Mendax News Service
The governing board of The American Mechanics Association proposed at its annual meeting to push for legislation to require prescriptions for certain automotive supplies. The AMA has long recognized that the average consumer lacks the competence to decide what services and remedies should be applied to his motorized vehicle.
In the present situation, anybody can buy oil, filters, anti-freeze, transmission fluid, drive belts, windshield washer cleaner and myriad other items with no authorization required. Most items such as tires, wiper blades, water, compressed air, car wax, fuses, trim items and, of course, gasoline would remain over-the-counter items under the proposal.
It has long been a concern of many mechanics that consumers use the wrong oil or improperly dispose of anti-freeze or dump used filters in the garbage, causing untold environmental damage. The AMA stressed that this is a very real and immediate crisis and that its proposal has nothing to do with money, as some of its detractors are already alleging.
The advocates of the status quo are already dreaming up nightmare scenarios where consumers would be charged exorbitant prices for office visits to obtain a prescription for something that they knew from reading a dipstick was needed without a mechanic having to prescribe it.
The AMA counters that it can sympathize with that argument and that some people are competent to determine their own needs, but not all and that the prescription system will make the roads a safer and happier place for everybody. The AMA also argues that since every car needs oil, all cars will be periodically seen by a competent mechanic and can be removed from service if found to be unsafe.
A coalition of auto parts suppliers has agreed to support the proposal as long as the mechanic writing the prescription cannot sell the product prescribed. The coalition sees the potential for unnecessary prescriptions if the mechanic is able to circumvent the auto parts supplier.
Mendax News has been unable to discover a consensus among the oil companies, but it is thought by some that they will have no objection as long as the law does not decrease sales revenue. Others say that the whole scheme is a "conspiracy" by the AMA to force motorists to patronize mechanics, thus ensuring steady repeat business.
The AMA has countered that any intimation of a conspiracy borders on calumny, that its interest is strictly safety and proper maintenance coupled with concern for the environment. An AMA spokesman complained that some people see a pecuniary motive for everything, even when the true motivation is concern for others.
If the proposal becomes law it will ensure a battle over prohibiting online purchases from foreign suppliers and local black markets in auto supplies.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Rome Didn't Fall In A Day
Back in the '70s, I used to expect the government to suffer a financial collapse at which time it would have to quit doing most of the things it's doing because it would run out of money. That isn't what has happened. Instead of cutting spending it has printed more money and tried to increase taxes on various things.
Like many things historical, there's a precedent for this. There's a proverbial saying that "Rome wasn't built in a day," but it didn't collapse in a day either. Probably most of the Romans who lived as the Empire was collapsing didn't realize that was what was happening, but plenty of them realized they weren't living in the good old days.
One such person was a man named Salvian, sometimes called Salvian the Presbyter. He wrote a treatise that is called in English The Governance Of God or De gubernatione Dei in Latin*. Its original title was On The Present Judgement and it is well worth reading to see how things played out then and probably always will. His purpose was to show that the then current problems were caused by moral collapse, excessive taxation and a greedy and conniving landed class, not an abandonment of the old pagan religion. Julian the Apostate who had made the opposite argument 70 or so years before, had tried to re-institute paganism and even tried to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, presumably because it wasn't Christian and he liked practices such as animal sacrifice, but his efforts ended when he was killed in a war with the Persians after a short reign.
In making his case, Salvian left us a first-hand account of how things went to rot. One of the things he mentions over and over is how the peasant class was obliterated by oppressive taxation and how the small land owners indentured themselves to the large land owners who paid their taxes for them, but in return got their land and their labor, eventually leading to feudalism. Even after the small land owners had lost their land and become coloni - those who worked the land but did not own it - they still were liable for the tax, thus permanently indenturing them to the wealthy land owner who paid it for them.
The Romans had a system of permanent tax collectors called curiales. If you were born a curiale, you could not change jobs and were liable to pay any taxes you could not collect. Needless to say, this assured great diligence on the part of the curiales.
One of the many things Salvian mentions that is starting to be more common in the U.S., but was unheard of just a few years ago is people fleeing the Empire and renouncing their citizenship.
