Archive for the 'Politics' Category

WMD…C’mon! No, Really!

Published
by
David
on 2008-08-07
in Politics and War
. 0 Comments

I am neither a Bush fan, nor a dissident. However, I have long wanted to write about WMD and whether or not Iraq had it. Since everyone knows that I know about that.

There is no doubt that Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Here are a couple of things that prove it:

  • He did not deny that he had them; he defied the U.N. (not the U.S.) to make him give them up.
  • Worldwide, intelligence agencies knew that he had them.
  • He could have spared his life by proving that he did not have them.
  • We still have the thank you card from when we gave them to him in the past (our enemy’s enemy is our friend).
  • And, honestly, how do you prove that he did not? It is absurd to think that he could not have disposed of them. (That may seem lame; and it may be lame, but really, it is hard to (dis)prove. That is the beauty of that kind or statement: how can you undermine that kind of assertion?)

There are lots of reasons, ultimately, why he might or might not insist that he had them, but he was defiant about it until the end.

Tell me though, if you had a country and the U.N. told you to give up your weapons, what would be your responsibility to comply? Why should you comply? Your complicity could rightly be viewed as weakness. We love the U.N. to enforce our ideas upon others, but we don’t generally feel compelled to comply. Why should Sadam Hussein have complied?

Tell me further: when he killed his thousands (or his tens of thousands) of dissidents, was he more or less guilty than Americans are for killing their tens of millions of innocents since Roe v. Wade?

The Lesser of Two Evils?

Published
by
David
on 2007-12-20
in Constitution, Current Events, Philosophy and Politics
. Closed

I am trying to cement a voting strategy. I think I have a candidate: Ron Paul. I have long thought that I should not vote for a candidate that (as I said in an email the other night) I would not let my daughter marry. Look! my daughter is six, and he is only about 70 years her senior, love is blind! But, seriously, I am not convinced that if they were more appropriately matched I would be willing to see my daughter marry him.

Based on his YouTube Videos that he ostensibly endorsed, I think his libertarianism outweighs his Trinitarianism:

  • I found a button on one of them that shows him and around his head is the phrase “Oh my God I’m Winning”—Taking the Lord’s Name in vain.
  • His record-breaking fund-raising effort was initiated on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party:
    • That was a Sunday—breaking the sabbath.
    • The Tea Party was seditious act that led to a terrible revolt—the Bible likens rebellion to witchcraft.

Ron Paul is an appealing candidate in the most plain terms. But he is primarily a constitutionalist and a libertarian. He seems more moral than I presume a Southern Baptist pastor would be. But he has already shown substantial shortcomings in his recent activities for the reformed believer. I am a willing recipient of libertarianism, not a proponent. I am opposed to it practically, because it is generally held that those things that are left to an individual’s conscience or more appropriately state’s rights are things that are morally incumbent upon us to prohibit: abortion, sabbath breaking, adultery, etc. But I like that it leaves me free to practice what I believe without fear of reprisal.

I have not thought all of this out. From here, I am tempted to vote for him, to be sure. But I cannot endorse him whole-heartedly, and that is something I think I ought to be able to do before I vote for someone. While talking with my wife on the way home from church this evening, she asked me: would you vote for a Presbyterian (RPCNA) for president? I answered that I did not know. There are two real questions I am left with:

  • Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?
    • If so, based on what?
  • What are the criteria a candidate must meet in order to be worthy of a Christian’s vote?

If you have the answers to these questions, I would definitely like to hear them. Please email me (david.eldridge@darkroastwebs.com).

Fallout from Virginian Tragedy

Published
by
David
on 2007-04-19
in Constitution, Philosophy and Politics
. Closed

I am sorry for those who have lost loved ones in the tragedy in Virginia. I am blessed to have no relations (that I know of) that have been involved in that tragedy at Virginia Tech this week.

In the wake of those harrowing events at the VT campus this week, there is concern over campus security, and ensuring the safety of students. There are three basic problems with that:

  • Its focus is too narrow.
  • It is quite likely unconstitutional.
  • It is cost-ineffective (for now).

I think it is shortsighted to say that we need to take better care to secure students throughout the land. We are often only concerned with our own personal circumstances and callings. Consider, there is nothing that kept that from happening to people in the World Trade Center, a Colorado High School, an Oklahoma Federal Building or an Oklahoma Post Office. All people need to be protected: subway and airplane passengers, soldiers (from fellow soldiers), children from parents, and vice versa. What state can prevent all of that? I know of none. However, if we are interested in safety, we must consider all venues, not only the one from which we are reeling.

