American Decapitated.

[surplus1]

Re: Timebuilder

You wrote this to Timebuilder but some of it got my attention so maybe I can add some fuel to the fire.

Do you believe in the collective wisdom of the American electorate?

No! Not anymore.

Would you change the rules of how our government officials are elected?

Yes, particularly the President. I would not eliminate the Electoral College but I would modify how the "delegates" must vote. The idea that 500 disputed votes in one State can reverse a majority of one half million votes in several States repudiates the will of the people.

Do you think that they must pass some sort of biblical belief muster, before they can be allowed to hold an office that the eligible voters chose?

I don't pretend to know what Timebuilder thinks of that (although I have my suspicions) but a great many so-called "conservatives" do think that biblical belief is essential to the office of president in this country. A professed non-christian has never been elected and I doubt seriously that one could be. This ties in somewhat with your first question, in that most Americans profess to be Christian and call the country a "Christian Nation". Yet reality indicates that most Americans don't "live" much Christianity. Church going on Sunday does not a Christian make.

Interestingly, the current President tells us the he feels he was "called by God" to lead us and to bring freedom to the world. Based on what has happened so far his adminstration has brought freedom to no one outside our country and removed many of the freedoms we had within our country before he took office. Do you suppose God made a mistake or did Mr. Bush misinterpret his "calling"? Personally I would have much prefered had God "chosen" him to continue to bless Texans and freed him from the burden of bungling the leadership of our country.

A long time ago the founding fathers ensured in our Constitution that religion would be free from government. Unfortunate it was they did not also ensure that government would be free from religion.

Yet, despite of the fact that Kerry is really doing nothing, not really speaking out much about Iraq, and he continues to rise in the polls.

While I agree that Kerry may not be the "[beacon] at the end of the tunnel", given the darkness into which we have been led by Bush and crew, even a flickering candle is a major improvement. In the current circumstance this particular strategy is very wise. When your opponent is expertly destroying himself, the best course of action is to do nothing, say little ..... and let him.

Here's hoping that come November Mr. Bush will continue to follow in his father's footsteps. Perhaps Kerry can't do much better but one thing is certain ... he can't do worse.

 

[pa28cfi]

Surplus you make some good observations but you are wrong about the electoral college it is there for a very good reason. The founding father's were some pretty smart guys they knew if you had a strictly state by state popular vote one or two large states would wind up holding all the keys to power. Do you really want New York and California deciding for the rest of the country who gets to be president? I thought so. The electoral college is there to protect small states and give them a voice in presidential politics, it might not be perfect but it is far better than simply having New York and California decide for the rest of us who the president is going to be. The 2000 election was a debacle because lawyers got involved not because of the electoral college.

 

[jarhead]

pa28cfi

While your point is well taken about the Electoral College will tend to moderate the dominance of large populace states, I believe the founders had a more pragmatic reason for having this methodology.

The founders could not have envisioned the electronic technology we now use for tabulating the election results. We now seem to have the ability to determine the winner of an election before all the votes are even counted, by scientific sampling in selected precincts. Last year’s Florida vote being a very large departure from that last sentence.

Back in the late 1700’s, there was not even telegraph to pass information. There was no railway either. The various states would have their electors to gather and tabulate the local votes. It was then a human courier who would go by horse back or horse drawn carriage to a central location, so they could get all states results certified in time for the January 20 term of election to begin. I don’t know that the founders could have envisioned California, and how large a state it would become. They did not even envision it would ever be a state. California was a colonial province of the Spanish empire during the years 1769 to 1821. Located on the northern frontier of New Spain

 

[pa28cfi]

I was just using California as an example, the point is they wanted to keep large states from running the whole show. I'm not a history professor but I believe this was the reasoning behind the electoral college.

 

[Timebuilder]

T.B.
I enjoy debating certain points with you. You tend to keep it civil and respectful. I am on your side of some issues, and on the opposite side of other issues. And, like you say, that’s America, and what’s so good about it.

If the November scenario you portray turns out to be accurate, that would be great for all of America. And, if your forecast and its attendant realities take place, I will salute your view as being one that was more accurate than mine, and I’ll eat my appropriate serving of crow, and let everyone see me eat that bit of scavenger fowl.