"Thus, far and wide, they migrate either to the Goths or to the Bagaudae, or to other barbarians everywhere in power; yet they do not repent of having migrated. They prefer to live as freemen under an outward form of captivity, than as captives under the appearance of liberty. Therefore, the name of Roman citizens, at one time not only greatly valued, but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base, but even deserving of abhorrence."(pg.136)
Just as Washington refuses to rein in its excesses, the same was true of Rome around A.D. 450.
"Then, indeed, the authors of base pleasures feasted at will in most places, but all things were filled and stuffed to overflowing. Nobody thought of the State's expenses, nobody thought of the State's losses, because the cost was not felt. The State itself sought how it might squander what it was already scarcely able to acquire. The heaping up of wealth which had already exceeded its limit was overflowing even into trifling matters.
But what can be said of the present-day situation? That old abundances have gone from us. The resources of former times have gone. We are already poverty-stricken, yet we do not cease to be spendthrift." (167, 168)
It wasn't just in fiscal matters that modern times resemble the fall of Rome. Salvian laments the obsession people had with attendingAmerican Idol the games. Rome had degenerated so far that there were 175 holidays per year, each with its state-sponsored amusements. The Roman Army had boy camp-followers instead of, or perhaps in addition to female prostitutes. The shouts of people being killed in defense of the city could not be distinguished from those at the games.
"As I have said, the noise of battle outside the walls and of the games within, the voices of the dying outside and the voices of the reveling within, were mingled. Perhaps there scarcely could be distinguished the cries of the people who fell in battle and the yelling of the people who shouted in the circus." (174)
Things had declined so far that the public officials whom he classifies as robbers continued to rob the people even after they no longer held office. This has been refined in modern times to the revolving door system of going from elected office to lobbyist or CEO of some big company that conducts business with the government.
Salvian portrays the barbarians as virtuous people - much more so than his fellow countrymen - nothing like the people they are typically represented as being. Even back then, government knew best and imposed price controls which then as always caused black marketeers to provide for people's wants and needs. One difference between then and now is that the Romans could not print money. They could debase it, but not print it as virtually all modern states do. They also had no efficient way of spying on the populace or freezing assets which is now routine. This enables us to postpone, but not avert the day of collapse. As everybody seems to be fond of saying, it allows us to "kick the can down the road," but at some point we will find that the road is a dead end.
*The Governance Of God, translated by Jeremiah F. O'Sullivan, 1947, Fathers Of The Church
Like many things historical, there's a precedent for this. There's a proverbial saying that "Rome wasn't built in a day," but it didn't collapse in a day either. Probably most of the Romans who lived as the Empire was collapsing didn't realize that was what was happening, but plenty of them realized they weren't living in the good old days.
One such person was a man named Salvian, sometimes called Salvian the Presbyter. He wrote a treatise that is called in English The Governance Of God or De gubernatione Dei in Latin*. Its original title was On The Present Judgement and it is well worth reading to see how things played out then and probably always will. His purpose was to show that the then current problems were caused by moral collapse, excessive taxation and a greedy and conniving landed class, not an abandonment of the old pagan religion. Julian the Apostate who had made the opposite argument 70 or so years before, had tried to re-institute paganism and even tried to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, presumably because it wasn't Christian and he liked practices such as animal sacrifice, but his efforts ended when he was killed in a war with the Persians after a short reign.
In making his case, Salvian left us a first-hand account of how things went to rot. One of the things he mentions over and over is how the peasant class was obliterated by oppressive taxation and how the small land owners indentured themselves to the large land owners who paid their taxes for them, but in return got their land and their labor, eventually leading to feudalism. Even after the small land owners had lost their land and become coloni - those who worked the land but did not own it - they still were liable for the tax, thus permanently indenturing them to the wealthy land owner who paid it for them.
The Romans had a system of permanent tax collectors called curiales. If you were born a curiale, you could not change jobs and were liable to pay any taxes you could not collect. Needless to say, this assured great diligence on the part of the curiales.
One of the many things Salvian mentions that is starting to be more common in the U.S., but was unheard of just a few years ago is people fleeing the Empire and renouncing their citizenship.
"Thus, far and wide, they migrate either to the Goths or to the Bagaudae, or to other barbarians everywhere in power; yet they do not repent of having migrated. They prefer to live as freemen under an outward form of captivity, than as captives under the appearance of liberty. Therefore, the name of Roman citizens, at one time not only greatly valued, but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base, but even deserving of abhorrence."(pg.136)
Just as Washington refuses to rein in its excesses, the same was true of Rome around A.D. 450.
