POWER & Politics

One may be duped into believing that the President is actually the master & chief.  One may also believe that all State elections are fair—not engineered to derive a certain outcome or result. 

As to the first belief, Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.  

Is this true of our own..., the present day and perhaps the future for as long the electoral exist?

Politics wields POWER because it is not beholden to the truth.  Simply put, politicians lie to include The Media, its messenger.  Add to this system BIG BUSINESS and what you have is a protraction of POWER seemingly without match, rival. 

Politics does not gain POWER except by seizure: first with fear as a condition for which The State is then fueled for growth, expansion and extension; second, with funding by BIG BUSINESS for which, in exchange, the elected and appointed do the bidding their bidding. 

As Albert J. Nock describes, as social strength wains political POWER rises.  

What the State does not acquire through the means described above, it does so by incessant borrowing—which is simply robbing from the future—our future!  It should not come as a surprise that our capital is now has the highest average income in the country. 

POWER & Sex - to add to much written about power

In this addition, I look briefly at sex and POWER.   

It is Oscar Wilde,

Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.

…which is to say that sex is nearly everything. 

As I think about this, a line from the 1985 film, “The Big Chill” where the character played by Jeff Goldblum, says,

Everyone does what they do to get laid. 

…which of course is not true, right, but still relevant some of the time. 

How sex is related to POWER, seems less a question to anyone of age; more, a given fact for those that use—and are used—in various ways that act on and manipulate men, their libido, to acquire something from/for something (else). 

Today, sex is increasingly attaining political traction; used to implicate some of presumed higher standing to undo them, their climb to POWER thwarted by allegations ranging from solicitation to assault, abuses of POWER one way and/or another.   

But sex has always been a weakness for men, right? Biblical figures like David and Samson succumbed to their sexual desires, abusing powers and committing a series of egregious acts leading to one or more deaths amid misfortune and maliciousness (David and his son, Absalom).  Both lead to downfall, death and disparity, coupled and perhaps caused by the abuse of POWER.  

In both of these affairs (ancient though they be) the abuses of POWER run rampant.  

• David abuses his authority to summon Bathsheba to his bed 
• Delia coerces Samson into revealing the secret of his strength 

Plato said,

The measure of a [person] is what he does with power.   

The abuse(s) of POWER are more likely when the plot or plan conceives much to gain and little to lose; and more, perhaps subsequently, when the conscience of the person(s) leaves little constraint.  A person will lie--even in court--if they believe no adverse consequences for them.  This consequences might be called "a moral hazard"--as applied to finance--that when the gains seemingly far exceed the losses (risks), the choice seems a "sure thing"--which is to say nothing of the impact and pain foisted on others.  . 

This conception however seldom survives the actual consequences seldom match, the end result sometimes immeasurable pain and loss. If you don't believe me, ask Samson or David.  

Separation, of course not but prayer?

Coincident to the first of possibly several posts on this subject, this from an article with Desiring God, “The United States of Ambivalence, Celebrating the Founding of Imperfect Freedom”, Thomas S. Kidd:

We find much to commend in the American tradition, but it can’t be our ultimate allegiance. As with Christians everywhere, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Nevertheless, as we keep our eyes on the heavenly kingdom, Christians in America have many reasons to thank our King for the blessings he’s given to this imperfect nation.Back to the question of this previous post:

If the church is a sacred house of God should it render allegiance to the state with a flag or by any other? Yes, there is much to commend but then, what about that to condemn? What about enough is enough or, "I cannot believe they do ____? 

Prayer is an answer and I for one admit that I do not pray as I should these days for those in authority from the leadership on down. 

Why do I not pray as I should, as I am instructed? There is no excuse; the NT (Paul) urges us to pray for such, perhaps that they will lead with the kind of virtues generally described as fairness, the rule of law, and some moral base similar to that which individually we should hold to, reserve and preserve.

If/as I do not pray I am not serving or given allegiance to the things of God but instead am passive, ambivalent or worse, indifferent.

Yes, I must pray.

The really COURAGEOUS

COURAGE is a subject that I have been writing about; it is a theme of the book (and play) that I am editing, 

 COURAGE in The Crush 

It is a subject of interest perhaps because we all need it--COURAGE.  

