Stuff on Government, Politics, Campaigns, Elections, etc. - -

This 2008 election season has brought about a large volume of E-Mail, and the following is an attempt to relay it as a digest in a restructured manner. More items will come along as Election-Day draws closer and still additional stuff in the weeks that will follow as the new government develops, so take a look again later on.

There are only 2 ways to avoid conflict (whether armed or otherwise): either (1) have nothing that anyone else wants, or (2) have such a strong defense and the willingness to use it that no one will try to take it away.

Debates are of little value; they essentially only show how glib, convincing, charismatic, and smooth a candidate can speak off of the top of their heads; they show very little about the character, leadership, reasoning, determination, experience, ability, statesmanship, trustworthiness, or potential performance. Of even less value is a candidate's performance in driving fast, drinking a lot, singing and dancing, cooking sausages, or eating distasteful indigenous/local foods with a smile.

The media's constant drive to analyze, grade, and judge a debate, speech, or other performance, places undue emphasis on their value and is a gross dis-service to the public. In order to compete in the world's marketplace and combat zones, such performances are of little consequence when the competition is using weapons of destruction -- whether conventional, massive, subversive, or financial.

Additionally, the media's continual humiliation of one candidate while shining a favorable light on another, serves strongly to cast their anointed candidate as the manifestation of the title character of Hans Christian Andersen's "Emperor's New Clothes". When others point out the lack of potential for performance and essentially respond with the child's observation of "But he has nothing on", then they are rebuked as making nasty, personal, mud-slinging attacks.

The government should not be providing and controlling the production and distribution of goods, services, and wealth, rather it should be insuring a just and level playing field on which free enterprise can thrive and prosper. Whereas government does not produce anything, therefore it cannot provide anything which it has not already taken away from someone. Those candidates who propose to take from Peter to support Paul, can always count on the vote of Paul. The concept of “From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to His Need” (which gives a Google hit count of over 25,000), may sound good on paper (to some like Marx), but fails in practice (as in the U.S.S.R.), and it will here too, if we've not already started down that slipery slope.

In a pure democracy, everyone decides on every public issue; in modern society, this would completely consume everyone's time and energy.
In a pure republic, the laws restrict the majority from oppressing the minority.
These are really gross over-simplifications, see much more at ...
. . . . http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Our system in the USA, of "A democracy in a Republic", as per William Tyler Page's "The American's Creed", may not be the best possible system of government, but it is the best one going on the Planet Earth at the moment.

The Federal Government should concern itself with the defense of the country as a whole and insuring that the States get along compatibly. The States should concern themselves with everything else.

Every voter does not have the resources to completely evaluate every candidate's character and potential for performance. Rather they must rely on their own worldly experiences under similar circumstances and the thoughts of other trusted sources of opinion and judgement. This is human nature; this is how it works in the jungle wilds; bears do not interview people before mauling them, they rely on instinct. Some wrongly refer to this as unjust guilt by association, but we are all influenced, to one degree or another, by the company which we keep.

Voting is not a right, rather it is a privilege which should be extended only to those people who have the ability to understand the issues which are being presented. The mentally deficient should not be eligible, but it is very difficult to legislate a selective line between the in-eligible and the eligible. One element in the selection process is registration; those who can not determine how to register, likely can not make an informed decision. The politicians who attempt to make the registration process easy and open to all who may apply with little evidence of the requirements that they are legally residents of their precinct, are covertly pandering to the uninformed in an attempt to obtain those registrants' votes for themselves and their associates.

Similarly, the process of voting should be restricted to only those who can provide proper evidence that they are actually the registered person that they claim to be.

The best candidate for the office is usually not on the ballot -- perhaps no one even knows the name. Prudence leads to voting for the least objectionable of those who really stand a chance; casting a vote for a sure loser may vent anger, but may also elect the most objectionable.