"Then, indeed, the authors of base pleasures feasted at will in most places, but all things were filled and stuffed to overflowing. Nobody thought of the State's expenses, nobody thought of the State's losses, because the cost was not felt. The State itself sought how it might squander what it was already scarcely able to acquire. The heaping up of wealth which had already exceeded its limit was overflowing even into trifling matters.
But what can be said of the present-day situation? That old abundances have gone from us. The resources of former times have gone. We are already poverty-stricken, yet we do not cease to be spendthrift." (167, 168)
It wasn't just in fiscal matters that modern times resemble the fall of Rome. Salvian laments the obsession people had with attending
"As I have said, the noise of battle outside the walls and of the games within, the voices of the dying outside and the voices of the reveling within, were mingled. Perhaps there scarcely could be distinguished the cries of the people who fell in battle and the yelling of the people who shouted in the circus." (174)
Things had declined so far that the public officials whom he classifies as robbers continued to rob the people even after they no longer held office. This has been refined in modern times to the revolving door system of going from elected office to lobbyist or CEO of some big company that conducts business with the government.
Salvian portrays the barbarians as virtuous people - much more so than his fellow countrymen - nothing like the people they are typically represented as being. Even back then, government knew best and imposed price controls which then as always caused black marketeers to provide for people's wants and needs. One difference between then and now is that the Romans could not print money. They could debase it, but not print it as virtually all modern states do. They also had no efficient way of spying on the populace or freezing assets which is now routine. This enables us to postpone, but not avert the day of collapse. As everybody seems to be fond of saying, it allows us to "kick the can down the road," but at some point we will find that the road is a dead end.
*The Governance Of God, translated by Jeremiah F. O'Sullivan, 1947, Fathers Of The Church
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, Homophobic, Tards
John Derbyshire was informed recently that his writings would no longer be carried by National Review because he had written a column for Taki's Magazine which the hierarchy of NR considered "racist."
It seems to be the case that any time someone points out racial differences, real or perceived, that don't reflect favorably on the subject in question or coincide with current orthodoxy, he is accused of racism. Several years ago Samuel Francis was fired from the Washington Times for being, as Joseph Sobran said, "a little too frank" in what was billed as "a frank discussion on race."
Free speech seems to be okay as long as you don't say anything that offends the wrong groups. It's perfectly all right to disparage rednecks, Fundamentalists of any variety, Catholics, men (especially the white version) and it's usually acceptable to act as though all Germans were Nazis and all Southerners were Klansmen or Klan sympathizers.
What is strange about this is that the person being assailed as a - fill in the blank - doesn't have to advocate anything. All he has to do is point out something unmentionable about the offended group to earn the pejorative label.
Comment sections online are filled with comments by people who think that they have refuted an argument by calling somebody a racist or a "libtard" or some variation on the "tard" suffix. I'm beginning to think that comments like that should just be deleted in order to force the person commenting to formulate a real argument. This is the equivalent of a third grader telling somebody, "you're fat" or "your mother has buck teeth."
It's not just comment sections where this is the mode of argument, it's found in articles too, but not as frequently. There is a never-ending battle between the pro and anti-Lincoln forces over whether he was a racist. The tyrant's detractors will point out statements he made regarding his belief that blacks should not be able to serve on juries or intermarry with whites and so on. His defenders claim that he didn't really believe these things, he just had to say things like that to get elected. What both sides ignore is that his views were almost universally held at the time and were no more racist or open-minded than anybody else's. Regardless of his views on race, Lincoln was a horrible person and a tyrannical president.
The Romans had a saying, "chalk is the pen of fools, walls their paper" that could be applied to the electronic version of chalk. There is probably much more foolish talk than reasoned argument on most comment forums.
If an article appears contending that women should not be in the military, there probably will be far more people denouncing the author as "sexist" than people presenting a counter argument as to why women should be in the military. The debate becomes about the attitude of the author rather than the accuracy of his argument.
There's also what somebody once called the argumentum ad Hitlerum, which is defined as a contention that a position is discredited by virtue of the fact that Hitler might have held a similar view. It works something like this: you think that trains should operate on a precise time schedule, Hitler also thought this, therefore you are like Hitler and your position is ipso facto invalid.
