Robots and American Government

Isaac Asimov is my favorite author of all time. One of the many reasons is his ability to make his fantastical technological fiction so logically consistent. He is considered to be the father of robotics and if you haven’t read his Robot short story compilations, go now and be inspired.  A foundational (pun intended) element to Asimov’s robots is the 3 Laws. Much has been written, primarily by Asimov himself, on their various facets, but I recently had a light bulb moment in regards to a more political application. The 3 Laws are as follows, from an excellent book (and OK-ish movie) I, Robot,

“The Three Laws of Robotics:
1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; 2: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; 3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law”

A full understanding of the laws and their impact on a Robot is the subject of Asimov’s Robot series and I highly recommend.

               

          My use of them is in a different realm altogether. Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 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.”

I believe we can take from that sentence the 3 Laws of Robotics for a Free Society.

The First Law would be:

1: A Free Citizen may not infringe upon the life of another human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to lose their life.

The unalienable Right to Life announces that all life is equally valid. It announces that all ages, races, classes, and ethnicities have intrinsic value and that we all share the responsibility of defending each other and of defending the right to defend ourselves. It outlaws murder; it places a stern disapproval on capital punishment; and discourages all forms of war, particularly unjust total war. A society which practices abortion, euthanasia, genetic breeding, and human drug trials is breaking this law. It sits at the foundation of Freedom. No one who is scared for their life is truly free.

The Second Law would be:

2: A Free Citizen may act in accordance with their conscience in all matters, except in cases where such inclinations would conflict with the First Law.

                The unalienable Right to Liberty is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Freedom. The catch phrase “It’s a Free Country, isn’t it?” captures the defiant toddler like desire we all have to be the masters of our own destiny. While a more adult approach to life is expected, the ability to do whatever we please should be valued. I don’t have to ask the government before I travel to another part of the country. I don’t have to check with my governor before I buy cheese. I don’t have a supervisor which assigns me a living space. I am free. I pick my leaders and I pick my leisure. However, this is a qualified provision. I am not free to kill who I please. I am not free to kill myself. I am not free to withhold basic human needs from my peers which would result in sickness and death. I am not free to recklessly pursue enjoyment at the risk of others. On the one hand, one who takes a life is never truly free of the consequences. On the other hand, when others are prevented from killing me I’m free to enjoy my life without fear.

The Third Law would be:

3: A Free Citizen may pursue what they deem to be the sources of their happiness, insomuch as that pursuit does not conflict with the first two laws.

               The unalienable Right to pursue Happiness requires a definition. Happiness can be many things. It can simply be that which makes us smile. It can be what gives our lives meaning. It can be our children, our toys, our past times, or our passions. It is impossible to pursue Happiness without Liberty. The freedom to act however I deem necessary free of fear to achieve Happiness is essential. Alternatively, the restriction of another’s liberty or taking of another’s life cannot and will not result in true Happiness.

               So, there you go. Next time you evaluate a law or political stance you should consider the 3 Laws. A Law which stresses liberty over life (such as Abortion) or happiness over liberty (Universal Healthcare) should be rejected by Free Citizens. Comments welcome.

Prayer - What, When, Where, Why and How

That's enough NBA talk for a little while, back to something a little more important. I wouldn't begin to know who to source regarding my ideas on Prayer, I know CS Lewis, John Piper and my Dad have all played vital rolls in the formation of the following. However, there are many other things I've read and people I've heard that lead me to these conclusions. I'll try the W ?'s as a framework and see if that organizes this better. 

What - Prayer is defined as "a devout petition to God, or an object of worship" on dictionary.com, "an invocation or act that seeks to to activate rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication" by wikipedia, which breaks my third rule of definition: don't use words that would need to be looked up when defining a word, but is a much fuller definition. In Scripture the word Prayer, Pray and Praying are used a combined 439 times in the Bible. Which is a statistic I've never understood the value of. Sure, when comparing particular author's word usages I get it, but not just intro-ing a sermon on a topic and rattling off its usage stats and various Greek & Hebrew modes. Nonetheless, despite only appearing 439 times, prayer is a very important topic in the Bible. There's no recorded instance of God pulling aside Adam, Noah, Abraham or any other Patriarchal figure and explaining to them how to talk to Him. The word prayer first appears in 2 Sam but I think its safe to assume the practice had been going on since the beginning of time itself. Of course, the "Lord's Prayer" story is the most commonly used template to teach how to pray and is also relates Christ teaching His disciples. However, do you think the disciples really didn't know how to pray? When they asked Christ to teach them, was it out of total ignorance in the process? These are Jews, they've been watching and participating in prayers their whole lives. They were asking for special guidance, not start-up instruction. Christ prayed differently because Christ was speaking to His Father within perfect harmony of His will. 

My definition of prayer:

The intentional and sometimes audible presentation of praise, information and requests with expected results from the created to the Creator. 

