Elections Bought and Paid For

Fifty years we would have collectively cringed at the results of the June 8th. elections all around these United States, considering the millions that were spent, particularly right here in California. Of course that means that Carley Feurina won for Senate and Meg Whitman won for Governor. They aren't elected yet but if money is any indication they're a sure thing. Today ideas are popular that were considered reactionary fifty years ago, such as Monica on the Mc Laughlin report saying that we should get out of the U N because it's just a forum for small nations that would otherwise be unimportant, getting a chance to bash the United States. Blanche Lincoln won with the help of both the Obama Administration and Bill Clinton. Lincoln faced off with lieutenant Governor Bill Halter and won with just fifty percent of the vote. An Obama aid alledgedly said "The other side, the Labor Unions, just took ten million and flushed it down the toilet". This is a remark I might expect from a Republican, and a tactless one at that, but not a member of a Democratic Presidential Administration. But stranger yet are some of the propositions that won here in California. Proposition 17 lost. This is the one where insurance companies would be forced to give us portable savings deals, where we could keep our savings plans and switch companies. The opponets of proposition 17 said that it was "a trick, a measure sponsored by the insurance companies themselves to make more money". I don't see how and frankly haven't investigated further. Proposition 14, the one I was telling you about that torpedoed Party control of elections, that one won. As I said yesterday this seemed really stupid because had the measure been in effect yesterday Tom Campbell and Barbra Boxer might be the two run-off candidate. This is an "old school" political rule where hopefully you can vote for someone like George Wallace (or Hillary Clinton) and throw the election and make the other side pick a losing candidate. We know Rush Limbaugh is a big fan of this election trick. In South Carolina the republicans used this trick yesterday to elect a no nothing named Green against a far more more experianced candidate named Rawls. (no soul connection for either) Thom Hartman believes this type of election manipulation by the Republicans will really get into high gear now by the Republicans in California. The tea bagger won in Nevada to face Harry Reed for that senate seat, as expected. I think the overall intelligence of the national electorate is going down hill fast. I would say they are behaving like packs of wolves, but that's an insult to wolves.

I suppose if you were so inclined, if you were a liberal you might want to pray to your God. Unfortunately my conception of God won't allow me to pray to him. First of all people like to assume two things that aren't so. First that their God thinks like them and shares their moral values. Dennis Prager says your spouse should share your moral values, but I haven't heard him address whether one's God should share one's moral values. Secondly you assume that your God is a God who intervenes on your behalf, ie. that he can be morally or emotionally swayed by your petitions to Him. It's easy for winners to believe in God. You know what they say- - Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan. Remember that with my Deist perception of God certain things are intrinsically impossible. One is that is impossible for either me or God to change. Next, the concept of testing or "trials" if you will is meaningless. God can't learn anything about you he's already not well aware of, so what's the point? Sin as we know it is impossible. Also rebellion as we know it is impossible. Rebellion has the idea of "holding off" or somehow delaying the proper will of God from execution. We realize nothing in God's will can be changed for a nanosecond, and if there were rebellion it would have been scripted out by God himself while dinasaurs still roamed the earth. Miracles can't happen because any divergence from the pre planed script is "Intrinsically impossible". Since people like Dobson say God can't do the intrinsically impossible, if you think about there are an awful lot more things God CAN'T do than he CAN. So what's a liberal to do. It's best to come up with some other less intrusive word for God, such as - - Reality. Nobody can argue with that. If someone like Jesus Christ on the radio invokes a judgement that sounds more like a curse on your life, the only thing that remains for you to do is to "Break Jesus" the same way that southern white wanted to "Break President Obama". In other words you have to show them whose boss and make their words as nothing - - null and void. If they say you'll never be healed of that disease, find some mad scientist who has just discovered a cure for it. Do an end run around limiting words. Better still to ignore the words of the "God of the right wing" since he's demonstrated by his people's actions he's devoid of Love. If what Chuck Smith is true about "becomming like your God" this indeed could be the real curse of the right wing. Luckily for me my God is not subject to such curses. (Selah) Another assumption people generally make about God is that he works on a "pass / fail" system. You're either in or your out. You're one of "us" or one of "them". People want God's mercy broad enough to include them, but narrow enough to exclude all the people they despize when they meet them on the street. The idea that such a God as I have postulated could be either fair or unbiased, is impossible. I may not be a Christian but I ask myself certain moral questions. One is "What if everybody did what you do? What would the world be like". The second is "Have you walked a mile in the other person's shoes?" And if you have walked in their shoes, mentally do you become more sympathetic tword them, or is your anger kindled further? The third question is "Are there certain moral and integrity boundaries I will not cross in order to win the favor of God?" Another question I would ask is "Do you even have the authority to offer the things you claim will be mine if I accept your god?" Another question is, "If I accept everything you say and become a convert- - who stands to gain the most from my conversion, you or me?" If you were trying to convert them THIS is the first question they would ask YOU. Also ask yourself, "which one of you cares more about mankind, him or you?" And finally if they are trying to convert you politically or religiously, ask yourself "Is this conversation degenerating into a monologue, and if you left, would they scarcely even notice that you were gone? Don't mind those dates scrawled in the dirt. September 25th. 2010 means nothing at all.

We'll be seeing you on a different blog in a day or two. Hopefully I haven't bored anybody or said something that you're already heard too many times before. Bye, bye.