In the play, an allegory, several crabs are traveling through time from the sandy shores to times and places far beyond their wildest dreams.  With each passing period, the crabs learn about spirits, both good and bad, and how spiritual forces control the Earth from the deepest deep to the unlimited dimensions of space. 

In this spiritual realm is a struggle between good and evil, COURAGE and the conflict and contention that leads to destruction and death.  In the struggle is both the natural who represent that designed for COURAGE and the unnatural who aim to undermine all that is good and right.  

COURAGE makes the difference for the natural as they struggle to overcome the deep and dark, the power of the world.  

More to come. 

Truth gains Trust

Why is trust so, well, trusted?  Because trust presumes the truth; it precludes that the words of another are truthful to their actions. 

Sure, we slip-up from time to time, saying one thing and doing another; sometimes we may even be hypocritical, two-faced, lacking integrity and losing the trust of others. 

Sometimes our intentions are good but the consequences of our actions are not, whether our words and actions conflict or someone misunderstands or misinterprets us.  

Simply put, we are not each perfect and sometimes can even slide into the depths of deception, deceiving and being deceived.   

Don't tell me the truth, but rather, tell me what I want to hear.  

Sometimes the truth hurts and more, the actions that follow.  We cannot always trust our feelings let alone that of others, actions and all.   

What finally matters is the heart withing, the wellspring of life.  If our heart is right (not necessarily emotions), then are intentions mean well and our actions...well, that is always subject to the other(s).   

Know that a healthy heart is trusting and trustworthy, truth be told and then, more, be lived.  

Separation, church and state

To the extent that I understand this subject—which may not be much—is that some (folks) hold that church and state should be separate, each an institution with its own government so to speak.  

Is church and state separate; are these two institutions uniquely independent, each a self-governing institution with all its laws and bylaws, deeds and doctrines?  

I am sure that it is not, separate; but in fact, the state and church are inextricably intertwined whether fully intended, idealistic or not.   

Why am I certain, sure? 

Before giving cause or reason for my surety, certainty, some consideration of our history bears out the interrelationships of church and state.  Many churches display a national flag whether in public or within their sanctuary, yet also hold that brotherhood extends to all nations, the proclamation of their beliefs to other nations—even those not in good standing with the state.  

How can the church seemingly give allegiance to the state but then reverence to all of man, each and all sinners in God’s sight and by God’s word?  

What about us versus them; "us" the good and them the bad? 

I know that the subject is much more, complex and controversial, but what I am suggesting is that the church should render under to Caesar what is the state and unto God what is society, universal.  

If the church is a sacred house of God should it render allegiance to the state with a flag or by any other?  I cannot say, but only that the church and state are sometimes so close as to be indistinguishable let alone inseparable. 

Sometimes games...

Sometimes games are not games--not really--but become real and raw, causing and contributing to immense and intractable pain and hurt.  

Sometimes games may amuse one, as a sport, but end up hurting others and in particular those that never agreed to play the game(s) in the first place .  

Sometimes games involve lying, manipulation and deception, that--when discovered--destroy all sense of trust, any lasting chance for healing and hope.  

Sometimes games are rigged, you have no chance of winning. 

Sometimes...

No Greater Abuse of Arbitrary Power

I begin with a quote from Isabel Paterson: 

There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure.

Who seizes children from “fit” parents—contributing to fatherless families—and imputes that same once-parent, expropriating funds for the children unjustly taken from them? 

Every day across our great country, families are systematically separated, a consequence of divorce.  In truth, the process forces:

• Divorce
• Parent-children disparity
• Peonage (child support), expropriating funds from the disparate, discharged parent
• Penalties and possibly jail from child support arrears (debtor’s prison) or, depending on the actions of the custodial parent, criminal conduct—often the consequence of trumped-up charges stemming from restraining orders, falsified and fraudulent evidence, encouraged if not demanded from attorney’s, advocates and adversaries of joint custody or otherwise the proceeds provided from Title IV-D

The State might argue (if it happen to be) that such force is necessary and that, in actuality, the parent remains associated to his child, children.  If however any such person representing The State, themselves a parent, broached such a response as a parent—as an individual rather than an institution—they would see the matter as it is, the truth:  

The State unjustifiably removes children from the care of a parent, usurping parental authority and thereby legitimate parenting. 

