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.