Response to friendly taunting

A little over a week ago I noticed that The Modern Pharisee had resumed blogging. In his post The Lesser of Three Evils, he essentially laid out the case that Ron Paul supporters owed it to themselves and their country to choke back their bile and disgust and vote for "the best conservative candidate on the ballot" this Fall, citing the experience of King David.

In The Pharisee's view, David chose "the lesser of three evils" when given a choice.

While I was reading the post, a paraphrase of Carly Simon's 1970s hit song You're So Vain kept running through my head. "You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you, don't you, don't you?"

Well, uh, yeah. I did think that post was about me. Hugh and I have had that particular discussion before. But whether or not it was vanity became irrelevant when I received this Google message from Hugh.

Hugh: I'm back to blogging, and this is for you (and a few others)

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2012/04/lesser-of-three-evils.html.

That got a smile out of me. Okay, taunt accepted. Now it's my turn.

I like your analogy. But it's a bit flawed (sorry, Hugh). David was forced to choose between three horrible punishments, while we may choose between three options that, while not pleasant, are certainly NOT horrible punishments. David's three choices were (a) seven years of famine, (b) fleeing his enemies for three months, or (c) three days of pestilence. Our three choices are (a) vote for the incumbent Corporatist thug, Il Duce, (b) vote for the winner of the Republican primaries Corporatist dilettante hand-chosen by the Team Elephant elites, or (c) stay home and flip 'em both the bird. In our case, choice (c) is not only no punishment, but satisfying, in a juvenile sort of way.

Hugh's analogy further breaks down. David did NOT choose the punishment that befell his people. He chose one of the three options that he absolutely did not want to occur. He left the final decision up to the Lord.

I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

One way or another, in our situation, we have to choose (a), (b), or (c).

We know that choice (a) is out of the question. Il Duce incorporates all of the worst traits of horrendous presidents of the past, including thug Woodrow Wilson, messianic Franklin Roosevelt, "Great Society" Lyndon Johnson, and bumbling Jimmy Carter. But is choice (b) really that much better? Sure, Il Dilettante has great, presidential hair. But he's flip-flopped on every major issue over the past 20 years. If he's a conservative, then I'm Conrad Hilton. The elites moved heaven and earth -- including turning Fox News into the official Romney for President communications organ -- to push Romney through. Why so much effort? It's because...wait for it...NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY) wants him. Okay, Ann Coulter wants him. She can have him.

Choice (c) looks better and better to me all the time. I've already stated that this country is too far gone for any single individual operating as President to fix it.

Four years ago I reacted angrily when The Hausfraurer said that he would no longer vote, because, by voting, he was lending legitimacy to this phony, Corporatist system. Four years later, I completely agree with him.

The game is rigged. There isn't a dime's bit of difference between the "two" candidates. They both love big government; they only disagree when it comes to how big and who pays.

Sign me up for choice (c).

On voting

I had originally planned to do a major screed on the philosophy of voting prior to the elections in November, but an ongoing discussion thread has convinced me that the time is now.

However you want to boil it down, there are three predominant philosophies for voting in an election where two unpalatable candidates are representing the major political parties:

1. Boycott the election - it's futile, because the elites have stacked the deck. Major proponents: Vox Day and Nate (Der Hausfraurer).
2. YOU HAVE TO VOTE!!!!!!! Vote the lesser of two evils! Hold your nose and vote for the guy with the 'R' or 'D' after their name, regardless of whether you like, respect, or agree with them, because this is the most importantest election ever and the future of the Supreme Court depends on it!!!!! Major proponents: Rachel Lucas and Dr. Helen.
3. Vote for anyone BUT the major party candidates. Major proponent: the Vulture.

Each approach has its pros and cons. But only one is a winner.

Boycott the election!

The "boycott" crowd gets to stand up and say, "This government is illegitimate and I refuse to participate in its sham elections." They get to stand off to the side and (rightfully) point out that whether you vote for the guy with the 'R' after his name or the guy with the 'D' after his name, you'll get the same results, because the president isn't really "running" things, the elites are.

But this is where the "boycott" crowd has it all wrong. The elites don't give two shits whether you vote or not. In fact, the statist media will point to your non-vote as "apathy among the electorate". Your "boycott" will be viewed by the elite as a de facto acquiescence to "the system". You meant to send a message saying the process is illegitimate. The message that is received is "we don't care who's in charge". That's a very bad message, trust me.

Vote for 'our' guy

The "OMGs YOU HAFTA VOTE FOR 'OUR' GUY!!!!!!!!!" crowd is just a little too tightly wound for their own good (sorry mark and dw). I know that Limbaugh and other blatherers have you all wound up because of the Supreme Court. It's the trump card for the pro-status quo crowd. "Sure, Candidate A sucks...but at least we can count on him to appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court".

Again, wrong. Ronald Reagan, the gold standard for Republicans, appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, and Anthony Kennedy. One dud, one excellent choice, one statist/leftist. In fairness, it must be noted that Reagan also nominated Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate because he actually believed in the Constitution. Bush 41 appointed David Souter and Clarence Thomas. One ultra-leftist, one excellent choice. King George the Dim succeeded in getting John Roberts and Samuel Alito appointed. Both are generally conservative, sure, but both are pro-Homeland Security apparatchiks. And let's not forget that he originally nominated the gawdawful Harriett Miers before Alito. Call that three bad choices.

So the scorecard reads: 2 excellent choices (and 1 excellent choice rejected), 2 bad choices (and an additional horrendous nominee), 1 dud, and 2 leftists. And this is from the last three presidents from Team Elephant!