When - Paul tells us to "pray without ceasing" or "pray constantly." I've heard it preached that in a perfect world we could sit on our knees and talk to God all day. That's dumb. God is eternally long suffering so we can't annoy Him per se, but He created and saved us for a reason and as far as I can tell, it wasn't to sit on our knees all day. Maybe the Muslims are on to something here. Just like Daniel, they have set times to gather and pray. This is good and a lot of Christians I know are similar, just less public (which is recommended in the Sermon on the Mount) but it doesn't quite fit into "without ceasing." I don't think I'm going to blow anybody's mind by saying Paul is talking about maintaining a close, sharing, open communication channel between God and ourselves at all times. Does this mean we don't have to bless our meals? Yes. Is it a good practice to do it anyway? Of course it is. But my mom saying "You're going to choke on that because you ate it before we prayed" is frankly ridiculous. In fact, suggesting we can't start anything without "praying first" suggests we weren't praying to begin with, which misses the point entirely. Praying for ritual's sake cheapens the act. Prayer should be spontaneous, legitimate and passionate. However, I think we should also have public prayer before ballgames, meetings, meals and the Sunday morning offering. But public prayer is a different beast altogether than personal prayer, I'll explain more as we go.

Where - If we are praying "without ceasing" then everywhere. There are some recommendations though. The parable of the Publican and the Sinner shows that a prayer's legitimacy is dependent on the heart not the performance. This concept is attached to the corollary that requests made known to God in secret are fulfilled in the open. Meaning relying on God alone in our prayer lives will strengthen our faith more, make us more like Christ (who prayed alone on numerous occasions) and promises results. 

Side note - teaching "how to get prayers answered" is borderline blasphemous. God is not a tool to be used or a daddy figure to be manipulated. Take care

Why - Everything we do should be to the Glory of God, correct? So prayer fits into that same category. In the case of public prayer, a benediction or invocation at the beginning or end of an event symbolizes God's presence there, His power over the proceedings and the utter dependence on Him of the participants. This is beneficial for all in attendance and I believe "beneficial" to God in that it gives Him glory or as we've mentioned before, demonstrates His glory fuller. 

Side note - If you think Ben Franklin's request to open the Constitutional Congress session with prayer is evidence of his faith, consider these facts. 1 - Franklin was a well-documented Deist who believed God had no or little interest in the affairs of men and 2 - the task facing the members of that Congress was enormous to say the least. I believe Franklin was showing his hand regarding prayer and throwing up what was in his mind the most desperate "Hail Mary" (pun intended) he could think of. I suggested as much my sophomore year in "Early American Political Thought" and the prof, who has since retired, about burned me at the stake. oh well.

In regards to personal prayer. The benefits for an individual frequently praying are clear - a closer relationship to God, there are more chances to repent so sins have less of chance to fester, constant prayer means Christ-like thinking more often which wards off sins to begin with, a more direct connection can be made between requests and results which increases faith, the transforming power of the Holy Ghost which works through direct contact with the Divine (this occurs only 2 ways: prayer and the reading/meditation of Scripture), etc. 

How - as I said before, "how to pray in order to get results" is a false teaching. Christ lays out a template in the Lord's Prayer, the Saxon Paraphrase goes like this:

Heavenly Father, the Almighty God, 

may your perfect will be accomplished, 

You've promised to provide and as You know I need ________, thank You for Your provision. 

Forgive me for ______ and help me to forgive ________ for __________, thank You for You forgiveness. Protect me from myself and the darkness of this World, thank You for Your protection. In the name of the Christ, the Supreme King Jesus, Amen. 

Braves have won only 13 of their last 36 on the road. They dropped yesterday's in extras to the Royals. This 3 games series is their first ever at Kauffman stadium, one of 2 active stadiums Chipper Jones never played in. They did win game 1 however, Jason Heyward blasting off in a big way with 3 rbis and a big fly. As the All-Star game approaches here are my picks for the starters, always a bunch of tough picks:

NL

C - YMolina 1B - FFreeman 2B - MCarpenter SS - TTulowitzki (hurt but deserving) 3B - DWright

LF - JUpton CF - SChoo RF - CBeltran

Bench - JVotto, PGoldschmidt, YPuig, BHarper, ACraig, CGonzalez, JSegura (start), CGomez, BPosey

SP - AWainwright

AL

C - CSantana 1B - CDavis 2B - RCano SS - JJHardy 3B - MCabrera DH - PFielder

LF - AGordon CF - AJones RF - NCruz

Bench - NMarkakis, JLowrie, YCespedes, JMauer, MNapoli, JEllsbury, VMartinez, JBautista

SP - MScherzer

A Theology of Regret

     My wife would not hesitate to tell you that she and I come from very different backgrounds. One of the areas that has moved to the forefront of our relationship is our mindset towards decisions. On one hand, I make decisions with irrational confidence. I launch myself towards a door, even if its only open a crack, merely based on a "gut feeling" or "seems like God is orchestrating this." I have no fear of failing, failure is inevitable and the mortar with which we build our lives. Jenni has lived with a different mindset for most of her life. A caution to the extreme which is more concerned with one thing above all else: regret.

     Every decision is painstakingly slow if the primary thought is, "I really don't want to pick the wrong thing, what if I regret it?" There are several logical and theological problems with this mindset, and I've been slowing showing my very teachable wife the wonder a life free from worry can be. So, I'll share some of my thoughts here.

