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.

One World Currency, its what's for dinner

I haven't posted in awhile, the back injury kinda killed the groove. But I was back at work last week and I've had a thought festering that I want to write. So here goes...

Resolved:
The world should (and in many ways has) adopt a single currency for any and all international trade


I'll act like I'm debating you, and if you want, please post rebuttals in the comments section.

First of all, in order to fairly exchange goods, you and I must have a standard by which we value those goods. Many things affect that standard, such as the difficulty it was to create or harvest, the distance it had to travel to the exchange, the scarcity of it or its parts and the desire or need it satisfies. In other words, an economic system must exist. In the case of America, the dollar's value is determined by its borrowing power, spending power, and in what I believe is an increasingly mythical sense, gold.

When I trade with someone across national lines, the values needs a standard. Currently its determined by the exchange rates. International currency trading, a truly magical thing, compares the various value determiners and sets a comparison, i.e. $1.38 for € 1 (Euro). I believe this is stupid.

I believe a single currency, backed by 6 major production categories and derived from the 5 strongest economies across those categories, would make life much simpler. It would be reevaluated every year by a committee of bankers and businessmen at the UN. Every 4 years, alternating the seats, half of this 20-25 individual committee would be elected from the top 100 economies in the UN, determined by the committee itself. The first committee would be selected by a special convention of economists and world leaders but I'm wondering off my original trail of thought.

The 6 major categories would be: Energy, Agriculture, Raw Materials, Defense, Technology, Non-Consumables (Textiles, Infrastructure, Construction, Etc.)

Each nation would be compared both on a gross evaluation and a per capita evaluation per category; and a formula, which I would be unqualified to write but probably would enjoy trying, would determine that nation's TCV (Total Currency Value). The top 5 in composite TCV score, across all the categories, would be the economies that would back the currency.

Over the course of 10 years, each UN member nation would begin printing the new currency and supplying it to their banks. The various nation's current currencies would be rated against the new composite currency much like the dollar and euro are compared today. As the old currency is spent, slowly but surely all of it would be absorbed into the banking system and exchanged into the World Bank for the new stuff, at whatever rate that particular country's currency was valued at. The World Bank exists, look it up.

After that, all international transactions, and if a country is particularly excited about the idea, even domestic transactions, would be carried out using the new universal coin. I think a good name would be Terra. That way you could have a Centerra (hundred Terra bill), Militerra (million Terra bill), Decaterra (10) etc. All coinage, or fractions of a Terra, would be eliminated. Rounding to the nearest 1 Terra would be mandatory. Imagine the simplicity!

Along with the simplicity a universal currency provides, it also allows the UN to level meaningful sanctions and penalties on non-participatory governments. What is currently a laughable slap on the wrist would become an economical nightmare. Truly self-sustaining economies can no longer exist, but with a universal coin, they'd be illegal.

I see you Isolationist, squirming and fuming at my ideas. I've got a simile for ya.

Isolationism is a like a man choosing to live on a secluded island. He may like it at first, but eventually he'll either go crazy, starve, die from exposure, or get eaten by a wild animal.

Nations can do those things too. A nation going crazy, is when the culture develops fanaticism, much like the Japanese pre-WWII. With no global-sense, they had been bred to believe they were the center of the universe and their emperor was divinity. Eventually that lead to rampant imperialism and sneak attacking the largest 2 countries in the world (China and the USA) (make it 3 and include the Ruso-Japanese war). Sounds like insanity to me.

A nation can also starve or die from exposure. More obvious here, but not having the necessary things, whether they be food or energy or guns, is eventually disastrous. Lack of something important is the primary cause for a large majority of international conflicts, which are more commonly known as wars.

Finally, nations can get eaten. When you choose to not be apart of the group, eventually the group will come take your stuff. Not saying its right, just saying that's how it is.

So, rebut away if you dare, but in the meantime vote for me for UN Secretary General so I can get the ball rolling on this thing.