At this time however, six months before the polls open, I plan to vote to replace the incumbent in the White House.

Certainly, your vote, and its consequences, whatever they are, are your right, and I support that right.

When I read Surplus1's post, I remembered that I hadn't addressed all of the points I might have, if I had more time, so I'll take some time now, before I take on the day's errands.

Do you believe in the collective wisdom of the American electorate?

When they are truly well informed, I do. There has been a distinct improvement over the past ten years in that wisdom, as folks have trurned away from my old friends at the networks, NY and LA papers, CNN, etc. I would not put a lot of faith in polls at this point, since most voters do not pay a great deal of attention to the issues until the elction is near, with a few exceptions. Ten years ago, I might have said that the change in congress was the first hint of Americans saying "enough!"

Would you change the rules of how our government officials are elected?

If you mean the ellectoral college, no. The purpose of the electoral college is to PREVENT the election of a president by total vote count, for a host of reasons. They are good reasons, which is why we have kept the system all this time.

Do you think that they must pass some sort of biblical belief muster, before they can be allowed to hold an office that the eligible voters chose?

In terms of a government requirement, no. I'm not even sure why you are asking that, other than you are hoping that I would voluteer that every president should be a Christian. That is not the case, and WOULD be a violation of the constitution. Leading children in prayer in a public school, by a teracher who is personally moved to do so, is not a violation.

What I DO support is that as many Americans a possible turn to Christ, as a personal and heart-driven revelation, and then, as free Americans, vote as their conscience leads them.

That is already happening. There are more people getting saved in America every day than there are gay marriages. That's a wonderful thing, since every day, people are turning aeway from the gay lifestyle. I mention this because it is a situation that gets a lot of media attention. People turning away from sin gets NO attention.

I don't pretend to know what Timebuilder thinks of that (although I have my suspicions) but a great many so-called "conservatives" do think that biblical belief is essential to the office of president in this country. A professed non-christian has never been elected and I doubt seriously that one could be. This ties in somewhat with your first question, in that most Americans profess to be Christian and call the country a "Christian Nation". Yet reality indicates that most Americans don't "live" much Christianity. Church going on Sunday does not a Christian make.

Surplus1, you are right on the money.

Going to church does not make one a Christian. We are, however, a country that historically is peopled by believers, particularly up until the 1960's. We still derive most of our mainstream values from Christian teaching, which also includes the historical jewish teaching, since we both have a common Messiah.

There is a differrece between the desire that I have, as an individual American, that our president be a Godly man, and the idea that I would want this to become US law. I think most conservative would agree with that distinction.

Interestingly, the current President tells us the he feels he was "called by God" to lead us and to bring freedom to the world.

The rest of that idea is that this is within the context of our reaction to the terrorists attacks, and the enslavement that their doctrine brings to millions, and the potentail death they desire for millions of "infidels."

Based on what has happened so far his adminstration has brought freedom to no one outside our country and removed many of the freedoms we had within our country before he took office.

The facts say otherwise. Millions of Iraqis stand on the cusp of freedom right now. No one here has experinced a loss of freedom. I'll glady give up my "freedom" to carry a nail file on an airplane if more Americans percieve themselves as being more safe so that they continue to fly on our airplanes.

Do you suppose God made a mistake or did Mr. Bush misinterpret his "calling"? Personally I would have much prefered had God "chosen" him to continue to bless Texans and freed him from the burden of bungling the leadership of our country.

What a wonderful example. It clearly shows that the wisdom of God is so much greater than the wisdom of Man that we often don't see or understand God's plan. While I think I see a piece of it, others may not. In context, it makes sense: God inspired the founders, all Godly men, to found a coutry unique in its freedom to praise and follow His ways, and yet allow its ctitizens, as a mirror of Biblical principle, to not follow Christ if they desire to not do so while retaining a moral framework that is fair to all. It is the embodiment of Biblical free will in a county and government.

What a gift from God.

A long time ago the founding fathers ensured in our Constitution that religion would be free from government. Unfortunate it was they did not also ensure that government would be free from religion.

That aspect is also correct.

We did not begin as a government that suppressed the ability of Godly men to serve in government. In fact, the founders made the assumption that it would be the fact that Godly me would always be called to serve that would ensure our continued status as a moral people and thus our status as a free people.