     I don't want to call it regret-free because that sounds too much like the YOLO, live life to the fullest crowd. But because I don't have a good name for it yet, I'd love your help by the way, I'll call it just that. To be regret-free you have to have certain presuppositions.

First - God is in control. It all comes down to this, the rest of the thought process revolves around God's sovereign authority over everything. From Creation to Christ to the 2nd Coming and Cosmic Ending (oh yeah) we are taught one thing above all else, God > _____. Regret-Free living is "God > _____" thinking. (Copyright 2013 PrinceofSaxony)

Second - God loves you. His sovereignty would be the most frightening truth possible were it not for His love. However, knowing His love compels us to Trust Him. As Paul says in Romans 8:28-29, Saxon Paraphrase Version (SPV) "God has planned out everything for His children's gain, the ones He handpicked and saved and is perfecting to be like Christ."

--- Side note, I prefer to paraphrase scripture for two reasons, #1 - I try not to fill my writing with quotes, this is supposed to be what I think #2 - You don't truly understand something until you can paraphrase it ---

Third - Sometimes there is no right choice. This may be the toughest one for some people to swallow. But lets face it, Big Mac or Double Quarter Pounder? They're both so good and yet they're both so so bad. Poor example, I know, but the concept should be clear, millions of times each day we make innocuous decisions, why fret over them? This shirt or that shirt? Apple or Banana? Apple or Microsoft? (We both know there's a right answer to that one...Microsoft) The list goes on and on. I have seen people, my beautiful wife in particular, slave over such simple decisions because they're afraid of making the "wrong" one. As Kevin DeYoung so elegantly put it, "Just Do Something" (I have the book, haven't sat down and read all the way through it, too busy just doing something I suppose).

     So, there's the foundation to regret-free living. Recognizing when a decision is not right/wrong, acknowledging God's love for me, and keeping "God >" at the front of my mind. This leads to the ultimate question, what if two good people disagree on what's right/wrong? How do I know who to listen to? "If I speak I am condemned, but if I stay silent...I am damned." Catch 22s, "rock and a hard place" situations, strain even the calmest regret-free lifer. However, if God is truly in control then no situation find myself in is the "wrong" one. Also, if God truly loves me, then I will be able to handle any difficulty with His help. I don't have to worry that I lost some chance to serve, or lost some reward somewhere, we can't go back in time. Regret leads to despair and in despair lurks death. I would venture that a sizable majority of suicides stem from regret. Granted, some are spurred by impending consequences but the thought pattern that results in the false-escape of suicide most often is a cesspool of regret and despair.

     The Theology of Regret also introduces an enormous amount of stress into your life. I sounds goofy, but living regret-free is healthier. Not YOLO, gonna party like the Epicureans, regret-free. But no-regret, make a choice and live in the confidence that 1 Peter 4:19 is true: (SVP) "We endure this life knowing that our King, the Creator God, who we can trust explicitly, is holding us in His hands." regret-free.

     Should we regret sin? No. and yes. But mostly no. Did Christ die on the cross for my sin? Yes. Did He die for my sins already committed, that is past sins? Yes. But didn't He also die for the sins yet to be committed? Of course. Does this mean I should go out and sin? Of course not! But, Romans 8:1 reminds us of the most liberating truth, "For Christ's children, the verdict is not guilty." (SVP) Hey, David wept over his sin. True, and he begged for forgiveness. He didn't write a Psalm that said, "People of Israel, I have massively erred and therefore must remove myself from the ministry God has appointed me to and forever be marked a failure in the Christian Life" although if you look around in today's Evangelical circles, you'd think he did. True repentance releases regret. Let that sink in, cuz its HUGE. Place your sins at the cross and let Christ give you the gift of new life. Let me rephrase, live in the freedom and blessing Christ died to secure for you, not in the bondage of guilt Satan works tirelessly to maintain.

     Are you living in regret? Stop it, and don't worry about it if you think you are, cuz that's just more regret about being in regret, and it can cycle for awhile, just ask my wife. Instead, change your thinking altogether, through the renewing of your mind by the power of the Holy Spirit, and focus on "God >" and His undying (and dying but resurrected) love for you.

  Braves just dropped 3 straight to San Diego, ugh, but we pitched pretty well, just can't get any consistency from the lineup. Nasty, no good, horrible parallels between this team and late 90s Braves teams are cropping up, but I'll ignore them and maybe they'll go away. Home for 3 with the Mets and 4 with the Giants before coming up here to MILWAUKEE!!!! WHIPEEEEEEE!!!! Already gots my tix for all 3 games, come out and support America's Team - if you don't you're a traitor and should watch out for the NSA cuz they're watching you.

The Kingdom of Heaven

Some thoughts, though not organized well because sometimes I just need to ramble.

Seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture are where most of the major Christian controversies are born. The most discussed in Evangelical circles are Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Atonement, and the Kingdom. The first two I may devote a post or series of posts too in the future, but today I'd like to tackle the third.