Trayvon: Why I don't care

The title is a little harsh. A person was killed, this is both sad and something we should all want to prevent from ever happening. However, in contrast with the DOMA case, the Trayvon case has little or no bearing on the operation of this country or even the history of it. Simply, a white man, with neighborhood watch responsibilities, believed a young black man to be suspicious. The white guy confronted the black kid, a struggle ensued, and the white guy shot and killed the black kid. This probably happens 200 times a year, maybe more. Does that make it ok? No. Does it prevent it from being national news? I would think so. Not only was this national news, but Pres Obama used it to both enhance his candidacy during the election and to further his agenda once in office.

First of all, was Zimmerman right to shoot Trayvon? According to a Jury of his peers, yes. According to common sense, I don't know I wasn't in that position. Does he have the right to protect himself? Yes. Should he? Yes. Should Trayvon have had the right to protect himself too? Of course. Protection is inherently defensive. The bloodthirsty and expansionist try to soothe their consciences by declaring offensive provocations are "protection." That being said, the potential for offensive military action, from the national to the personal, does not preclude or exclude the use of that potential for defensive action. In other words, just because Z had a gun doesn't mean he confronted T with the intention of shooting him. But enough about the actual case, as I said, I don't care.

What I do care about, is the message being sent. I tweeted a week or so ago that I was getting mixed signals. The media was pushing three separate, and non-congruent narratives each with their own nasty little agendas. The first was GUN CONTROL. If he hadn't had a gun, they might have beat each other up but then we could ask them both how it started, we could sort it out, and nobody would have died! Maybe, or quite possibly, the suspicious person could've been illegally carrying a weapon and the citizen who had signed up for protective responsibility would've been helpless. We probably would've missed that court case.

The second was RACE. Obama fueled this, I can't decide if it was intentional, but it hardly matters now. Look, if a white guy accosts me, and I feel threatened, I'm going to protect myself to the same degree I would if an Asian, black man, Arab or Canadian was accosting me. This is/should be true for anyone. However, maybe Z is a racist. Maybe Z was singling out T because he was black. THIS IS NOT A CRIME. This cannot be a crime. Crimes of the mind are 1) impossible to prove 2) impossible to enforce and 3) impossible to define. Hatred cannot be contested with more hatred. Some really intelligent men gave some great speeches on this topic about 60 years ago. They happened to be black.

The third was CORRUPT/INEPT JUSTICE SYSTEM. Really? This made me chuckle. The media, who was literally leading the anti-Z rallies and calling for his head on a platter, made sure the public would be devoid of any moral dilemma when the jury "got it wrong." Of course they'll get it wrong. They're primarily white, they're primarily in favor of guns, they're primarily X, Y, Z. The jury is handcuffed by bad laws. The jury is desensitized to violence. Blah blah blah. If you don't like it, move to a country where a cop decides he wants your car so he pulls you over and impounds it. Move to a country where the primary income for law enforcement is bribery from organized crime. Move to a country that is dependent on traveling judges, thinking more about their chances to gain political power than anything resembling justice. The jury system is obviously flawed, anything that relies on human reasoning will be. However, until we create the positronic (really Internet? this is a word) brain we have to rely on our own. The jury system is the most advanced and the most successful justice system humanity has ever seen. Stop whining that you didn't get your way.

In conclusion. I don't care, and neither should you.

Happy anniversary to my parents. Yesterday they celebrated 29 years. I hope to do that, though I'd hate to be that old. :)

Thursday I'll preview the SS lessons my dad has asked my to cover the following 2 Sundays. I find if I write about something I'll be more comfortable talking about it.

Braves have been as inconsistent as ever, dropping 2 of 3 from the White Sox and losing Maholm to the DL in the process. We did get the Mets last night though with 2 in the 9th to win 2-1. We called up Kameron Loe as well. I hate Kameron Loe, so I'm rooting for him to change my mind, but he's going to have to do pretty well to have a chance. Also. Braun has been suspended 100 games. If Selig is really all about ending steroid use, Braun's massive contract should be voided and the Brewers should either be given salary relief from the league for cutting him or be charged double for keeping him. The league needs to make the organizations who continue to hire the cheaters pay too. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm already thickening my skin for the first Brave to get caught. Some minor leaguers have but no pros as of yet. 3 more against the Mets and then a killer series against the All-World St Louis Cardinals. NLCS preview?