Child custody is criminal when fit parents are discharged from their rightful duty as a parent.   

Child Support (Title IV-D) of the IRS tax code is a federal program that subsidizes primary custody, paying its subscribing states in proportion to the collections—establishing the incentive for the court’s to force one parent into conditions described above.

Finally, these actions by The State are not about the best interest of the family, community and society, but about the subsidies garnered via Title IV-D.  Yes, it is about the money.  

Truth, Justice and the American Way

Not to address the "American Way" but more the topics of truth and justice--once again. 

Reason should suggest that any chance of truth and justice demands Discovery, both the collection and distribution of evidence, facts and all other; yet this is not so. 

Indeed, Discovery becomes rather incidental in the application of The Plea Bargain, expedience irrespective of the facts.   

As presented on more than one article of mine, The Plea Bargain is an clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, No witness shall be compelled to self-incriminate. The Plea Bargain is an abuse of power, bargaining away the lawful rights of a defendant; rights that should not be negotiated, nullified in effect. 

No one can deny that Superman is super and that, all in all, this superhero stands for these ideas of truth, justice and the American way.  Equally undeniable is that Due Process and the rights of the defendant are practically and professionally denied,  expedience rarely the exception.   

Where is Superman to save the day?  

Few in the court system would agree with my opinions--only because they do not have to--but instead, follow the course of expedience far removed from what William Blackstone conceived and crafted in The Rights of the Englishman--an inspiration for The Fifth Amendment.  

With in excess of 98% of all criminal cases adjudicated with The Plea Bargain is it any wonder that we have the largest prison population in the world?  

The Justice System and the Plea Bargain

The System Of Justice  suggest that, as a system, it has order and the rule of law; the objective to determine guilt and render a just, evidence-based decision.  

This system however is not just, fair or anything of the sort.  

In the process of a decision is the collection and circulation of evidence; a process, Discovery; a potentially crucial period in adjudication--presuming that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  

If such is not brought to bear, a decision based on evidence, then what is left but the Plea Bargain. 

What is the Plea Bargain? 

The Plea Bargain is compelling the witness or defendant to self-incriminate.   

How does this work, the Plea Bargain?  

The Plea Bargain begins with the Prosecutors power to determine guilt prior to a trial--even the hearing; this presumption of guilt, combined with the disclosure of the full measure of the law as a sentence, is what compels the witness to plead guilty and thus accept guilt without a trial. In short, the witness generally chooses the lessor of two evils by accepting guilt--without the presumption of evidence and without the completion of Discovery.   

Is this right, the Plea Bargain? 

Given that a defendant is freely given certain rights under the Fifth Amendment: 

• The right to a trial 
• The right to face one's accusers
• The right not to self-incriminate 
• The right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

...the answer is, NO, the Plea Bargain is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and therefore is not just, not a true System Of Justice.   

Finally, the Plea Bargain is indeed expedience--not Due Process--whereby the end justifies the means; the Prosecutor presumes--without Discovery--Due Process, where the means justifies the end, is nullified per the Plea Bargain, expedience.  

Our System of Justice is designed and operated as an unjust system; and thus, Lady Justice neither bears the sword of truth or the balance of fair scales, but on the contrary, she openly violates the rights of the defendant everyday in excess of 98% of all criminal cases.  

Voltaire – the TYRANT, TYRANNY

On such abuses of power, Voltaire,

The sovereign is called a tyrant who knows no laws but his caprice; who takes the property of his subjects, and afterwards enlists them to go and take that of his neighbors.

To what (form) of TYRANNY do you tolerate, prefer? 

I should less detest the tyranny of a single one, than that of many. A despot has always some good moments; an assemblage of despots, never.

Better to face one than more...many, a cabal or cartel. 

Be ye warned that,

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves I the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. 

From another, not French but English, G. K. Chesterton: 

Of all tyrannies, one sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

And as it is, long predicated by James Madison,

The means of defense against foreign danger has always been the instrument of tyranny at home. 

And he believed that there are more instances of the "abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden [abuses]." 

  

Heard in silence lately, seen in encroachments, gradual or grandiose? 

