Policy
The Domestic Economy
Immigration
Civil Liberties
Free Speech
Nationalism/Patriotism
Religion

I’m going to do my best now not to try and lose you.

Foreign Policy
Regardless of one’s view on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that we are less liked in the Muslim world today than we were on Sept 10, 2001. Terrorist groups (including non-Islamic ones) have seen their numbers swell. America, regardless of why, has a lot of enemies.

Even if we had the perfect military, intelligence and every move we have made and will make to combat this reality were perfect, the cost would be enormous - probably greater than any military effort that was ever unleashed. To stem everything from active terrorism and resistance in the middle east, to peacekeeping for US interest and allies in numerous other places, to protecting resources and trade partners, to preserving and install US-friendly regimes in places like South America and Eastern Europe would make the kind of scarcity, rationing and planning not seen since the forties.

Again, I am presuming that there is no waste, no bad intelligence, no blow-back and other bugling. Just this effort alone, in one area, might be doable if we had the savings and capital to pay for it.

However, we clearly have no capital and savings. America has been in the red for sometime. What is going to happen when all of these troops, assets and protections are pulled back from the fragile order which they are supporting? Those who have supported a planned, orderly decrease in military intervention for the past few years (heck, even the past decades) have been laughed at in favour of the idea that the current level of empire is a linear, sustainable stronghold. But as Ron Paul said as early as 2003, we will be pulling our empire back - either by planned, orderly and strategic organisation or as a reckless reaction to the bottom line that we no longer can afford it:

Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

It should now be clear that we are facing this reality. Even those of us who are staunchly anti-war will not deny the fact that there are people out there being held at bay by the military who would otherwise seek to kill Americans. When the military is forced to downsize, we will have left the gates open for these people to come in and sack our country.

The reactionary answer by conservatives (and many democrats) is to rely on the same old argument to beef up the military. But what if there is physically no money to pay for it? We are going to have an increase in terrorism at home and abroad and the accompanying cries by the population for safety in the form of increased government power in exchange for freedom and civil liberties.

Next time: discussion on what the current economic situation reveals, along with the combined problem of immigration and civil liberty erosion.

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream

Published by Colin September 8, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Would anyone born into an extreme society be aware of the exact nature of that society relative to history? For example, if there was a bubble thrown around Soviet Russia (in many ways there was) - wouldn’t the people of that society view ideas like free-will, free-markets and free-speech as extremes? The norm might be long lines for basic necessities, rampant crime, neighbours, friends and family disappearing and never returning.

In many ways, the centre of mainstream society can be measured by what ideas are considered extreme. We look back in hindsight at societies such as Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia as though these movements became mainstream by magic. We ignore the history and conditions which made certain ideas, leaders and philosophies popular. We see images like this and this (warning: graphic) and assume that this guy is soley to blame. We fail to realize that perhaps the most important explanation of these images is this one. We presume that extremism will come into our society announcing itself with nazi flags, poverty or honest people being locked up right away.

So many American Christians are terrified of such boogey men. Take fighting radical Islam - which is often compared in mainline conservatism to a war against “fascism“and Iraq is compared to World War II. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Islamic Law, radical Islamic repression, widespread Islamic Terrorism and Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic elements in government will never become a reality in the US.

Extremism Doesn’t Look Like Extremism
I suspect that Sinclair Lewis is a little closer to the mark: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This is not a statement to be ignored - it is backed by historical patterns that are repeated over and over again. Extremism rarely comes from outside a society, but it cultivated, embraced and implemented from within. Adolph Hitler wasn’t released on the world until he had secured power in his own society using tradition, religion and philosophy that Germans were familiar with. In other words, we must be more fearful of internal extremism gradually overtaking those historically accepted and mainstream “Americanisms” - the constitution, freedom, Christianity, security, prosperity, capitalism and “democracy.”

American Extremism will look like patriotism. It will be embraced by the dominant religious elements: Christianity in this case. It will be described as traditional American values such as free-enterprise, democracy and security.

Because extremism moves into the mainstream culture, language and political system - the best measure is historical context. For example, “liberal” is used today as a cuss-word against left-wing democrats. I accepted this as the historical definition until, when I was twenty, I visited a memorial to Meriwether Lewis and was shocked to see Thomas Jefferson use the term to describe Lewis:

Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction, … honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth…

I looked into it and found that the mainstream definition is relatively new, and in fact completely the opposite of what it had meant for hundreds of years. If it weren’t for the word “libertarian” - we might not have a word that summarises something close to the definition of liberal.

Case in Point: GOP Primary
But this has happened with so many things. Conservatives in the past eighteen months have been calling Ron Paul a radical and a fringe candidate. And he is - in that his positions aren’t mainstream in the slightest nor are they what is now called “conservative.” There is a radical gulf between Paul’s view and the conservative movement.