It's common to see news articles (written for adults) that refer to the "N" word - the word having been expunged from the lexicon. Maybe it would be a good thing if equal diligence were exercised in expunging the aforementioned epithets. If you have to call somebody an anti-Semite or homophobe, you probably ought to refrain from commenting until you can come up with a coherent argument. Things have only gotten worse since Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."
It seems to be the case that any time someone points out racial differences, real or perceived, that don't reflect favorably on the subject in question or coincide with current orthodoxy, he is accused of racism. Several years ago Samuel Francis was fired from the Washington Times for being, as Joseph Sobran said, "a little too frank" in what was billed as "a frank discussion on race."
Free speech seems to be okay as long as you don't say anything that offends the wrong groups. It's perfectly all right to disparage rednecks, Fundamentalists of any variety, Catholics, men (especially the white version) and it's usually acceptable to act as though all Germans were Nazis and all Southerners were Klansmen or Klan sympathizers.
What is strange about this is that the person being assailed as a - fill in the blank - doesn't have to advocate anything. All he has to do is point out something unmentionable about the offended group to earn the pejorative label.
Comment sections online are filled with comments by people who think that they have refuted an argument by calling somebody a racist or a "libtard" or some variation on the "tard" suffix. I'm beginning to think that comments like that should just be deleted in order to force the person commenting to formulate a real argument. This is the equivalent of a third grader telling somebody, "you're fat" or "your mother has buck teeth."
It's not just comment sections where this is the mode of argument, it's found in articles too, but not as frequently. There is a never-ending battle between the pro and anti-Lincoln forces over whether he was a racist. The tyrant's detractors will point out statements he made regarding his belief that blacks should not be able to serve on juries or intermarry with whites and so on. His defenders claim that he didn't really believe these things, he just had to say things like that to get elected. What both sides ignore is that his views were almost universally held at the time and were no more racist or open-minded than anybody else's. Regardless of his views on race, Lincoln was a horrible person and a tyrannical president.
The Romans had a saying, "chalk is the pen of fools, walls their paper" that could be applied to the electronic version of chalk. There is probably much more foolish talk than reasoned argument on most comment forums.
If an article appears contending that women should not be in the military, there probably will be far more people denouncing the author as "sexist" than people presenting a counter argument as to why women should be in the military. The debate becomes about the attitude of the author rather than the accuracy of his argument.
There's also what somebody once called the argumentum ad Hitlerum, which is defined as a contention that a position is discredited by virtue of the fact that Hitler might have held a similar view. It works something like this: you think that trains should operate on a precise time schedule, Hitler also thought this, therefore you are like Hitler and your position is ipso facto invalid.
It's common to see news articles (written for adults) that refer to the "N" word - the word having been expunged from the lexicon. Maybe it would be a good thing if equal diligence were exercised in expunging the aforementioned epithets. If you have to call somebody an anti-Semite or homophobe, you probably ought to refrain from commenting until you can come up with a coherent argument. Things have only gotten worse since Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Who's Doing the Spying?
Mendax News Service
John Bull lives in an upscale gated community. A week or so ago, his neighbor Tommy Atkins who is also head of the Home Owners Association told him of a proposal by some members of the HOA to attach GPS tracking devices to the vehicles of the residents of the community.
Mr. Atkins said that they also thought it would be a good idea to put cameras on everybody's car so they could see everywhere the car went. It was also suggested by some of the board members that everybody in the association have his phone tapped, email intercepted and browser history monitored.
Mr Bull was not receptive to the idea and even expressed opposition to it, threatening to stir up opinion against it. Atkins tried to reason with Bull by explaining that it was all for the good of the members and if he had nothing to hide, he should have no objection. Atkins also pointed out that there were already cameras everywhere he went and that the government was probably reading and storing his electronic communications anyway, so it was no big deal. Bull was not mollified and pointed out that it was different when the government did it because they had a good reason and the HOA was just being a bunch of busybodies. Atkins asked how it was "different" when the government did it, but Bull said he didn't know, it was just different.