For, as I hear and see (again, Mr. Madison), 

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [ ] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

 Beware and be weary of those centrists of power who parade as parliamentarians.  . 

Voltaire – Seeing POWER

POWER is everything; it is the means and the end. 

Does power beget power, abuses?  See Declaration of Independence for historical examples and any public or private action for current ones. 

Power is not necessarily discrete, discretionary.  

Power does not have to hide its actions though it may be more effective when doing so (the element of surprise…shock).   

State power is described as “the long arm” and “the heavy hand”, to mean that its reach is far and its blow, serious and severe.  State or similar forms of power depend on money as a means; first by using force to take others’ money and then additionally by printing and/or issuing money well beyond its base value—if it any has such.  

The more money, the more power. 

Voltaire writes,

Everywhere the weak [loath] the powerful, before whom they cringe; and the powerful beat them like sheep whose wool and flesh they sell.

Are you a sheep…led by a sinister shepherd or worse, a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  

You may know the kind; those who fain victimization but indeed are the perpetrator. 

It is bad enough to face evident powers but worse to go up against those hiding behind a fleece; they who attempt pull the wool over the less than perceptive eye.

Still, and from Voltaire once again,

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

If it’s not bad enough that some are fooled,  it can only get worse when want to be chained. 

Tyrants are clever and calculated to do some good (or intend to…) amid all the bad as Voltaire describes: 

Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them. 

More to come on the tyrant. 

Voltaire – made for a purpose

In much messages of life is that all things happen for a purpose; whether a thing or somethings, each and all are purposed as a thing or for something. 

Voltaire seems to believe that,

It is proved...that things cannot be other than they are, for since everything was made for a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose.

In this frame-of-mind or point-of-view is not only do things happen for a purpose but that 

“...that everything is made for the best purpose.” 

• What is really meant…? 
• Was he (or did he) consider the things tragic or tumultuous, death and destruction of one form or another? 
• Is or was there nothing in his life that came without a purpose, determine and then decided? 

Most likely not….   For life always has mystery where their remains questions as to the basic question, “Why?”  

• Why did it happen (or why didn’t it)?  
• Why did (or do) I have to endure pain, sorrow, grief and all sundry of other things that are hard—maybe impossible!”

Among the many through time, much have endured the things righteously undeserving and rightfully undesirable. 

Yes, many suffer much while some seem to skirt the ills of the world through their wealth as power.  Whereas the many suffer, a relative few succeed by some semblance.   

Voltaire – the right question(s)

Voltaire said,

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers. 

What does he mean; that questions, inquiry and indecision, are better than answers?  

In keeping with attention and accolade on wonder (rather than perhaps even wisdom, depending…) is the continued desire and determination to learn, to grow and even grapple with knowledge; yet, the reality that,

The more I read, the more I acquire, the more certain I am that I know nothing.

What keeps us on this journey to learn, this never ending and expanding endeavor but to think and believe,

There is so much out there and perhaps true tunes amid all this noise.

To Voltaire, “I don’t know where I am going, but I am on my way.”

After all,

Common sense is not so common.

Voltaire – to be or not to be, good

What is “good”; what represents "a good thing”?  

• When we share with others (something of value), is this a good thing?
• When we consider and act-on someone’s needs above our own, is this a good thing? 

Voltaire said,

Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.

It is when we know what is good (think about it) but fail to act on it given the opportunity; this is perhaps the guilt that Voltaire describes in and among all mankind—whether we actually have guilt or not. 

Sometimes it is the small things that count, if not one than perhaps a series.   

• For a child or someone with a strong sense of gratitude, small things matter.  
• For those however who lack gratitude or who are otherwise indulged, such small things go unnoticed if they matter at all.  

A man gives a woman a bouquet of roses and she, for whatever reason, does not in the least appreciate or admire them.  

Another man offers another woman a single flower that he picked amid a field of wildflowers and she is taken, momentarily consumed in this kind, considerate action with all its meaning. 

Why does one appreciate one and the other, not?  

A good thing is not always for good, great, but is finally measured in how well it is received, registered. 

Better to try “good” and be good than to not, presuming rejection and even ridicule.  

Do this good for you—because your heart is good—and not for them alone.