But that is what should scare us - and if conservatives would stop marching forward and question their orders for a moment, they might get a glimpse of where they are going. For example, “county first” was plastered all over McCain’s convention - is that phrase responsible? Is it biblical? Is it actually patriotic? Should that be the moral and political priority of conservatives and Christians? If that is an acceptable idea, is a rally worth $16 million in money taken from the country, celebrating one man, in one political faction a genuine articulation of that ideal?

How Extremist Leaders Win the Support of Otherwise Principled Men
What does it mean when those voices calling for objective morality and the rule of law are considered extreme in favour of embracing those solutions with “reasonable,” “common-sense” and short-term sacrifices to solve problems that were first created by such measures? Conservatives don’t like Paul because a purer form of traditionally conservative ideals comes out so different than the practices of what is now called conservatism. Conservatives would rather align themselves with men who share almost none of the deeper convictions, morals and ideals of their own movement, but who will still give lip service and token support to popular conservative causes (abortion, family, military). They will support unprincipled extremists who are promising that they will ignore their nature. This is foolishness - but a familiar path that humanity has taken in placing reckless, unprincipled men in power.
Continue reading ‘When Extremism Becomes Mainstream’

The Foolishness of Confronting Russia

Published by Colin August 12, 2008 in Current Events. 89 Comments

While I was racing around frantically last night to try and arrange the last minute details of my move to England, I was shocked to hear whatever conservative talk show host that was on the radio calling for the president to send US troops into Georgia to fight Russia. The host went on a long tirade about “protecting our national security interests” and how these missions must be handled delicately because of the gravity of the international relationships at stake.

It boggles my mind, when the economy is tanking and the currency is being debased to pay for our military expenditures, that some would be so quick to commit more blood and treasure to yet another conflict in some far-away land to fight some other global threat.

Is this what conservative foreign policy has been reduced to – sending troops at the bat of an eye on the basis of a vague ideal such as “national security interests?” This is recklessness.

Believe me, if I ever believed that the security of my family or my property were at risk, I would be the first to show up at the recruitment office with my guns in hand. I would gladly defend my home and even my neighbours from an imminent threat. But the idea of sending US troops over to start a war with in Georgia against Russia would definitely be the blow that absolutely cripples this country.

I presume that most conservatives do not share the views of the radio personality I heard last night. John McCain is arguing for a US military surrogate (NATO) to do the dirty work. McCain suggests using diplomacy “force Russia to withdraw from Georgia.” Last time I checked, diplomacy was about giving and taking, negotiating and making voluntary proposals. “Force” however, ultimately means threats and coercion which must be backed by aggression. McCain is clearly engaging in double-speak.

Yet another war would be disastrous for the US. Our economy is swirling around the toilet and our important relations around the world are dissolving. We need to wake up and start plugging holes or this ship is going to sink.

McCain and Obama both Clueless on Patriotism

Published by Colin July 7, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 4 Comments

I never read Parade Magazine in the Sunday paper for the same reason I don’t read something like People or Time - in short, it’s total crap. I am generally not interested in celebrity gossip, oversimplified political analysis or to know how much people make. However, I couldn’t help but see Barack Obama and John McCain on the cover with the question “What is Patriotism?” below.

Upon turning to the articles that each of them “wrote” (most likely someone wrote these letter for them), I was not surprised to see identical rhetoric from both of them. Essentially - patriotism is submission to the state and the total suppression of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John McCain
The lead answer for McCain was: patriotism is “putting the country first.” Specifically, this means:

…it is the sacrifices of so many Americans, at home and abroad, in times of peace and times of war, that give meaning to all of us. We are blessed to be Americans, and blessed that so many of us have so often believed in a cause far greater than self-interest, far greater than ourselves.

McCain looks immediately to the military, war and militarism to sell his point. Americans need to support the American Empire because it is killing foreigners in their own countries which keeps us free and “give meaning to all of us.” Actually, McCain is right on this account. It was Randolph Bourne, after four years of this principle put into action in World War I (ironically, the “war to end all wars”) who wrote that “war is the health of the state.” McCain’s potential presidency, the careers of politicians and the constant expansion of government power in the name of never-ending emergencies or crises is sustained by drumming up and redirecting the fear of Americans from their own government towards some external threat - be it Iran, global warming or gas prices.

If the revolutionaries had this view, they would have gladly yielded to the British Empire and submitted to the taxes, trade restrictions and suppression of liberty (mild compared to the modern US Government). They would have fought for Britain in more foreign wars, personally submitted to its king and docily handed over their wages and wealth with a smile because they “put the country first.”