The contradictions that introduce the argument come straight from the teachings of Christ, so suggesting that they truly are contradictions is a gross misunderstanding and near-blasphemous misrepresentation of Christ Himself. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." beings several Parables which are given directly to His disciples. Couple those with the Sermon on the Mount and several statements Christ made to various people and you get a somewhat hazy but important theology of the Kingdom. Here's the Saxon Paraphrase Bible version.

So, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3...

John the Baptist is preaching and he says "Jesus is coming" but he uses the words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"

then in chapter 4

Christ preaches the exact same thing as John - "I'm here" but He also uses these words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"

chapter 5

He gathers a group of followers, people who were interested in Him because of His miracles, His words and probably curiosity. He describes to them how a Kingdom citizen is to live. He describes a moral person with a love for God and man. He describes someone interested in what God thinks and with a keen sense of the suffering of others. He describes someone who isn't selfish, isn't greedy, isn't blood-thirsty, and most of all isn't prideful. He uses contemporaries (the Pharisees) as an example of how not to be a Kingdom citizen. He is describing a culture, but a culture of ideas and paradigms not actions. When he says "blessed are the poor" He means "happiness comes from spiritual things, not material" when he says "love your enemy" he means "we are in a struggle for souls, not territory, we are not trying to conquer the world, we are trying to convert the masses". This is not a description of thousands of years from then. This is not Heaven in the sense of Zion with the elders, angels, beasts, and the golden streets. This is Heaven, Christ reigning over the people of His church, His own flesh and blood, the Body of the Living King. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

chapter 10

Christ commissions his "army" to go an preach the same thing "I'm here, your King has arrived" using those same words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"

chapter 11

The Kingdom of Heaven is filled with Saints, and those Saints are the most valuable things in God's Universe

chapter 12

Christ casts out demons either by Satan (illogical) or by God (logical) and then draws the corollary that if it is by God then the Kingdom is here

chapter 13

starting at verse 24,

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a group of people, some of which are followers of Christ, some of which are not --- and they won't be separated until its time to judge finally.

now at verse 31,

The Kingdom of Heaven is greatness born out of small, specific actions, thoughts and ideas

verse 33

The Kingdom of Heaven should (and will) permeate every aspect of your life

verse 44 & 45

The Kingdom of Heaven should be valued above all else

verse 47

The Kingdom of Heaven will be purified, and the judgement will make sure of it -- this and the sower shows that at first it will not be pure, and that it will need to be purified

chapter 16

Here's where you've got some "contradiction"

Christ hands Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" (seemingly future tense) and then declares that those present will "not taste death till they see the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom" (also seemingly future) I think these back me up from my previous claims in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ was telling them that His crucifixion, resurrection (the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom) and Ascension were very near (even could be described as "at hand"), so near the listeners would not have time to die.

How do you describe getting saved to a 5 year old? Jesus Christ is coming to live in your heart.
What is He doing there? Reigning. Unlike the sin that before had "reigned in your mortal body" He is King now. The Church is His body and the Kingdom is then/now/then. Or as my dad says (he didn't originate it, just "bleeds it" haha) already, not yet.

So, am I an amillennial, Heaven Forbid! The same common sense approach to Kingdom teaching allows for a common sense Eschatology suggesting that when John describes a 1000 yr period of physical a Kingdom with particular defining aspects (such as Saints judging Angels, the reinstatement of Israel, the bodily reign of Christ in Jerusalem, the binding and eventual loosing of Satan and the final judgment) he isn't drawing pictures.


Next time, possibly I'll address missions in light of the Kingdom mandates, or not I'll see how I'm feeling.

Braves are going through a bit of an up and down stretch. JUpton is mired in a horrible slump which has countered the emergence of Uggla's and BJ's production. It is becoming evident that the reason the Braves are good is because their starting pitching is phenomenal. That leads to a difficult query - who does Brandon Beachy replace? BB was the staff ace, no doubt about it, before he had to get TJ. Now Minor is the 2nd or 3rd best lefty in the NL (Kershaw, Lee, Corbin and Minor is some order), Medlen is the guy who started 25 straight wins last year, Maholm has been stellar, Huddy is a future HoFamer and Teheran has given up more than 2 runs only 3 times over his last 9 starts. I hate to say it, but either Juilo gets sent down or Maholm gets traded, but we better get half the farm and an impact now reliever or Frank's got some 'splainin to do.

Eine Kleine Theologie

I haven't written much regarding my specific Theological bent. Here goes somethings.

God.

     I believe God is.
     I believe God was.
     I believe God will be.
     I believe God is independent of anything.
     I believe God occupies space-time but also exists outside of it.
     I believe God created space-time.
     I believe God created space-time out of nothing.
     I believe God has complete control over space-time and everything in it.
     I believe God is perfect.
     I believe God is always right.
     I believe God will never change.
     I believe God is the standard for everything good.
     I believe God cares.
     I believe God has a purpose.
     I believe God won.
    
     I do not believe God created evil.
     I do not believe God needs anything.
     I do not believe God is obligated to do anything.
     I do not believe God vainly promises.
     I do not believe God is conceivable.
     I do not believe God had to compete.
     I do not believe God is alone. (In that, He is 3-in-1 a Being of relationship)
     I do not believe God is a sociological concept derived from natural occurrences meant to entrench the higher class.
     I do not believe God can be used to obtain peace, wealth, fame or power.
     I do not believe God can be used.
     I do not believe God is me.
     I do not believe God is nature.
     I do not believe God is all things but instead all is from and as a result of Him.
     I do not believe God is unfair.
     I do not believe God is a dualistic necessity representing the good against the bad.