How'd Clinton do? He appointed Ruth Vader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer - two gawdawful ultra-leftists.

The previous Team Donkey president, the peerlessly awful Jimmy Carter, didn't have the opportunity to appoint any justices. Thank God! The way he effed up everything else, there's no telling who he would have nominated!

Aha, you say! You just made my point! No, sadly, I didn't. With Team Donkey, you know what you're getting with the Supreme Court: Ultra-leftist nominees. A Senate with any stones will REJECT those nominees; sadly, the Team Elephant-dominated Senate of the 90's approved Clinton's nominees. Aha, I say! I just made my point!

Team Elephant gets about 1 in 4 nominees right. Team Donkey gets all of theirs wrong...but it doesn't matter because Team Elephant doesn't have the spine to oppose gawdawful candidates! Voting based on who will appoint Supreme Court justices is a losing argument.

Last point: there is no such thing as voting for the lesser of two evils. Once elected, the "lesser evil" becomes "the evil". If you wouldn't have voted for candidate A in the primaries, based on their unsuitablity for the office, then don't vote for candidate A in the general election, either. Be consistent and vote your conscience, always.

Vote for anyone BUT the mainstream candidates

The Vulture's way is simple: vote contrarian. Send the elites this message: "I care enough to vote...and I reject your hand-picked BS candidates!" No ambiguity, as is the case with the boycott crowd. No "I'm perfectly fine with the elite's choices of candidates" message, as with the "VOTE OUR GUY!!!!" crowd. Just a protest vote, pure and simple.

The downside? If the Vulture goes to the polls and casts his one lonely protest vote, he's just a crank and can be easily dismissed by the elite. But if the Vulture is joined by several million of his fellow citizens? THEN the elite has to sit up and take notice! My way only works if it becomes a grass-roots movement; sadly, in 21st century America, my way isn't even on the cultural radar.

So what's a curmudgeonly avian to do? I'm voting my conscience. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I'm writing in Ron Paul in the general election. He won't win. I know that. But I won't send a message of apathy to the elites, and I won't send a message of "your candidates are swell!" to them, either. It'll be one lonely vote. But it will be done with a clear conscience and without compromise to my principles.

Really, should a person ever vote any other way?

Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart

I'm a firm believer in pointing out writers and bloggers who are doing a commendable job of drawing attention to the issues of freedom and government corruption that are the predominant theme of this blog. Anyone who's ever read this blog knows that I have a major man-crush on Vox Day and Steve Czaban. I've always enjoyed the wit and wisdom of Der Hausfraurer, Nate. In the past year, I've added William Grigg (Pro Libertate) and Andrew Bolt to my list of those who "get it" and are fighters against over-grasping government.

Today I'd like to call your attention to a lady who is fighting the good fight against a singularly corrupt and evil organ of government -- Child Protective Services (CPS). I'd like to introduce you to Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart, a blog that caught fire during the FLDS fiasco.

Contrary to the name, "Sore Toes" is NOT a bleeding heart in the traditional, Upper West Side Limousine Liberal sense of the term. Her heart bleeds for the children being yanked away from family and home on the flimsiest of excuses. She's got a very good grasp of the issues, and a real nose for digging up the dirt on the "civil servants" behind Der Staat's malevolent claim on our children.

She's a talented writer and is significantly nicer in her treatment of the foul vermin she reports on than, say, Vox Day, Nate, or I. It's not a chick blog -- she addresses hard issues and does it well. Give her a read -- you'll be glad you did.

Nate is a genius

Nate, AKA Der Hausfrauhrer, has a blog called The Pan Galactic Blogger Blaster. Nate is Southern - REALLY Southern, "The South shall rise again!" Southern. One of his favorite post topics is ATF - not the federal agency, but rather the alcohol he's drinkin', the seegar he's smokin', and the weapon he's firin'.

And there's a brain along with all of that "Southern". It turns out that Nate's a genius.

You see, in the endless debate of "God or Science", the one argument I'd never heard is the one made by Nate last week in his blog. There's really no summarizing it, and I can't do it justice with snippets, so here's the whole thing, intact. Well done, Nate!

History vs. Science

Given that History and Science are both bodies of knowledge... and both are systems for verifying knowledge... it seems a bit odd that I would choose to juxtapose them so. After all...we're supposed to pit Theism and Science against each other aren't we?

This matchup seems far more logical to me...as the two are in many ways mirror images of each other. Science is the study of what is real. History is the study of what has happened. Again...the matchup doesn't seem natural. After all... what's happened is obviously real...isn't it?

See there-in we have the rub.

The processes of historical investigation are tried and true. They are just as self-correcting as science.

But what can science say about history?

Not a lot really. We can't really experiment to determine if Caesar crossed the Rubicon. In fact...science is really pretty useless for determining anything that may have happened. See science hamstrung by its "repeatability" requirement. Which is odd for something designed to study nature...since nature isn't necessarily prone to performing on demand.

History says...This Happened!

Science says...This couldn't have happened because I don't understand it and can't make it happen again.

History says...Science is irrelevant.

The trouble here is scientists. They have reached the point where they no longer acknowledge that there are things they don't understand. Rather than simply saying, "we don't understand" they claim that the offending phenomena is simply impossible.

History says that Jesus Christ was Crucified and Resurrected. Science doesn't understand it...so it hisses from a safe distance.

3000 years ago we were wise enough to realize that we didn't know everything...

Today...we have shiny trinkets and machines that go "PING!" but we're fools. We're stupid enough to believe that if we don't understand something...it must not be possible.

I can only applaud. Again, well done, Nate!