Barack Obama
Obama’s short answer was not so terrifying as McCain: “Faith in one another as Americans.” But it doesn’t take long for Obama to start praising war and welfare as the health of the state:

…true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good. For those who have fought on the battlefield under the Stars and Stripes—for the young veterans I meet at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or those like John McCain who endured physical torment while serving our nation—no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands inspire me…

When politicians say “sacrifice” it means us, not them. In times of “sacrifice” the government itself is increased and benefited while individuals are trampled upon, stolen from and killed. In other words, patriotism means that more individuals readily give up their lives, liberty and property with diminishing resistance.

For Obama, who would use the power of the state to dramatically interfere with economic liberty, this is especially true. So that insurance companies can have a state-enforced monopoly, American’s should sacrifice their their little-remaining rights to choice and freedom in healthcare. Perhaps we should also sacrifice to the special interests that both Obama and McCain would give our tax money to in the name of “fighting global warming.”

What Patriotism Is

I have never heard a more inspiring message of patriotism than one given on the house floor last year. A short excerpt barely does it justice:

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state…

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax…

Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Ron Paul outlines patriotism in a nutshell: it is unwavering resistance to collectivism and an authoritarian state.

McCain and Obama clearly would move the government in a more authoritarian direction. They are both anti-patriots, who triumph the suppression of individual rights and expansion of power (and the inevitable resulting abuse) of the state.

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist

Published by Colin June 2, 2008 in Politics. 113 Comments

Mike Huckabee took the high road in an interview last week, calling libertarian-leaning republicans who don’t support government healthcare and public schools “heartless, callous, soulless” and of course unamerican. Yes kids, advocating an idea of the federal government consistent with the US Constitution is unamerican. This is just further nonesense from a man who has been appropriately dubbed by Reason “America’s Life Coach.”

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Huckabee tries to rewrite history and declare that libertarianism is “new” (and has not been historically a part of the Republican Party). In 1975 Ronald Reagan embraced the libertarian movement, and while he acknowledged that he was opposed to the “no government” shade of the philosophy, he said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Huckabee, on the other hand argues that historic republicanism is, well, his right-wing socialism. Really? Historic republicans supported public education and government healthcare? Cutting taxes and eliminating government is “not historic Republicanism?”

Again, Reagan made it quite clear, saying “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” Yet Huckabee’s view of Government as the prime shaper of social values, habits and benevolence completely contradicts this idea.

Even though I no longer consider myself a republican in any way - I have some nostalgic love for the party that birthed my understanding of economic conservatism. Despite the complete takeover of the party by the Neo-Conservative exiles from the FDR left, there was once some good in them. Sometimes I feel like Luke Skywalker pleading with Darth Vader to acknowledge the sliver of good still lingering after years of evil.
Continue reading ‘Mike Huckabee: Right-Wing Socialist’

Links: McCain’s Gaffe, Oil Strategy and God is Green?

Published by Colin May 9, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

We recently talked about some counterfeit gospels. Maybe we should have put “green-ism” or “environmentalism” in there as well. From Jew:

God is Green. Really? The apostles must have forgotten to record Jesus’ teachings on environmentalism, because I don’t see it in the Bible. Oh well. What can we expect from a website that says “What makes you feel love and forgiveness? If you can find these, you have found God.”

Fixing The Oil Problem
Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming has outlined a plan to temporarily relieve gas prices. Well, it’s not so much a “plan” as a command to the government to stop taking oil from others who need it so it can sit in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Barrasso’s bill, S. 2927, instructs the federal government to stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the average price of gasoline is over $2.50 per gallon, and the price of diesel fuel exceeds $2.75 per gallon.

“Everyday the government is pulling tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil off the market that could otherwise be used by truckers, airlines, and our neighbors,” Barrasso added.

In other words, it’s that same old story that always follows government intervention: unintended consequences. The very problem that the SPR was created to fix (oil embargoes from the middle east causing high prices/shortages), it has now caused: high prices and shortages.

Barrasso is just making economic sense of a stupid policy. What do we expect when the US government itself is demanding massive amounts of oil - especially to just store in unused tanks “just in case.”

McCain Admits What We’ve All Known: Blood For Oil
Speaking of oil, John McCain got grilled last week after admitting in his speeches something that even Obama and Clinton would shy away from saying:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Once again, we have unintended consequences playing out. We go into Iraq to secure natural resources we ~~need~~ want (which happen to belong to someone else) and find that our intervention has created so much instability and chaos that the price of a barrel of oil has gone up over 400% of what it was pre-invasion. Go figure.

The Ron Paul Revolution

Published by Colin April 28, 2008 in Current Events. 36 Comments

Perhaps it is now safe to write another Ron Paul article without the fear of the Ron-bots CTRL-C-ing the latest and greatest reason to vote for their man. Perhaps, also, we will not be bombarded by that tremendous minority of supporters who use Ron Paul as a platform for proclaiming the ridiculous conspiracies regarding 9/11, NWO, freemasonry and space aliens.