I want to know which of these y'all want more on instead of doing a talk on each. Hit me back. And Shane, can't you hear Trip-Lee doing this list?

With Liberty and Justice for All...

The following are the criteria for a Just War. Developed from the thinking of St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas.

 

Just cause - The reason for the war must be defense either of oneself or a helpless victim.

 

Comparative justice - The war must be in response to action. (threat of action is debatable)

Competent authority - The individual declaring the war must have sufficient authority to do so (derived from the people's will)

 

Right intention - The war must not include a conflict of interest or selfish gain.

 

Probability of success - The party attempting to be just must have a chance to win.

 

Last resort - The war must be the final act in a series of processes for peace.

 

Proportionality - The war must be fought fairly, such as guns vs guns etc. (This is also greatly debatable.)

I believe a war is just or correct if it adheres in principle to the above list. The union's actions in the Civil War were not just. How so? They meet Just Cause, because they set out to free slaves. They meet Comparative Justice because the CSA mobilized. They meet Competent Authority the Constitution gives the President and Congress the right to declare war. The meet Right Intention, see Just Cause. The meet Probability of Success. They fail to meet Last Resort. Lincoln had many options on the table, he rejected them and he launched the war. The CSA however, presented each of those options and did not intend on combat, but merely a peaceful withdrawing from the union. 

WWI - Just Cause? Possibly, at least for America, we saw the preservation of the Modern European states as a just cause. Comparative Justice? Both sides were being ruthless so response to those actions would qualify. Right Intention? Neither side meets this criteria, except for perhaps America, as we had no chance to gain from the war. Probability of Success? All sides had argument here. Last Resort? Possibly, much peach was bantered about before the war broke. Proportionality? For the most part. Total War allows for civilian casualties. I believe that Total War is just only if the war is truly against the people and not just the government controlling those people, such as with Japan in WWII. The Japanese government may have been totalitarian, but each and every Japanese soldier was willing to die to protect those islands. In Germany however, the public opinion of the war steadily fell and fire bombing Berlin was not a moral action (and in many ways militarily superfluous.)

 

Iraq? Just Cause - stated cause was expansion of freedom (no) and toppling of Hussein (yes) and acquisition of WMDs (yes, though their existence is to this day merely a myth). Comparative Justice - had Iraqi government agents carried out the 9/11 attacks then yes, however there is not evidence they did, so no. Competent Authority - yes, go check the Congressional vote. Right Intention - again, yes unless all the conspiracies about oil acquisition and arms production is true, which I doubt. Probability of Success - almost certainly. Last Resort - debatable, but in relation to the 3 goals I listed under Just Cause, yes. Proportionality - they had tanks, air power and a modern army. As for the overwhelming numerical advantage the Allies possess, Proportionality is describing attacking someone you could instead just bully into submission. Example, Italian tanks flying through Ethiopia killing men on horses. The Italians could have occupied Ethiopia with ease without the mass slaughter. That of course, is only one of the many reasons the Axis offenses in WWII were unjust.

 

So. Self-defense and the defense of another with sufficient evidence grants just war. Lots of relative terms in there, so to clarify: The leadership of a nation, with the support of its people, may wage war in order to protect itself and the interests of its allies, as long as it pursues peace up to and during the conflict.

 

I believe a Pro-Life individual can be in favor of Just War. I am.

Braves took 2 of 3 from the Nats, still looking like the cream of the NL, especially with McCann hurt, Jason on the DL, Beachy still rehabbing and BJ hitting >.200. AND Hudson's 200th win, the one where he beat Gio Gonzalez, went 2-3 with a 2B and a HR and raised his BA% for the year to .386 led me to check his career numbers and evaluate his HOF chances. I think he's in, he's 7th on the all-time winning % list at 200-105 and has good counting numbers even with a season lost to Tommy John's. He's said he wants to play 2 more with Atlanta at least so add a couple more years before he hangs it up and he has a shot at 250. 

Next week, I'll go a different direction again. Let's talk about the music I like, why and why you should too.

The Worst of the Worst of the Worst

In keeping with my current political theme, and in response to my Tues post, "My Favorite Presidents", I will now be giving a Mt Rushmore of my least Favorites and short descriptions why. Now, these are effective, powerful Presidents that I think did it wrong, not worthless space fillers such as McKinley or Harrison, they did nothing to offend me. So, they are, in order from 4th worst to the absolute worst:

Abraham Lincoln

Woodrow Wilson

Lyndon B Johnson

 