Yet, despite of the fact that Kerry is really doing nothing, not really speaking out much about Iraq, and he continues to rise in the polls.

The longer Kerry says nothing about anything, he will rise incrementally. When he says nothing, people are free to paint whatever ideas they would like to see about him in their own minds, and project that finished picture onto their image of Kerry. It is what they like about their own ideas, not anything Kerry offers, that gives him this incremental increase in polling data.

While I agree that Kerry may not be the "[beacon] at the end of the tunnel", given the darkness into which we have been led by Bush and crew, even a flickering candle is a major improvement. In the current circumstance this particular strategy is very wise. When your opponent is expertly destroying himself, the best course of action is to do nothing, say little ..... and let him.

Trust me on this, that's a "minority opinion." Not an opiniopn held by minorities, but one held by a fraction of the poulation.

By November, that fraction should be smaller.

 

[kevdog]

My regrets go out to Nick's family and friends for his terrible death. Unfortunately, Nick decided to work in a warzone that was unsafe, and he went at his own will knowing that he could get in trouble. That was the risk he was taking to make money, and the worst case scenary happened. Since when have we thought radical extremists in that area were humane? When you play with fire, the worst can happen.

 

[surplus1]

P28cfi, et al

If you read my post again you will see that I did NOT advocate eliminating the Electoral College. I advocated its modification. I understand why it was created. However, I dislike how it is administered and think that the purpose for which you belive it was put in place is not accurate and does not apply (even if it once did) in the country as it is today. California and New York would not if fact be able to always decide who is President if the College did not exist. The "system" is quite different among the several States. I think it should be the same in each of them and favor the methodology of the New England States which tie the "votes" of the electors to the majority vote of the people.

I also believe that the American people should be informed as to how the Electoral College really works, how the delegates are chosen in the various States, what their obligations are and are not, etc., and the true value of the individual vote. I think the average voter operates under the ilusion that the vote he/she casts in November has something to do with who becomes President. If fact it does not and is essentially a sharade. In practical application, they might as well not vote at all. The President is chosen by the electors not the people and in many cases the people don't even choose the electors. I am in favor of a uniform system throughout the country, not the current system which I believe facilitates political shenanagins and disenfranchises the people. I also do not believe that the electors should be permitted to outvote the people.

We could start by reviewing the details of how the electors are chosen in your particular State and progress from there.

 

[Timebuilder]

I learned about the electoral college in the fifth grade.

Is it any wonder, with a 50% divorce rate, children dressing like hookers, and teachers failing their testing requirements, that children today might not understand basic civics?

You can be sure they can put a condom on a zuchini, one handed and blindfolded, though.

 

[surplus1]

I agree with many of the reasons you give as to why children have little knowledge of basic civics and could probably add a few more. However, children can't vote, so I worry more about adults who don't understand Presidential voting and the true value of their individual vote. If they did, I think we would see a movement for substantial reform.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Timebuilder]

Some days I think I suffer from an inability to articulate well.

I'm not suggesting that emotion-driven children should vote. In fact, property ownership would be a good thing to qualify voting. We lost that one along the way. Professional jurors, proven capable of having at least a basic understanding of the legal system would also be a good idea. No more "OJ juries."

No, instead I'm suggesting that this lack of understanding has gone on so long that those who were children in the 70's and 80's often don't have a clue, as evidenced from many of the post election interviews on TV following the 2000 election. Those former children are now misinformed, undereducated voters.

 

[pa28cfi]

I dislike how it is administered and think that the purpose for which you belive it was put in place is not accurate and does not apply (even if it once did) in the country as it is today.

From Boundless.org: http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000353.html


by Sam Torode



Before this year’s presidential election, most Americans were unaware of the importance of the Electoral College. Unless you're a poly sci major, you likely assumed that the president was elected by a majority vote of the people, and that Electoral College lost the Rose Bowl in 1956.
All that changed on election night, November 7. Early on, it looked as though Vice President Gore would win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. When questioned about this possibility, Gore said the Constitution — which provides for the appointment of the president by electors from each state, not a popular vote — must be respected. A president-elect who did not win the popular vote, Gore contended, should not have his governance called into question.

