The Oligarchy of the United States of America

Our country has trapped itself in a rut. For too long it has accepted a two party system as politics as usual, and politics as usual has achieved little but to create problems in the name of politics.
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,

Issues come to front at Iowa Caucus

One time underdog Mike Huckabee, and relative newcomer Barak Obama won their respective party's nomination for President in Iowa. What does this mean? Not much, and certainly not as much weight the news services put on it. The winning candidates may get more finance for their campaigns because of their victories, but in the overall view, Iowa doesn't represent the nation's views on the issues. In fact, the result of the caucus isn't even representative of how Iowa voters feel, as only 20% of Iowa voters participate in the caucuses.
Personally I don't care about the outcome in Iowa. I have little interest in any of the candidates running in either party. The best that can be said about them is that they are very good at talking around the issues. Surely they all have plans, but they refuse to explain how they can implement these plans as President, if, indeed, they find themselves in office.
According to the wonderful humor and satire site, The Onion the real issue is:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
If the video doesn't appear, please click here

That time of the year

I'm never serious about making resolutions. I know I'm going to break them, so they are usually resolutions that won't hurt me if I do break them. By the same token, if I keep them, they won't help me much either.
That being said, here are some resolutions for Lift That Torch, Ring That Bell:

1. Lighten up. I have become so humorless on this blog that even when I'm trying to be funny, people take me seriously.
2. Post more photos. Photography pertains to freedom of expression, they make people happy, and there is a site in the Czech Republic that sells HP M415 cameras that has a link to my site, respecting the terms of my copyright limitations. I have recieved quite a few hits from that site, so I should do more of this:

Copyright (C)2007 by James Grady, Jr All original photos on this site were captured on a Hewlett-Packard HP M415 Digital Camera.

3. Plug other peoples' blogs more often. I don't always agree with these bloggers, but the blogosphere would be very boring if we all agreed. And, it would be very bland without them. Here are some blogs that I visit regularly: Rantings of a Sandmonkey
The Will To Exist
Coyote Blog
Whatever the current name of Jenn's Blog is.
Interdisciplinary World
There are more I like to visit. Some of them post even less often than I do but I have them all listed on my links list on the side bar.

4. Post more often.
5. But don't post irrelevent drivel just to post. Damn it's friggin' cold here!

Okay I already broke that one, but I needed an excuse to post that smiley.
I think I'll stop while I think I'm ahead.
Happy New Year Everyone!!!

No Comment

Random rants about random Presidential candidates

I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.

A Modern Christmas Classic

Thanks to Poor Grrl Zone for digging this up! Most of us have heard this song on the radio, but I remember seeing this video when it first came out. I am still as touched by it now as I was then. It expresses, in a song, a Christmas message that transends generations.

Thanking the troops

It is my opinion that we can not thank our military members enough, especially this time of the year, when many of them are separated from their families. It doesn't matter if you support the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, the troops deserve a thank you for putting their lives on the line for your right to support or oppose the war. They are doing this voluntarily--as there is no draft--and are doing it because they believe it is their call to duty. Military life is no picnic, war or no war--to serve means to give up many rights that so many of us take for granted.
This time of the year, many of us would like to thank our troops overseas by sending them a positive message appropriate to the Christmas and Channukah season. Due to the possibility of threatening or derogatory messages, the Post Office cannot deliver messages addressed "to any soldier," but there are many ways that have made it possible to express your thanks. Poor Grrl Zone has posted one way, putting up this link where one can sign in and have Seasonal greetings and thanks sent to our military troops. Exploration of many of the links on the sidebar of Lift That Torch, Ring That Bell (this blog) may also be useful in finding links to similar "Thank the Troops" sites.
Another interesting "Thank the Troops" initiative has been begun by The Gratitude Campaign, originating in Seattle, Washington, where ignorant politicians would not only have their constituents believe that all NASCAR fans are "toothless trailer trash," who are unwelcome in their city, but that everybody is against the Iraq mission and the troops should be treated as second class citizens at the best. Initiating a unique visual method of expressing gratitude, the originator of the movement explains how he came up with the idea:

For the past several years as I've been traveling around the country, I've been approaching soldiers in the airports and thanking them for serving for us. On several occasions I have noticed that it felt a little awkward for both of us. There are several reasons, some of which I am even just now learning as I produce this film and talk to more soldiers. But they have always appreciated being thanked, and I have always felt better having expressed my gratitude.

I started to think that it would be nice if civilians had a gesture or sign that they could use to say "thank you" quickly and easily without even having to approach. I did some research and found the sign that we are now using.

This is an idea that should catch on, and hopefully will become a major movement.
As a former military member myself, I can tell you how much gratitude is appreciated by those who are fighting for the cause of freedom. Aside from the devotion to duty, gratitude is the most important gift to receive from those for whom they are fighting.