John Adams

            Impressive list isn't in? I'll start with the top, the least worst of the 4. Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe (sure), possibly the greatest swindler in American History. I could write 1000 words why his name is on this list, and Tuesday's post will be devoted to a related topic (The Civil War, why was Lincoln to blame?), but I'll sum up here. He believed that He (with a capital H) could do whatever necessary to accomplish his pet goals. From inauguration to assassination, he had one driving fire - to end slavery. He knew what it would cost, but he didn't care. He believed in a lesser of two evils ethic, and it SCREAMS out from his administration.The South gave him an ultimatum before he was even sworn in, but did he listen? Did he compromise to maintain his precious "union" for which he is often credited with saving? No, he spat on their ultimatum, called their bluff (turned out they had four Aces named Robert E Lee), and presided over the bloodiest years in American History. More American soldiers died in the Civil War (counting the CSA) than Frenchmen in the Napoleonic Wars (~646,000 to ~371,000). More Americans died in the Civil War than in WWII (~417,000). Famously, at Antietam, on Sept 17, 1862, more Americans died in battle than in any day yet in American History. At Gettysburg, the turning point of the war, more than 46,000 Americans died, more than in the entire Revolution and Mexican-American War combined. This is not "good." I do not endorse slavery, I believe in equality for human kind, but did 646,000 Americans (not including the subsequent riots and unrest) need to die to abolish it? Where is William Wilberforce's body count? How many men died to help him abolish slavery? I'm rambling, let me get back to summing up. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is heralded as a hallmark of justice and equality, so will Barack's "Gun Control Proclamation" and they will be equally illegal and equally horrendous. I was pleased to find, while watching the new "Lincoln" movie last night, that Spielberg addressed my concerns. In Scene 7, Lincoln states his defense of the Proclamation. An easy to read script can be found here. The character admits that what he has done is slippery, which is a humorous way of saying its cheating. Read the argument, I think its wrong, it was a cheap trick to help the North win the war, and to keep Lincoln's power in place so he could further his agenda, however good that agenda may have been. In next week's post, I'll address the immediate response of "ask any black man if it was worth it." Enough on Abe, suffice to say, I don't like him. The movie was awesome though, go watch it.

                  Next worst, Woodrow Wilson. This guy was bad stuff, as Progressive as FDR and as isolationist as his times would allow. Granted, he entered WWI, but only after being reelected on the slogan "he kept us out of the war." Yikes. He signed the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act among other scary Federal Acts, in short he loved the Fed. A brilliant man, he believed that brilliant people should be in charge and take care of the not-so-brilliant. That is definitely overstating it, but you get the point. If Teddy had beaten him in '17 we might have territory in France today, which would be amazing. In all, I wouldn't have voted for him and I hope you wouldn't have either.

                  3rd worst, and in many ways the least likable, is Lyndon Baines Johnson. LB was a stinker if there ever was one. Once again, do not think I dislike Racial Equality because Lincoln and Johnson are two of my least favorite Presidents, I just don't like how they got it done. Johnson created the "Great Society" which is a real rip off. All those nice things that get ripped out of your check each week, I blame this guy. His handling of Vietnam was an epic disaster and he ran a campaign ad suggesting Barry Goldwater would start nuclear war (that voice sounds like Bob Uecker). His Presidency ended as Robert Kennedy and MLK Jr were shot and the USS Pueblo was captured (which interestingly, is still in captivity). In all, this guy's actions affect us more negatively than possibly any other President (although Big O is gaining fast). But, the next guy's crowning achievement is the WORST federal action in our nation's history.

                 The worst President is our 2nd, John Adams, always a bad decision. He was THE Federalist. The motives and actions of his administration were devoted entirely to the strengthening of the central government. While I agree that providentially this may have been critically to the forming of our fledgling nation, that doesn't mean I don't think Jefferson could've kept us together without being such a doofus. Yep, just called John Adams a doofus. XYZ, Quasi War and Fries Rebellion were all disasters. Hamilton's Bank was a disaster. In 1798 the worst law in the history of laws that have been was passed. The Alien and Sedition Acts (I'm abashed, I just spent 5 min looking for a good t-shirt with a little green guy and something funny about the laws to link to, I guess I'll have to design one) were passed and said, in Saxonian paraphrase: "If you oppose the government, or aren't from around these parts, you have no rights." Yep, he signed it, it was law, and it was NULLIFIED. BOO-YAH! But, it was still the worst law ever to be enacted, and if you're planning on trying to equate it to the Patriot Act, stop it. Yes, the Patriot Act is a bad law, but not even close buddy.

       Phew, just clicked a wrong button and nearly lost every word you see above this. Relax, breathe. Ok. There you have it, numbers worst, 2nd worst, 3rd worst and 4th worst. Runners up include: FDR (I know, both lists he was immense), Obama, Monroe and US Grant. Next time, Why the Civil War is Lincoln's fault.

Braves took 2 of 3 from Colorado, next up Detroit. 14-6 looks nice...real nice.

My Favorite Presidents (not who you might think)

If I were given the tools and opportunity and skills and equipment and space and time and etc to craft my own Mt Rushmore of American Presidents it would be as follows:

Thomas Jefferson

                                                            

Andrew Jackson

Teddy Roosevelt

Ronald Reagan

Interesting group right? They have some obvious similarities, they're all white, dead, American politicians. But even more so, all four had a particular approach to governing the country. They emphasized freedom domestically while parading American culture abroad.