Atkins pointed out that there would be safeguards on the information collected so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands and that the HOA had no power to jail him or confiscate his property. Bull remained his bull-headed self, arguing that it would be an invasion of privacy even though he didn't have anything to hide and that it was none of the HOA's business where he went, who he talked to or what sites he visited.
Atkins could see that he was getting nowhere, so he tried to reason with Bull by pointing out that if his wife broke down at night in the middle of nowhere the GPS would be a lifesaver (maybe literally) in locating her whereabouts. "And just think how it might benefit your children if a sharp-eyed board member notices that they're fraternizing online with murderers and child molesters" Atkins said.
Bull was getting madder by the minute, so Atkins tried to calm him down by telling him that the proposal was going to be voluntary anyway and all a member had to do to opt out was fill out a few forms and pay a nominal fee of twelve-hundred pounds a month over and above the usual HOA dues. If a resident wanted to opt out of having pole mounted cameras facing his house there would be an additional charge for that.
Bull starting ranting and raving about "invasions of privacy," "peeping Toms" and a "police-state atmosphere" to the point that Atkins could see that he was paranoid. He was about to go home and let Bull cool down when Bull asked, "Why do you want this information?" Atkins explained that it would make the community more secure and provide a sense of well-being, solidarity and help in the fight against terrorism.
Atkins also took pains to point out to the thick-headed Mr. Bull that the HOA couldn't charge him with a crime although they could report him for criminal or suspicious activity, but that would never happen. He reminded Bull that, "This isn't Spain, this is England!" and that there was nothing to worry about.
Atkins' condescending attitude only succeeded in inflaming Bull's temper. Bull accused Atkins of being a busybody, a spy and a voyeur and shouting that where he went, who he talked to or what websites he visited were "none of his damn business." Atkins saw that Bull was clearly crazy, but he had never seen this before because they had always talked about sports, the weather, or maybe the war against foreign terrorists. In the past, Bull had even expressed approval of illegal wiretaps, illegal and quasi-legal activities to catch criminals, traitors and terrorists, so his reaction was doubly surprising.
Bull, now that his privacy was being compromised, had suddenly become some kind of civil libertarian. Atkins decided to go back home and talk to Bull in a day or two after he had come to his senses and to ponder why Bull objected to his neighbors spying, but not the government.
John Bull lives in an upscale gated community. A week or so ago, his neighbor Tommy Atkins who is also head of the Home Owners Association told him of a proposal by some members of the HOA to attach GPS tracking devices to the vehicles of the residents of the community.
Mr. Atkins said that they also thought it would be a good idea to put cameras on everybody's car so they could see everywhere the car went. It was also suggested by some of the board members that everybody in the association have his phone tapped, email intercepted and browser history monitored.
Mr Bull was not receptive to the idea and even expressed opposition to it, threatening to stir up opinion against it. Atkins tried to reason with Bull by explaining that it was all for the good of the members and if he had nothing to hide, he should have no objection. Atkins also pointed out that there were already cameras everywhere he went and that the government was probably reading and storing his electronic communications anyway, so it was no big deal. Bull was not mollified and pointed out that it was different when the government did it because they had a good reason and the HOA was just being a bunch of busybodies. Atkins asked how it was "different" when the government did it, but Bull said he didn't know, it was just different.
Atkins pointed out that there would be safeguards on the information collected so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands and that the HOA had no power to jail him or confiscate his property. Bull remained his bull-headed self, arguing that it would be an invasion of privacy even though he didn't have anything to hide and that it was none of the HOA's business where he went, who he talked to or what sites he visited.
Atkins could see that he was getting nowhere, so he tried to reason with Bull by pointing out that if his wife broke down at night in the middle of nowhere the GPS would be a lifesaver (maybe literally) in locating her whereabouts. "And just think how it might benefit your children if a sharp-eyed board member notices that they're fraternizing online with murderers and child molesters" Atkins said.
Bull was getting madder by the minute, so Atkins tried to calm him down by telling him that the proposal was going to be voluntary anyway and all a member had to do to opt out was fill out a few forms and pay a nominal fee of twelve-hundred pounds a month over and above the usual HOA dues. If a resident wanted to opt out of having pole mounted cameras facing his house there would be an additional charge for that.