DOMA: Why I care

The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down in part just a few short weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Anytime SCOTUS makes a decision its historical, but this one in particular marks a shift in the official stance of the government towards various non-traditional civil unions. While I believe erroneously, many people believe America to be a country founded directly on Christian values. An overwhelming majority of the Christian communities are not in favor of anything other than Heterosexual and indivisible unions. DOMA stated that the Federal Government did not have to recognize same-sex spouses as such and also allowed states which did not recognize "alternative" unions within their borders to also not recognize unions established within the borders of a different, pro-alternative union, state. Clinton signed this bill after it cruised through Congress in '96. If there's anything he's not shaky on its heterosexuality.

The part of DOMA that was declared unconstitutional is the 3rd part which reads,

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The argument that is was unconstitutional stemmed from the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. In essence, the highlighted text restricted the application of American laws which provide benefits to married people. This law, as was argued, places same-sex "spouses" in a category below opp-sex spouses in reference to the Federal Government which is not constitutional. This is a sound argument.

However, the discussion should not be about how the Federal Government views these civil unions. I could care less if a guy is taking out social security as a "married man" because he "married" his car, as long as it means he also has to demonstrate in good faith the union was mutual (which is of course impossible). The benefits the Government provides to the spouse of a married person should be provided to the "other half" of an alternative union. However, that doesn't mean its a marriage.

As I've eloquently, or not so much, demonstrated in earlier posts, way way back, words and their meanings are completely subjective. This is also the case with the word marriage.Webster-Merriam holds the following definition:

     a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a             consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a     person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

I wonder when (2) was added. The first country to ever legalize same-sex marriage with The Netherlands in 2000, so the Earth had been around for approx. 6000 years before we got that "right".

So what is a marriage? It is a socio-economic union meant to provide the following things:

1. Procreation
2. Continuation of Lineage
3. Differentiation of the Sexes
4. Instruction and Care of the Young
5. Satisfaction of Needs for Companionship and Status           derived from the concise Webster-Merriam

Does same-sex marriage satisfy these criteria?
#5 works, there's nothing saying two men or two women can't experience companionship. In the current society their status is less favorable than that of a traditional union but with time that will even out.
#4 works as well, though many traditionalists shudder at the thought, two men and/or two women can raise a child.
#3 not even close. With the progress of Liberalism and Feminism the differentiation of the sexes has become virtually taboo (not surprising the definition of marriage followed suit) and same-sex unions are part-and-parcel with the spectrum-style approach to sexuality.
#2 nope. This goes hand-in-hand with 1.
#1 is the primary reason I will always say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" when referring to alternative unions. It cannot physically, scientifically etc, participate in marriage's first cause, procreation. Artificial insemination, surrogate carriers and adoption are NOT natural procreation through marriage. With the development of genetic science and "sex-change" therapies one day we may have a man with all, and I mean a l l, of the biological distinctions of a woman. At that point, I don't understand the problem...obviously the individual performing a wholesale switch may have some issues (understated) but as far as the marriage is concerned its a man and a man who has completely changed into a woman, making it relatively traditional.

Still haven't said why I care about DOMA though. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is usually pretty much the bomb, had a vicious dissenting opinion regarding the DOMA case. If you don't know how SCOTUS works go retake High School Government. In his dissent, he states that upholding DOMA was not about attacking the alternative marriage styles but instead about confirming what the various laws and statutes that are already on the books mean when they use the term "marriage." He suggests that SCOTUS has now made anyone in support of DOMA, or any traditional definition of the term marriage, an "enemy of the state." And he is 100% correct. This is a direct violation of those individuals' constitutional rights. The simpler, more constitutional way of solving this is for each state, municipality and board to alter the reading of their laws to include "same-sex." In doing so, you protect the meaning of marriage while allowing for everyone to enjoy the political freedom to be wrong. This is a very important freedom, something that is often overlooked in the march of Liberalism.