Gore, I suspect, now regrets that answer. As I write, the election is still too close to call; but if the Florida recount confirms the original numbers, the reverse will come to pass: George W. Bush will carry the Electoral College despite Al Gore’s razor-thin victory in the popular vote.

This morning, one of my fiancée’s professors told his class that, whoever is elected, the next president should move to abolish the Electoral College. America is a democracy, he reasoned, and thus the president should be chosen by nationwide popular vote, disregarding state boundaries. The Electoral College hijacks democracy, he concluded, and must be scrapped.

The Framers of our Constitution were not stupid. They created the Electoral College for a reason, and this year’s election — far from discrediting the electoral system — demonstrates its genius.

Writing to promote the freshly-drafted Constitution in 1787, Alexander Hamilton explained the Electoral College. "The people of each State," he wrote in The Federalist Number 68, "shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President."

That the power of electing the president was given to the states, not the people as a whole, was crucial for ratifying the Constitution. In the early republic, the sovereign states were not about to cede their authority to a distant, centralized government that had only its own interests — not those of the individual states — in mind.

That’s also why we have a Senate, not just a House of Representatives. Each state’s representation in the House is determined by its population, but every state, however large or small, has two senators. The Founders intended the Senate to balance the House and protect the interests of the states. Because each state has as many members of the Electoral College as it has representatives and senators together, lower-population states are given a greater say in the electoral process than they would have in a popular vote.

In short, the Electoral College protects the interests of the states against the power of the federal government. How did this play out in Election 2000?

Looking at an electoral map, with George Bush’s states in red and Al Gore’s in blue, the bulk of the U.S. is red. According to USA Today, Bush won in 2,434 counties nationwide, while Gore prevailed in only 677. When you calculate that in terms of square miles, Bush carried 2,427,039 square miles of America, while Gore claimed only 580, 134. "Big city voters handed Gore a 71% to 25% landslide," reports USA Today’s Jill Lawrence, "while six in ten rural and small-town voters backed Bush."

For example, Gore carried Michigan with 51 percent of the popular vote. Though he did poorly in most counties — Michigan's small towns and farming country — he took the state by capturing Detroit with an overwhelming 94 percent (though some allege that number was inflated by voter fraud). In Illinois, Gore garnered 80 percent of the Chicago vote but only 54 percent of the statewide vote. He scored 80 percent in New York City (60 percent overall) and 73 percent in Los Angeles (54 percent).

If the presidential election were purely a popular vote, with no regard for individual states, it would be dominated by a handful of big cities. As seen above, states like Michigan and Illinois can be swayed by a single metropolitan area. Candidates in those states must bend to the interests of the cities in order to win.

With no Electoral College, presidential candidates would simply jet back and forth between the coasts, with the occasional stop in a large Midwestern city. With no Electoral College, candidates would have little choice but to bypass rural voters. Moreover, with no Electoral College, any other strategy would be politically foolish.

What's the difference between country folk and city folk, anyhow? Why should it matter that the cities sway elections, so long as democracy prevails? While it is certainly not possible to judge someone’s character based on where they live, one’s living situation does influence one’s responsibilities and interests, and thus affects one’s vote. "Cities are by nature more liberal than suburban and rural areas" Lawrence writes in USA Today, "... because they are denser and people rely more on public services and regulation such as zoning. ‘You have a different attitude toward politics,’ [urban expert Fred Siegal] says. ‘You can do less on your own. You need more from government.’" This helps to explain why city-dwellers voted for Al Gore in droves, with an eye toward increasing the scope and power of the federal government.

Putting aside the differences between urban and rural voters, another factor in a popular vote would be the notorious corruption that taints elections in large cities, and the power of organized labor and political "machines" to manipulate the vote in population-dense areas. At the polling place next to my Chicago office, for example, a large, intimidating man (a city official, actually) in a black trench coat stood outside all day handing voters slips of paper listing the candidates (all Democrats) they should vote for. It was amazing to see the machine at work!

Clearly, a nationwide popular vote, heavily weighted towards a few densely populated urban centers, would not necessarily reflect America as a whole. Far from subverting the American people, the Electoral College is one way of ensuring that America’s rural and heartland voters — those who live on and cultivate most of the actual land in the U.S. — are not entirely ignored.