            Thomas Jefferson makes sense right? Father of the Constitution. Author of many a good quote about freedom, ("When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.") But he also had a low view of the central, federal system. He believed in the power of democracy. His presidency was a bit reactionary from the Federalists Adams and Hamilton, but it was essential to the progress of the nation. He fought Hamilton's bank to his dying day and my next hero dealt the killing blow (not Aaron Burr). The power of the President was an extension of America's power abroad not domestically. I think we have a pretty powerful President right now, but here at home. NOT how I think it should be.

            Andrew Jackson?!?!?!? You ask incredulously, as my dad often does when I mention this affinity of mine for the old General.Yes, Old Hickory himself. Consider the momentous occasions in his presidency, all face-offs with various other members of the administration. He threatened to hang his VP, a personal hero, John C Calhoun. He virtually ignored the most prestigious Supreme Court Justice in the History of the United States, John Marshall. He un-chartered the US Bank. He signed the Indian-relocation act. He hand-picked his successor, Martin Van Buren. Other than that last one, He rocked. THE INDIAN RELOCATION ACT!!!!!????!!!! You scream in disgust. Well, yes actually. See, I believe the Indians were a conquered people group, much like the Mexicans living in Texas. I don't see many people railing on the Texans for moving the Mexicans out. Even if you are in that tiny little minority, do you think it was unjust for Israel to occupy the West Bank? Do you think it was unjust for the French to occupy Normandy? Do you think it was unjust for William to occupy London? Do you think the French or the Germans should have Alsace-Lorrain? The person who won the fight makes the rules. The Indians were treated horribly on the trail of tears (I'm actually 1/25 Cherokee) and I am not rubber stamping that with approval. However, Jackson did not march the trail of tears, he just signed a Bill and was acting in the best interests of the United States. If the Cherokee had acted in the best interests of the Cherokee, things would have worked out better for everybody. In my, not-so-popular, opinion. He acted as a symbol of power to the outside world.

            Teddy! The sailing of the Great White Fleet is a high mark in American History. Was quoted as saying "In my own judgement the most important service that I rendered to peace was the voyage of the battle-fleet around the world." If you don't believe that, you've bought into the liberal, wishy-washy, tolerant agenda. (How'd that sound, convincing?) He is the shakiest member of my quad-some as he liked absconding American territory for natural conservation, which isn't ideal. But He, like the others, was a symbol of power around the globe. He negotiated a boat-load of treaties, not the least of which included the end of the Russo-Japanese War and the conclusion of the Moroccan Affair. Had he been around during any of the major international conflicts, the United States would have been at the fore-front of solving the issue (more so than we already were). Something I think any country should aspire to. If a people group is serious about peace, they have to be serious about war. (That's my own, pretty cool right?).

           Finally, Mr Reagan. His excellent domestic economic policies aside. Ronald, with some help from Pope JP II and the natural results of a bad economic system, defeated Communism. 'Nuff said.

Runners up include: George Washington, Bill Clinton (ask me), FDR and John Tyler.

Next time the 4 worstest ever.

Doubleheader for the Bravos in Colorado today - in the words of the great Mr. Cub "What a great day for a baseball game, let's play two."

Off With His Head!

     Capital Punishment. A popular topic for banner-waving, cat-calling, pistol-waving hicks in Texas but something I think we should look at more seriously as Christians. This will be an argument from the viewpoint of a believer, so bear in mind it will be a moral argument not a purely logical one.

                                Romans 13

                                    (KJV)

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
⁸ Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
⁹ For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
¹⁰ Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
¹¹ And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
¹² The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
¹³ Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
¹⁴ But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

     I know, that's almost as much reading as one of my posts, but its the de facto passage to defend Capitol Punishment, particularly verse 4: "for he beareth not the sword in vain." 

     Before I address that, let me present my position. I believe that the Law, or Government, is designed to do two things. 1 - defend the nation from foreign threats and 2 - protect the citizens from domestic threats. Therefore, when someone attempts to kill, both me (my just war theory) and the government have the right/duty to kill that person. BUT if that person has been arrested, placed in a prison and given no option of escape or return to society, why kill them? Why end a God-given life? Is murder unforgivable? Is it impossible for a murdered to be saved? It is once they've been executed. This is entirely from the perspective of a voter decided whether or not to support a candidate. Can God saved someone who the government is planning on executing? Of course. But as soon as death comes, salvation is not an option. At least, that's what my Bible seems to say. So why support the elimination of the possibility of salvation? Once again, I understand possibilities and God's Will are not congruent. But I do not know God's Will. Why support something that demonstrates such finality, even allowing the government to act as God and condemn not just a body but also a soul? I agree, God is executing mortal judgment through the government, but does it not make sense to allow for the most amount of time/opportunities as possible? Why are Pro-Life advocates in favor of electrocuting people? So, you answer with Romans 13:4. Consider this option. The verse says, he (government), "execute(s) wrath upon him that doeth evil." It doesn't say, "slices off evil's head" or "destroys evil's body" or anything else implicitly violent. The sword, in this case, could be a symbol of military might and suggest the right of a government to suppress revolts. 