So that's why I care. I have a right to be wrong. Whether or not I think I'm wrong, and I don't, it would be the very definition of insanity to believe something I thought was wrong, I have a protected, God-given right, to disagree. SCOTUS took away a tiny piece of that right in the DOMA decision. I fear it won't be the last.



All-Star game was fun as usual. Not as pleased with the result but Cliff Lee gave me a few more reasons to hate him. Now if he ends up a Cardinal like SI says he might, he will slide down to "least likable athlete ever" range, with the Reggie Millers and A-Rods of the world. Kimbrel had a rough outing too, good thing his two worst outings of the year have been in exhibition play and otherwise he's as dominant as ever.

Also, as a Braves fan I hate everything Yankee. Everything except Mariano Rivera. I hated when he came into the game, cuz it meant it was over, but the man, the player, the professional, the pitcher was everything any fan could hope to experience. He is the greatest reliever ever and possibly the greater Yankee pitcher ever. So I say #HailSandman

Conspiratorialism

Some of my favorite conspiracies, you decide if they're legit.

All of the high profile assassinations and attempts, including Kennedy, Reagan, King, Lincoln etc, have been endorsed by at least a faction of the Federal Government in one way or another.

Sounds pretty far fetched until you start looking at the arguments. First Kennedy, the other shooter of course, but also the rest of the family. Its like a real life Final Destination they're all going to die unnaturally its just a matter of how and when. Which, by the way, is one of the stupidest movie series ever conceived of, but I must see them all. Is it not possible that war with Russia was on the horizon? The Cold War was in full affect. Kennedy side-stepped it nicely a couple of times but could he again? Maybe somebody knew he was done playing around. Maybe somebody knew the next time the Russians pushed he was going to push back. I don't know, just seems fishy.

Ok, what about Reagan? Have you checked his ratings? What a boost that was, to be able to connect to the American people from a Hospital bed. Am I saying he lied to us about it? Maybe. Or maybe an aid thought it would help but kept him out of the loop. He was a professional actor, maybe he just played like he got shot. He was the President, he could fabricate some forms pretty easily. Just saying.

Sure....what about King? Listen, Malcolm X was the real threat. If King hadn't been shot he would've run for President. If he had run for President he probably would have won. If he had been President Malcolm's people would have been in the White House. If you're a CIA analyst and you see that scenario you act fast. Why not shoot Malcolm? They did. The also shot King because he was the figure head that would place the radicals in power. Not saying I would do it, I just see the thought process.

Whatever...you can't say they shot Lincoln? Well, that one is actually the easiest. Booth was a disgruntled individual. The South had been defeated meaning life as he, and anyone else, knew it was about to change drastically. Also, as I've highlighted in earlier posts, Lincoln had made a lot of enemies with his spit-in-the-face-of-the-constitution leadership style. How easy would it be to justify killing a man who was in many ways responsible for more American deaths than anyone in history, to this very day. Hmmmmm...

Convincing right? I don't believe any of that but it interests me when people do. The moon landing? Sure, they faked the moon landing, tell that to John Glenn or Buzz Aldrin and you'll be swallowing your teeth in a second. 911? No government, no matter how corrupt, kills thousands and cripples its own economy to start a land war in Asia (the biggest blunder possible, barely edging out a battle of wits against a Sicilian with death on the line).

Wow, if you finished reading this, you're awesome. Sorry I didn't have much today. Tuesday I'll explain my position regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. Hint, I'm not classic.

Braves swept the Pirates. 7 game lead on the Phils in the East (Gnats are in 3rd!!!!) and indisputable awesomeness. Gattis, JUpton, Freeman and Simmons all belong in the All-Star game. Kimbrel and Minor too. I can only imagine how good this team would be with Chipper, even at his advanced age most experts agreed he could be a valuable platoon candidate, DH or pinch hitter. Maybe he'll come back for the stretch run? I can dream anyway.

Participatory Government (UPDATE 6/5)

The following e-mail went out today to Senator Scott Fitzgerald, State Representative Mark Born, the Dodge County Supervisors and Horicon Alderperson Susan Hady. Parentheses have been added to explain things.