Such is the wisdom of our Constitution’s electoral system.

 

[ThomasR]

Decap U.S.

Holy Cow,

Now I know why we prefer a separation between church and state. How about this, God did not create man, rather, man created God and not from a clump of clay but from nothing at all.

God is a collective idea. Then Christ came along and required a secret hand shake to become a member of the heavenly group.

On your mark, get set, GO!

Don't hurt me ....... try to find humor in all things, good and bad [especially bad].

 

[Timebuilder]

As far as I know, there was never a secret handshake. Maybe the closest thing was Thomas' examination of the nail holes in Christ's hands.

Perhaps one of the more intersting parts of the Nick Berg story is that his father did not share Nick's political beliefs, and many are saying that he is using Nick's death to advance political agendas with which Nick disagreed.

I'll give the guy a pass for the grief and anger over his son's murder, but time will tell if he continues to carry this on down the same road.

 

[dmspilot00]

Is it any wonder, with a 50% divorce rate, children dressing like hookers, and teachers failing their testing requirements, that children today might not understand basic civics?

Actually, they announced a few weeks ago that it is up to 60 percent.

 

[Timebuilder]

True.

I was referencing the rate of divorce that was in existence when todays young voters were in school.

The likelihood of these young democrats coming from a home environment where they grew up in a daycare center as toddlers and without the influence of a father through grade school and high school gives creedence to their fondness for people like Howard Dean and John Kerry.

No father to hold them accountable and teach them about the value of freedom or faith.

Guys, a stable family is the most important foundation for our future.

 

[Dubya]

Ignorant Americans

The easy answer to all of these political processes being largely unknown to most Americans is the dumbing down of America. Watch the Leno piece where he walks down the street asking simple questions that people can't answer.
The media plays to this ignorance.

As for religion and government....explain how a DA in OK can support a muslim girl wearing her religion based headwear to school...but not support a christian praying in school.

This country has lost sight of it's foundation and its principles.



W

 

[Timebuilder]

This is the old analogy of cooking a frog. If you put the frog in hot water, he will be alarmed and jump out, making the cooking of him very difficult.

If, however, you put him in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, he will remain in the water, saying to himself "that's not too bad, I can put up with that" or "this doesn't really affect me, so it's okay." In short order, the water has become so hot that his muscles no longer work well, and he can't jump out, and he is cooked in short order. This is what is happening in America, from the 1950's forward.

The War on Poverty/Affirmative Action/establishment clause/government sponsored healthcare/reproductive rights/gay rights/multiculturalism all look reasonable and "progressive" on their face, but they all represent the slow heating of the water of America, incrementally becoming more and more hostile to the values that made America great: morality, unity, capitalism and a distinct American culture.

The terrorists also hate the values that America was founded upon. They like that they could send their child to an American school and we will accommodate their prayer schedule, while forsaking the prayers of the majority of the students' faith. They like that they can come here and get free healthcare and educational assistance. The liberals like the fact that they can offer a variety of government sponsored (means that you and I pay for it) services to illegal immigrants who will vote for them in large numbers as a return of the favor. The liberals like the partitioning of America into interest groups and the restraint of speech, making it difficult to disagree without being accused of "hating." It is, in a word, political extortion.

Recently, this rise in temperature has begun to slow a little, as people are refusing to accept this trend of anything goes, this substitution of social conscience with social anarchy. As a consequence, you will see more things from Ted, Maureen, Chuck, James, Al, and all their friends.

As Sean says, "let not your heart be troubled" (a quote from Jesus) but don't forget that there are powerful forces at work who hate what America is, and want to cook it. Those forces come from both within and without. Be aware.

 

[ThomasR]

Am. Decap.

..............As far as I know, there was never a secret handshake. Maybe the closest thing was Thomas' examination of the nail holes in Christ's hands.............

Timebuilder,
I am not even going to attempt to reason with you on any of these issues. So I will make my last statement here to this post and this topic [as gruesome as it is] and move on.

Christianity is full of secret societies starting right from the beginning. New ideas generally have to begin in secret to survive because people are ego driven and believe their point of view is the correct one allowing very little deviation from others. People of influence generate the most conformity. In that, Christ was part of a movement recognized by most of the middle east and Europe at that time and especially troubling to the Roman Empire.