Bull starting ranting and raving about "invasions of privacy," "peeping Toms" and a "police-state atmosphere" to the point that Atkins could see that he was paranoid. He was about to go home and let Bull cool down when Bull asked, "Why do you want this information?" Atkins explained that it would make the community more secure and provide a sense of well-being, solidarity and help in the fight against terrorism.
Atkins also took pains to point out to the thick-headed Mr. Bull that the HOA couldn't charge him with a crime although they could report him for criminal or suspicious activity, but that would never happen. He reminded Bull that, "This isn't Spain, this is England!" and that there was nothing to worry about.
Atkins' condescending attitude only succeeded in inflaming Bull's temper. Bull accused Atkins of being a busybody, a spy and a voyeur and shouting that where he went, who he talked to or what websites he visited were "none of his damn business." Atkins saw that Bull was clearly crazy, but he had never seen this before because they had always talked about sports, the weather, or maybe the war against foreign terrorists. In the past, Bull had even expressed approval of illegal wiretaps, illegal and quasi-legal activities to catch criminals, traitors and terrorists, so his reaction was doubly surprising.
Bull, now that his privacy was being compromised, had suddenly become some kind of civil libertarian. Atkins decided to go back home and talk to Bull in a day or two after he had come to his senses and to ponder why Bull objected to his neighbors spying, but not the government.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Out of Palestine Solidarity with a displaced people
Read more
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Questions For Voters
Several months ago I wrote a series of questions that I would like to see asked of Presidential candidates. In the subsequent months I have encountered people who support their candidate for no definite reason other than something like he's the most likely of the four remaining candidates to "beat Obama" - as if that's all that matters.
With that in mind I decided that I would like to ask the supporters of all the candidates a series of questions to ascertain why they support whomever it is they support. Most or all of these have no "right" answer since they are largely concerned with future conduct.
1. Which candidate do you think is most likely to appoint judges who will follow the constitution's original intent?
2. Which candidate do you think will be most vigilant in protecting individual rights?
3. Which candidate do you think is most likely to respect the powers of the states?
4. Which candidate do you think is most likely to veto unconstitutional legislation?
5. Which candidate do you think is most likely to say what he actually thinks?
6. Which candidate do you think is least likely to support inflationary policies?
7. Which candidate do you think is least likely to approve rendition and torture?
8. Rank the four candidates, Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum as most likely to act from pecuniary motives - most likely to least likely.
9. Which candidate do you think is most likely to obtain a declaration of war from congress before going to war?
10.Which candidate is most likely to reduce spending?
11.Which candidate is least likely to support detention without charge or trial?
12.Which candidate is least likely to append signing statements to bills?
13.Rank the four candidates from biggest liar to most truthful.
14.Which candidate is most likely to honor the separation of powers between the branches?
15.Which candidate has the greatest grasp of economics?
16.Which candidate seems to attach the greatest importance to oaths?
17.Which candidate is most likely to put American interests before those of other countries?
18.Which candidate is most likely to observe the civil liberties of both people and companies?
19.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate federal departments?
20.Which candidate is most likely to attempt elimination of income tax?
21.Which candidate is least likely to compel a seceding state to remain in the union?
22.Which candidate is least likely to approve censoring the internet?
23.Is it important for a president to be honest?
24.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate the TSA?
25.Which candidate is most likely to remove trade and travel restrictions?
26.Which candidate is least likely to bail out failed banks and other companies?
27.Which candidate is most likely to support an individual right to keep and bear arms?
28.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate immewing protesters in "free speech zones"?
29.Which candidate is most likely to support "money freedom," i.e., competing currencies?
30.Which candidate - if any have read it - has the best understanding of the Constitution?
31.Who do think would be the most conscientious steward of government funds?
32.Who do you consider to have been most consistent in his positions and votes?
33.Which candidate seems to have changed his position most often?
34.Have you read any books by any of the candidates?
35.If your preferred candidate isn't the nominee, will you vote, stay home, or write in?
36 Is it more important to beat Obama or to prevent the Republican hierarchy from rigging things?
37.Would it be better to suffer four more years of Obama or to vote in a Republican almost as bad for eight years?
38.What is more important, beating Obama or putting decent people in the Congress and Senate?
39.Is it likely that a Republican Congress will oppose bad policy from a Republican president?
40.Do you think the Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if they could?
41.Which candidate is least likely to bomb another country on his own initiative?
