Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

- Robert Frost

Mini-max strategy

I did research to find the relative rankings of senators, with respect to their liberal versus conservative leanings. Doing an internet search revealed the following:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Senate/senator-ratings.html

Obama is ranked number one, as a mean, by all of these liberal organizations.

McCain is ranked number 53, (47'th from the bottom of the list).

So you can see that Obama is the most extreme in terms of leftist leanings.
His voting record was the most consistent with respect to growing government.

Whereas McCain is right in the middle of the pack. He is more of a moderate with
respect to reaching across the aisle.

Hillary is number 11.

According to the mini-max game playing search strategy, the best way to advance in the long run is to minimize your opponents maximums in one round so that in the next round (move), you will be able to beat your opponent if they are not using this strategy. This translates to putting forth your most moderate candidate, assuming that your opponent will put forth their most extreme candidate. This is exactly how this election is shaping up. Obama is the extreme candidate based on the above rankings. McCain is of course the most moderate Republican of the ones that were running.

My prediction, based in this strategy, is that McCain will beat Obama in the general election.

The hope and brazenness of change

Be careful what you hope for, you might just get it, and it just might be for the worse

Obama Nation

I think this might be an Obamanation

Who should be able to vote?

the Roosevelt buncombe

"The Bad Boy of Baltimore" a biography of H.L. Mencken by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers. Ppage 409:

"By the mid-1930's, thanks to the New Deal, all that self-reliance had changed, prompting Mencken to declare: 'There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them.' Despite the billions spent on an individual, 'he can be lifted transiently but always slips back again.' Thus, the New Deal had been 'the most stupendous digenetic enterprise ever undertaken by man.... We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time. The effects of that doctrine are bound to be disastrous soon or late.'

When someone asked, "And what, Mr. Mencken, would you do about the unemployed?" He looked up with a bland expression. "We could start by taking away their vote," he said, deadpan. Mencken was not surprised when the majority disagreed. "There can be nothing even remotely approaching a rational solution of the fundamental national problems until we face them in a realistic spirit," he later reflected, and that was impossible so long as educated Americans remained responsive "to the Roosevelt buncombe."

Atlas Shrugged

An assertion I've just been given by a friend:

''A big majority of people in the Republican party only vote Republican because of the religious aspects. -- The so called Religious Right ''

''Take away those aspects, and the country would go overwhelmingly for liberal ideas like those from the Democrats and McCain''

If this is true, and people care very little for their individual liberties, then, as Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Liberals like McCain and Hillary will give security to many and the illusion of a fix for global warming. And what will they really get? Socialism, and the loss of freedoms and liberties.

I cannot underscore this point enough.

I am fed up with people flocking to big government, the nanny state, to give them all their needs. It will not work in the long run, this country will become no better than a third world country, because all incentive to achieve will be negated. It happened in Romania, I saw it first hand, until they revolted and lynched the Chauchescu(s). That same thing will happen some day in this country, we will revolt!

Some day we will all wonder whatever happened to our liberty, that precious jewel called liberty, represented most by freedom from government mandates, and liberty, held most dear by the possession of property, including land, air, water and our very money which is the legal tender of property, will be the one question that will be asked. I know what happened to our liberty: Plato said it best with his Analogy of an Ideal Republic. His Aristocracy is our liberal media and politicians. And we, the people, are the producers who not only obey them, but do so willingly.

And just like the book by Ayn Rand: "Atlas Shrugged," the producers will simply quit. And there will be no more free ride.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PLATO.HTM

The Analogy of the Ideal Republic. After Thrasymachus leaves in a royal huff, Socrates starts the question all over again. If one could decide what a just state is like, one could use that as an analogy for a just person. Plato then embarks on a long exposition about how a state might embody the four great virtues: courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. The remainder of the dialogue is a long exposition of what justice in a state is; this section is considered one of the first major, systematic expositions of abstract political theory . This type of thinking, that is, speculating about an ideal state or republic, is called "utopian" thinking (utopia is a Greek word which means "no-place"). Plato (speaking through Socrates) divides human beings up based on their innate intelligence, strength, and courage. Those who are not overly bright, or strong, or brave, are suited to various productive professions: farming, smithing, building, etc. Those who are somewhat bright, strong, and especially courageous are suited to defensive and policing professions. Those who are extraordinarily intelligent, virtuous, and brave, are suited to run the state itself; that is, Plato's ideal state is an aristocracy, a Greek word which means "rule by the best." The lower end of human society, which, as far as Plato is concerned, consists of an overwhelming majority of people in a state, he calls the "producers," since they are most suited for productive work. The middle section of society, a smaller but still large number of people, make up the army and the police and are called "Auxiliaries." The best and the brightest, a very small and rarefied group, are those who are in complete control of the state permanently; Plato calls these people "Guardians." In the ideal state, "courage" characterizes the Auxiliaries; "wisdom" displays itself in the lives and government of the Guardians. A state may be said to have "temperance" if the Auxiliaries obey the Guardians in all things and the Producers obey the Auxiliaries and Guardians in all things. A state may be said to be intemperate if any of the lower groups do not obey one of the higher groups. A state may be said to be just if the Auxiliaries do not simply obey the Guardians, but enjoy doing so, that is, they don't grumble about the authority being exercised over them; a just state would require that the Producers not only obey the Auxiliaries and Guardians, but that they do so willingly.

listen to what the people have to say...