This is important because there is a real conspiracy going on against Ron Paul. It shames our country, our system, the republican party and the fickle and imperfect nature of man in general.

The Republican Party (whose very name infers an adherence to representative election and law) has chosen to break it’s own election rules in several conventions so as to prevent Ron Paul’s delegates from going to the national convention.

Unlike how the media portrays elections - relying on popular polls - the actual election of the GOP representatives is by delegates who are elected by party members at conventions. Delegates should reflect the polls, but are under no obligation to do so. So while McCain might poll at 70% on election day in a given state, McCain is actually granted delegates (depending on the state) by some form of convention with official delegates voting.

Nueces County Texas GOP Plug Ears, Shakes Head - “I’m not listening”
For example, let’s look at Nueces County in Texas. On April 20th, the Ron Paul delegates had been elected under the rules of the party and were about be read and confirmed. Instead, the local chairperson of the party decided on her own to appoint different delegates. She read them out loud and the Ron Paul delegates present, on not hearing their names, began to call for a “point of order” as is the correct procedure under the rules. The chairperson ignored them, and “hearing no statutes or amendments” confirmed the unelected delegates.

Audio and explanation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-fARjv3tFk

Nevada Shutdown
Or what about in Nevada. Ron Paul himself personally appeared at the state delegation. Aside from his tremendous number of supporters there, many were won over by his speech. Almost all 31 delegates for Nevada to the national convention ended up being Ron Paul supporters.

Nevada’s 31 delegates are a drop in the ocean, but for some reason, Mitt Romney felt the need to show up to the convention and call for unification behind McCain. Romney’s speech however, didn’t make a difference. The party leadership saw this along with the fact that Ron Paul’s delegates were going to get elected. They panicked, and shut down the convention.

Why This is Happening
We have heard barely a whisper of Ron Paul in the news since McCain was presumed the winner. And if his name was mentioned, it was a story asking why this crazy old man hadn’t quit yet. I think now we are seeing why.

Ron Paul, and more importantly, Ron Paul’s supporters are the kind of people (regardless if some of them are crazy) who want to show the rest of the country that we are living in a society that breaks it’s own laws. Our government, at all levels, is a corrupt influence on its own citizens - and is setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring ethics and law in order to pursue expediency and short-term benefits.

Weekly Links: Romney Gone, Ebay Changes, M-Words

Published by Colin February 8, 2008 in General. 103 Comments

Mitt Romney has officially suspended his campaign. But at this website, we really don’t care about Mitt Romney, so the more important question is: what does this mean for Ron Paul?

The Death Blow Scenario - With Mitt Romney out, that leaves Huckabee, McCain and Paul going for the nomination. Romney’s supporters will likely back Huckabee over McCain, but some will pick McCain. With Romney’s votes, McCain gets the required delegates to make it to the convention unopposed. Ron Paul drifts quietly into the night.

The Brokered Convention Scenario - If Huckabee drops out soon, then Christians, pro-lifers and immigration advocates only have one rational choice - Ron Paul. Pro-war republicans will have to swallow their dislike of Paul, and vote for him because McCain holds positions closer to Hillary Clinton than Ronald Reagan.

What the media doesn’t get in all of this (but McCain and Huckabee are very aware of this) is that Ron Paul has significantly more delegates than his poll numbers would indicate. His campaign reported 42 after Super Tuesday. He won’t have enough to win, but he may have enough to be the kingmaker in a brokered convention.

eBay Changes Feedback Structure
eBay stops the tit-for-tat feedback cycle that has been happening lately. The problem is that sellers are conserably more likely to leave retaliatory feedback. The new rules are designed to fix this by basically removing sellers from the feedback equation.

As both a buyer and seller on eBay, I can definitely confirm that the seller has way to much advantage in the current feedback system. However, the problem could be fixed if this issue were looked at more fundamentally. The sellers are claiming that they have rights to leave the last word on feedback because “buyer satisfaction” is part of their requirements. In other words, unless the buyer leaves positive feedback, then they haven’t “completed” their part of the transaction. I think this is garbage - a petty excuse to preserve an etiquette system that allows them to retaliate. I propose that the seller should be required to leave feedback once they have shipped the item (this is when the item is legally the buyer’s responsibility) or the buyer has confirmed they have received the item. Are you listening eBay? I propose!

Money
Wesley Snipes was acquitted of tax fraud, conspiracy.
Euros are starting to become accepted in New York city.

Maniacism
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping

Medicine
Assisted suicide, sans doctor, in Oregon. Husband arrested for murder of wife with Lou Gehrig’s Disease.
Finnish patient gets new jaw from own stem cells

Ministry
5 Reasons Why The Emergining Church Is Fading
Cigarette Silence: When will the Church comment on the evils of Big Tobacco?

Zeal For Truth