Christs' entire family had special gifts of healing that gained them notoriety and influence throughout the known world. It is a standing theory [and probably will always remain just a theory] that the event leading to martyrdom was a self fulfilling prophesy. His mother, Ste. Mary, was from the House of Levi [the religious center of the Israelites] and St. Joseph was from the House of Judah [the largest most prolific military group]. The idea was to initiate a religious outcry against Rome which failed.

However, it is speculated that the newly formed Christian movement was instrumental in burning Rome from the inside while the Arab nations and Germans attacked from the outside [30% of the Roman army was lost in Europe attempting to enslave the "Huns" in order to exact taxes on them].

I feel bad that Christ did in fact die a horrible death and he did it knowingly and with selfless ambition for the good of a new generation. However, the adage remains, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

As far as the direction our country is going, giving liberties to some while neglecting others I might ask, how is your personal life affected each day you wake up, go to work, raise your family, go to school, shop at the local food mart, drive your car, attend your church [synagogue, temple, coven or whatever], go on vacation to almost anywhere in the world, visit freely with your friends, etc. Conformity is necessary to maintain ourselves as a world power but sometimes it seems so trite as to wear me down.

Thank You, I'm finished. its not easy being green

 

[Timebuilder]

Christianity is full of secret societies starting right from the beginning. New ideas generally have to begin in secret to survive because people are ego driven and believe their point of view is the correct one allowing very little deviation from others. People of influence generate the most conformity. In that, Christ was part of a movement recognized by most of the middle east and Europe at that time and especially troubling to the Roman Empire.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to address with this comment. Nothing in the Bible is hidden or secret, other than what it specifically states will be revealed to us in the future, and there is NO knolwege or wisdom that Man brings to Christanity (that is, the following of the teachings of Christ according to His Word). The reaction you mention from Rome was a political reaction to a non-political Messiah.

Christs' entire family had special gifts of healing that gained them notoriety and influence throughout the known world. It is a standing theory [and probably will always remain just a theory] that the event leading to martyrdom was a self fulfilling prophesy. His mother, Ste. Mary, was from the House of Levi [the religious center of the Israelites] and St. Joseph was from the House of Judah [the largest most prolific military group]. The idea was to initiate a religious outcry against Rome which failed.

To attach the "Ste." monnicker to one person, such as Mary or Joseph, and not to other believers is not Biblical. ALL believers are "saints." To do or say otherwise is a work of Man, not a work of God. The idea was not to initiate a "religious outcry against Rome." The idea was to make a propitiation for our sins, so God's people could be made acceptable to Him in His sight.

If if is not in the Bible, it has no standing in a discussion about Christ.

I feel bad that Christ did in fact die a horrible death and he did it knowingly and with selfless ambition for the good of a new generation. However, the adage remains, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, either. I suspect, though, that in the totality of this post you are implying that Christ's death was the unforseen result of a failed political agenda. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you believe this, you have my compassion, as you are horribly mislead.

As far as the direction our country is going, giving liberties to some while neglecting others I might ask, how is your personal life affected each day you wake up, go to work, raise your family, go to school, shop at the local food mart, drive your car, attend your church [synagogue, temple, coven or whatever], go on vacation to almost anywhere in the world, visit freely with your friends, etc. Conformity is necessary to maintain ourselves as a world power but sometimes it seems so trite as to wear me down.

My personal life is affected by the slow cooking of our "frog," the erosion of the freedoms granted by God and recognized as such by the founders, the ignorance of citizens of the necessity seen by the founders that we be a "moral people," the reduction of the sovereignty of the United States, which is being slowly ground away by those who wish to fashion us into a part of a single socialist world government, and the attempts to emliminate the distinct American culture to which previous immigrants conformed theselves as an agreeable statement of embracing their new country and all it has to offer. It is the modern rejection of all of the things for which our fathers fought before, and for which our brothers and sons fight now that I find offensive in its ignorance.

I do not, sir, find those ideals and standards to be in any way "trite."

 

[ThomasR]

Am. Decap.

........ ALL believers are "saints."..........

Timebuilder,

Thank you, I finally made Stainthood.