The second problem is that the protection that would be required by some would be entirely unconstitutional, consider the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Circumstances like these are generally improbable, so how would you protect yourself against them? If we undermine the constitution, we live in an arbitrary state, at the mercy of our newfound dictator. If we continue down this course we live a life like all have lived in times past, one that has uncertainty and fear. This is not new. The state cannot protect us from that in the end.

I believe there could easily come a point where we would have such a state where it would be possible for the government to so easily monitor our behavior through the use of video surveillance and RFID that we could be secure in a way that would assuage the fears of most Americans. But we would not be able to do the most sensitive things without our Big Brother knowing what is going on. There would no longer be wire taps, there would be an open phone system, that is constantly being passed through a governmental audio algorithm. All corners monitored by cameras, all corridors and all public school restrooms. However, one thing is forgotten here: monitoring is not protecting. In the end the state can only survey and hope to get there to limit the fallout. Security is freedom from danger, etc. When I lived at home, my dad used to say, “Son, I cannot make you do anything, I can only make you wish you had.” Likewise, the government cannot secure us they can only limit us and manage the aftermath. And every time more security measures are put in place, people overcome them, consider notorious hackers, they live to breach obstacles. Those men in the planes on 11 September 2001, Timothy McVey, Eric Klebold and Dylan Harris were all murderous engineers, devising the best way to maximize bloodshed.

Consider the following:

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3.6) Cf. similar passages.

Maybe we should be considering the source of safety and tragedy is the same, and repent before him, rather than railing against our god, the state.

NASCAR and TARGET Hurt Kansans

Published
by
David
on 2006-09-11
in Commerce and Politics
. Closed

NASCAR and TARGET are miserable. They and local politicians invoked imminent domain in order to take land from some local Kansas land owners in order to build their grand stand. They were able to show that their silly circus would bring taxes and jobs to the KCK area, and our politicians bought it. Shame on both of them. But this is the logical end of Manifest Destiny. So we should not be surprised….

A Strange Nation Indeed

Published
by
David
on 2006-09-01
in Philosophy and Politics
. Closed

At the founding of our nation (1776, not 1620) there are some very important ideas that are relatively new to the world. Not minor among them is the idea of Natural Right. The old idea of Divine Right is the means by which a king would generally say that they were appointed to office by a vision from God, etc. Whereas Natural Right presumes certain rights are bestowed upon us all. Consider our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What is, then, the difference between Divine Right and Natural Right? Divine Right states that the King is reposed with rights and responsibilities by God, and Natural Right says that all are. The biggest single difference is that Divine Right is a special revelation, where Natural is not. But both are held to proceed from God. And in both cases, God is invoked as our common Creator as a means of bolstering their claims (however silly).

The point of the revolution is not a valiant interest in the freedom of all, for not all were freed by it. Rather, white, male, land-owning men were intended to have this freedom. So that they believed that all men are created equal did not intend women, poor, and slaves. This is not some amazing new concept in freedom, rather, a subversive power grab, and a recasting of the aristocracy. What now is the difference between the old king with his dukes, and lords, and the new president with his judges and senators? Admittedly there is a difference. There is now a balance of powers. This is a notable difference, indeed. But this in no way justifies the undermining of the authority of the King of England. It may be that all our founders really intended was to steal the power from the King, and when they did, they could not agree who would be king, so they worked out a deal, senators, representatives, judges, and presidents, whereby no one is king, but all share some of the weakened power.

The only reason why we count these men heroes is that they won. Had they lost the revolutionary war, they would be counted traitors, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson would have the same poor ring as Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot.

Aside: to be clear, I believe that we are all created in God’s image, and in that we are responsible to treat each other with dignity, and are owed respect, as humans. Though that is not to say that we are all equal and deserving of the same respect. I would not expect a king to bow to a subject, a captain to first render his salute to a sergeant, etc. I also believe that all authority on heaven and on earth is ordained by God, so while I don’t believe that English Kings received any visions from God telling them that it was their office to be king and defensor fidei, I do believe that they are ordained by God to fill that position, as is evidenced by their filling of it.