42.Which candidate seems to have the biggest ego?
43.Which candidate do you think the GOP hierarchy least wants?
44.Do you think it's possible that the Republicans are using pro-lifers as political pawns?
45.Do you think that the commerce clause has anything to do with mandating health insurance?
46.Many people talk of "taking back America" or "throwing the bums out," etc. Who is most likely to accomplish this objective?
47.What is the greater threat, an external enemy or an ever-expanding government?
48.What is a bigger threat, debasing the currency or global warming?
49.What is more important for a president, being bound by the Constitution or having the "correct" views on various disputed questions?
50.Has the country been going in the right direction for the past one hundred years?
With that in mind I decided that I would like to ask the supporters of all the candidates a series of questions to ascertain why they support whomever it is they support. Most or all of these have no "right" answer since they are largely concerned with future conduct.
1. Which candidate do you think is most likely to appoint judges who will follow the constitution's original intent?
2. Which candidate do you think will be most vigilant in protecting individual rights?
3. Which candidate do you think is most likely to respect the powers of the states?
4. Which candidate do you think is most likely to veto unconstitutional legislation?
5. Which candidate do you think is most likely to say what he actually thinks?
6. Which candidate do you think is least likely to support inflationary policies?
7. Which candidate do you think is least likely to approve rendition and torture?
8. Rank the four candidates, Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum as most likely to act from pecuniary motives - most likely to least likely.
9. Which candidate do you think is most likely to obtain a declaration of war from congress before going to war?
10.Which candidate is most likely to reduce spending?
11.Which candidate is least likely to support detention without charge or trial?
12.Which candidate is least likely to append signing statements to bills?
13.Rank the four candidates from biggest liar to most truthful.
14.Which candidate is most likely to honor the separation of powers between the branches?
15.Which candidate has the greatest grasp of economics?
16.Which candidate seems to attach the greatest importance to oaths?
17.Which candidate is most likely to put American interests before those of other countries?
18.Which candidate is most likely to observe the civil liberties of both people and companies?
19.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate federal departments?
20.Which candidate is most likely to attempt elimination of income tax?
21.Which candidate is least likely to compel a seceding state to remain in the union?
22.Which candidate is least likely to approve censoring the internet?
23.Is it important for a president to be honest?
24.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate the TSA?
25.Which candidate is most likely to remove trade and travel restrictions?
26.Which candidate is least likely to bail out failed banks and other companies?
27.Which candidate is most likely to support an individual right to keep and bear arms?
28.Which candidate is most likely to eliminate immewing protesters in "free speech zones"?
29.Which candidate is most likely to support "money freedom," i.e., competing currencies?
30.Which candidate - if any have read it - has the best understanding of the Constitution?
31.Who do think would be the most conscientious steward of government funds?
32.Who do you consider to have been most consistent in his positions and votes?
33.Which candidate seems to have changed his position most often?
34.Have you read any books by any of the candidates?
35.If your preferred candidate isn't the nominee, will you vote, stay home, or write in?
36 Is it more important to beat Obama or to prevent the Republican hierarchy from rigging things?
37.Would it be better to suffer four more years of Obama or to vote in a Republican almost as bad for eight years?
38.What is more important, beating Obama or putting decent people in the Congress and Senate?
39.Is it likely that a Republican Congress will oppose bad policy from a Republican president?
40.Do you think the Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if they could?
41.Which candidate is least likely to bomb another country on his own initiative?
42.Which candidate seems to have the biggest ego?
43.Which candidate do you think the GOP hierarchy least wants?
44.Do you think it's possible that the Republicans are using pro-lifers as political pawns?
45.Do you think that the commerce clause has anything to do with mandating health insurance?
46.Many people talk of "taking back America" or "throwing the bums out," etc. Who is most likely to accomplish this objective?
47.What is the greater threat, an external enemy or an ever-expanding government?
48.What is a bigger threat, debasing the currency or global warming?
49.What is more important for a president, being bound by the Constitution or having the "correct" views on various disputed questions?
50.Has the country been going in the right direction for the past one hundred years?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Sacraments and the State
Here's an interesting and timely article in PDF format.
by David Gilbert (full text)
http://cssronline.org/CSSR/Current/Articles%20-%20Gilbert.pdf
(in case the link doesn't work)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