     The other argument I've heard is this. God loves Justice, therefore He approves when justice is served. When someone kills they deserve to die. Really? When someone lies they deserve to die. When someone ignores God's leading in their life and chooses to disobey they deserve to die. God loves Justice, but its His love of Mercy that keeps us from being fried on the spot every single day. Why can't we exemplify God's love of Mercy in the way we vote?

What do you think?

Braves LOST, 12-2 but we are still perfect when we actually score a run. 1-0 against the Royals and former Brave Jeff Francoeur both drove in the winning run and threw out a runner at the plate to preserve it. If I hadn't loved him in Atlanta I'd be really ticked at him.

'Merica

              I'm going to change gears and talk about something else for a few weeks. Truth be told (pun intended) if you don't get what I've been saying you probably would need to speak to me in person to clear things up at this point. So, on to smaller, more specific things.

              I mentioned before I am a Radical Conservative politically. Let me narrow that lens a bit. Foreign Policy-wise I would classify myself as a Neo-Reaganite. On the horizontal scale, this is very far to the right. A pithy way to sum up my political leanings in this conversation would be "Small at home, Big abroad." More elaborately, "The best thing for the World is the best thing for America." Whoa! That sounds jingoistic don't it? Of course it does, however, if I were a Frenchman I would say "The best thing for the World is the best thing for France." If every country had this approach, we'd all be doing a lot better (they don't so we're not). In my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion. American Exceptionalism is another nice way of describing the idea which leads to a budgetary emphasis on defense, a hardline course on diplomacy and a general sense of "awesomeness." Going back through our nation's history, the Presidents that best demonstrated this mindset were, of course, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and way back Andrew Jackson. In a twisted sense, Abraham Lincoln's approach to the civil war could be described as Exceptionalism, but I'll not open that can of worms just yet.

             My economic views would also be way to the right. I believe in the open market for virtually everything (including domestic safety, i.e. Police) and find that National Socialism (Fascism) is the most egregious economic system possible. Low taxes, low interference and a chance to fail make the country strong. More can, and will be said on these points.

            My social views are also right-wing, I believe they would be nearly as far right as possible, except for my view on war. Pro-Life (in every sense of the word) is the first voting point in every election. Abortion is murder end of discussion. Marriage rights are next but the gap in importance is large. I think that homosexuals and even other "polyamorous" units should not be illegal but they should also not be treated like marriage. I'm in favor of guns and don't think legalizing marijuana will cause a massive collapse in civilization as we know it. I have come to the conclusion that Pro-Life should also refer to capitol punishment. I will write a post on this later. I mentioned war. I am a champion of just-war theory. Familial defense is the God-endorsed situation that a person may take another's life. I extend this to national defense. Another topic which will get a post.

So, there you have it. I'm a red-state radical neo-Reaganite Republican. And I think you should be too. Thursday I'll lop the head off of capital punishment.

Bravos are 11-1, best team in baseball. Guess my little man is lucky!

Postmodern Utilitarian Pragmatic

 After many discussions with my Premodern Neo-Platonic bother I have decided to start putting down what I think about stuff. 

"Thinky" stuff.

Mostly for my own benefit as I often have a great answer for one of his arguments and then forget it an hour later, but also to point others to in case the need were to arise.

So I'll start with a Philosophical introduction of myself.

I am a Radically Conservative Postmodern Utilitarian Pragmatic Christian Independent Baptist.

Let's break that down a little.

Radical - I tend to be 100% into things. To "nerd" them if you will. Anything from Sports to Music to organizing my wife's medical bills. All the other qualifiers (Conservative, Postmodern...etc) are increased in magnitude by this radicalism. In other words, I am Radically Christian, Radically Utilitarian and Radically Radical. This not only describes my fervor but also the tendency for my "positions" to be less than mainstream. Fringe may be too strong of a word, but in many ways it is apropos. This also gives me the freedom to distance myself from less-than attractive adherents to any one of the above descriptors. Many pragmatists are not my allies, but I can call my self a Pragmatic because I am a radical.

Conservative - I am historically aware. I am politically red and I am theologically narrow. My radicalism is tempered by a desire to be in-line with THE Standard. This balance will be the topic of many posts in the future.

Postmodern - I reject the notion, that in the created realm, apart from God's direct impact, there is a perceivable absolute truth. Here my bother and I part ways, goofy kid. Keep this is mind if you intend to engage me, I will look for inconsistencies, because I feel they are the building blocks of the universe.

Utilitarian Pragmatic - These are so very closely related, I thought I'd join them together. It works better that way and accomplishes my purpose which means its a good idea.

Christian - I believe I was born in direct rejection of the Supreme Being, my Creator, God (Yahweh, Jehovah as described in the Bible). That He was fully just in destroying me, even deciding not to create me, but instead chose to give me life. In doing so, He demonstrated both His power over me and His love for me. I am not a Christian because I want to be, though I desperately do. I am a Christian because that's who I am made to be.

Independent Baptist - Very specific terms regarding my theological leanings, though they are derived from the same philosophical base as my political leanings. Freedom and Life are the two highest goals of a human being. Your definitions of those words determine everything.


So there you go. Next post (Tuesday or Wednesday next week) will be on Relativism. (MY FAVORITE)