Senator Fitzgerald (Or Representative Born or Supervisors or Ma'am), 

*(Included only for the Alderperson) *You are receiving this message because 1) yours is the only e-mail address made public on the CoC's website and 2) there is no Aldermanic District Map for Horicon anywhere online so even if I could contact one of the others I wouldn't know who it concerned. Please disseminate at your discretion.* 

(Beginning of the other 3 e-mails)

My name is Lance Saxon. I am the Officer-in-Charge of the Lowell Post Office. I live on Lake St in downtown Horicon. I drive about 30 min (exactly 28) to work each morning and this drive includes crossing the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad tracks to get from one side of town to the other. There are 3 options which remain in Horicon city limits and all three cross the tracks, the north road (Lake St or Cty Rd B) the middle road (Hwy 33) or the southern road (Valley to Washington). If I choose to travel farther south out of town (Cty E to Cty S) I can avoid the tracks but add at least 20 min to my trip.

Why should I be avoiding the tracks? Because I, in the mornings and evenings delivering pizzas, have been stopped at those tracks anywhere from between 4 min to a whopping 25! (Really, it sucks) Not only do trains cross the road there but the switch is located a few feet from the intersection so any track switching results in a train being parked, not moving, on the road while the technicians switch the tracks (technicians is being generous, guys in shorts with beards is more exact). This wouldn't be a big deal if the traffic on this road was light, however it is a MAJOR TRUCKING VEIN (yes I capitalized in the Senator's e-mail). This is insane (yep, said it). Semis and commuters alike sitting and watching as train technicians fumble with switches losing valuable time and gasoline (in that order). Not only the wait time, but the congestion created can make a 5 min jaunt from the center of town to the intersection with 26 on the western edge take 30 solid min. (while my whole trip should take that long)

Solutions? I only can conceive of a few and they sound costly. A bridge of course would allow traffic to flow continuously without bothering the operations at WI&SOU (I shudder at the cost however). Another possible solution would be posted times that the different intersections would be blocked allowing drivers the option to divert their paths, something which I have searched for in vain (it doesn't exist, and it would take a miracle to even try to make one, trains are ridiculously unpredictable...seems like they should be on a schedule but whatever). If you and your people can come up with any others, I for one would support them wholeheartedly.

In any case, thank you for your time and I appreciate any effort you put into solving this frustrating issue. I have sent similar messages to Senator Fitzgerald, Representative Born and the County and City leadership to whom it may concern. (I edited the list at the end depending on the recipient)

Sincerely,

D Lance Saxon Jr. (The "D" makes me look important)

UPDATE as of 1:30 5/30/13:I received the following e-mail from the Dodge County Board Clerk... 

Mr. Saxon:  I have received your letter addressed to the County Supervisors and will read it at the County Board meeting on June 18^th.  I will await further direction from County Board Chairman, Russell Kottke.  Thank you.

Karen J. Gibson

Dodge County Clerk

UPDATE: Received 6/3 from Representative Mark Born

Hi Lance,

I have spoken to the WI Department of Transportation about the train switching issue. Concerns over the railroad have been elevated due to the Lake Street bridge closure. Unfortunately, the DOT does not have authority over the railroad and the timetables are determined by when the trains can get in/out of Chicago.  

Wisconsin Southern recently met with the Horicon public works supervisor and the police chief. They will try to be more cooperative in the future and block the roadway less frequently, especially during peak times. We are continuing to explore possible solutions to this issue and I will keep you informed if there are any new developments.

Best,

John Cronin

Office of Rep. Mark Born

39^th Assembly District

Recieved Yesterday 6/4, seen today 6/5 from Senator Fitzgerald's office.

Block, Cindy <Cindy.Block@legis.wisconsin.gov>	4:13 PM (17 hours ago)
to me

Lance, thanks for your email.  You may have already heard from Rep. Born on this issue – he has taken the lead in working with the DOT on the train switching issue and will keep you updated.  Sen. Fitzgerald has spoken with Rep Born and has also contacted the DOT on this issue and is aware that Wisconsin Southern recently met with the Horicon Public Works Supervisor and the Police Chief.  According to the Mayor and the Dodge County Highway Commissioner, everyone is working together to try and ease the situation.  Cindy Block/office of Sen. Fitzgerald

SeFrom: Sen.Fitzgerald
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:48 AM
To: Block, Cindy
Subject: FW: Question from Horicon

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.

State's Rights, Slavery and a Vampire Slayer

I haven't seen the movie, "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer" but I plan to. In the mean time, I'll keep to my version of what has been called "fantastical" history. I believe the Civil War could have been averted, Slavery could have been abolished, and America could probably control most of Mexico if it had not been for one Abraham Lincoln.

Let me interject into what will sound like a sweeping condemnation of a man beloved by millions. He was a brilliant individual with a canny sense of who to trust and how to manipulate people's desires to achieve his goals. He had a strong moral fiber rivaled only by his propensity for mischief. Or, so say the historians. Please do not assume I believe I could do better, this is silly-talk. I do not criticize the NFL QB because I am a world-class athlete but because certain expectations are natural when millions of dollars of both payroll and economic impact are invested in his execution. Such is the same, lesser to greater, with our Presidents. They are in the most important position our country has, they are expected to be excellent, anything less is deserving of critique and in some cases ridicule. This is not disrespecting the office, in fact its directly the opposite.

Back to the vitriol. The country, crica 1850, was divided. Certain economic and social features lead to this widening gap and the solutions were growing scarce. Henry Clay sacrificed any Presidential dreams he might have had to maintain the uneasy balance the legislature had established. The south, controlled by "Democrats," was devoted to slave-ownership, state's rights, Jeffersonianism and their elitist traditions. Two of those are good things, I'll let you guess. The north was divided itself between various warring factions and in 1854 the Republicans were born. They were created to defeat Slavery and in an extremely bloody and costly fashion, they did. Their rapid growth to power (Lincoln in 1860) is quite remarkable. However, this brand new political party, built on the moral high-ground of abolitionism, shows its true colors as soon as it hits the national stage. In the famous 1860 race, Southern Democrat John Breckinridge (later, moderately successful Confederate General) faced off against Lincoln, but the central states went to 3rd and 4th party candidates. In particular, Bell for the Constitutional Union Party, stole 39 electoral college votes and left Lincoln with a large majority. The southern Democrats, who also lost Missouri to the party traitor Stephen Douglas, prepared for nullification and/or secession. Lincoln prepared to ignore them and abolish slavery. War happened.

How then can you not blame Abraham Lincoln? Sure, the secessionists all voted to leave democratically, so they are to blame. But they didn't start a war, they just asked to leave. Sure, the slave owners who refused to compromise are to blame, but they wanted Lincoln to work with them, something he felt morally obligated not to do. Some historians suggest the actual events leading up to Ft Sumter are somewhat trivial. War was coming, it had been coming for 50 years. I disagree. Yes, the cultures of the North and South had drifted apart. Yes, Kansas was a bloody mess when it applied for Statehood. Yes, wackos like John Brown were stirring up trouble. But war? Today, a solid percentage, I'd guess probably 42%, of the American people are against abortion. We knew, before the election, that Barack Obama was going to repeal Bush's Abortion Bill. Abortion is as horrible a moral affront as any government-endorsed action any country has ever had. I for one, was not interested in starting a war over it. Lincoln would be. Pshaw! You say in disgust! He hated the war! Sure, but he didn't hate it enough to prevent it. He wanted to push his agenda, however noble, regardless of the consequences.

I believe this is kinda boring so I'll wrap up. I was recently introduced to a blog by a Pastor/blogger named Doug Wilson. I highly recommend it, he's a genius. He proposed in his book that in order to change a society, in order to fix a society's ills, you must gradually educate and "save" the populace. (Obviously, you aren't saving anybody, "save" means witness to, get into church, assimilate into the saints). He rejects the notion that a war for a just cause is a just war. His primary example? The Civil War.

Next time, Just War Theory. What it is, why I like it and why it doesn't null this post.

Braves back on track! We don' beat "Strasburger" twice now! :)

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.