Ugh!

Sorry I haven't been writing, but I succumbed to one of those nice mid-holiday colds. I spent most of last night coughing and today in bed. I have a thing or two I want to write about, but I think I'm going to make some chicken soup, then take a bath, then go back to bed. Hopefully
I will be up and about by New Year's Eve when I plan to stay home for the first time since I was a child.

Swallow This With Your Holiday Cheer

A night or two ago, I turned on the History Channel and caught some business about the history of Christmas. It was pretty interesting in light of the whole War on Christmas, which is finally over I assume. Thanks again to all of the brave soldiers who fought in that one. I hope you did not all fight in vain, however according to the program, Christmas as we know it is less than 150 years old. As a matter of fact, the Puritans who settled early in America were against the celebrations of Christmas. There was a stronger sense of Boxing Day (lords & servants trading places, as I understand) and winter festivity (drunkeness) that the Puritans shunned in the standard celebration previous to the Victorian Age than than anything close to what we know of Santa & his reindeer.

According to the History Channel program, Christmas past is rich with activities of a not so prudish nature. Drink was in favor in previous Christmases. This is something lost in the modern tradition, of course. During the years of prohibition, I can only imagine what they would have thought of the early practice.

Now keeping with the Tuesday promise that I broke last week, we segue back into political third parties...

The Prohibition Party has been in existance since before 1872, when the presidential candidate, "Mr. Black," won 3371 votes (0.05%). The Temperance movement, however, has existed in the United States since the early 19th century. Despite how much we may believe that there are those who want to control our bodies & souls now, they have nothing on the teetotalers of a long ago age.

The Prohibition Party, a party of "Moral Values," had its strongest showing in 1892, when John Bidwell came in 4th, with almost 273,000 votes (2.3%). It never had a strong third party showing, but the numbers were a strong voice none the less, very much like the more recent Libertarian and Green Party returns. They did their damage. Of course we have all learned about the 18th Amendment (ratified January 16, 1919) and its silliness. And we thank God for the 21st Amendment (Dec. 5, 1933). I couldn't imagine being sober for 14 years, but I guess that's why God invented masturbation.

Although I would never hold to the very conservative Prohibitionist platform, the early 20th century members were important to the suffrage movement. And despite how it would seem to be oh so archaic, the Prohibition Party is still around today. According to Politics1:

"Long-time party activist Earl F. Dodge has run as the Prohibition Party's presidential nominee in [every presidential race from 1984 through 2004]. Dodge received just 208 votes in 2000 -- the party's worst electoral showing ever. The party also fields a few local candidates from time to time -- but 2002 was the first time since the 1860s that the party failed to field any candidates for any public office."

Is the movement really dead? No, the platform has some striking similarities to that of the Constitution Party. No matter how civilized we become, there will always be people trying to control you. Just don't look at the bright light or take the pellet when you hear the buzzer. You'll be all right.

This week, have a drink on me. Be thankful that another year has ended without the Earth exploding or humanity going extinct. Although Christmas is truly on it's deathbead, perhaps New Year's will survive for a few more times around, as long as we still have Dick Clark watching out for us.

Sure, change in tradition (even of a few scant years) can change the course of the cultural awareness very easily. Despite the penchant to believe that Christmas has always been as it is, tradition is a living being. It evolves. History, for this reason at least, is important. Will the way I celebrate the end of the year change to someone else's dictum? No, no, they can't take that away from me. I'll have my Champagne, my beer, and my hangover. I like to celebrate the holidays in the origninal fashion. I may even drop trousers at midnight to illustrate ringing in of the New Year.

Slobber & Drool

Today, being the last workday before Christmas, my employers hosted a kind of Christmas party at work. You know the kind, when only upper management gets to shirk responsibilities while everyone else continues slogging away. Well, it wasn't exactly like that, but there was food in the breakroom brought in by several of my coworkers, and the significan others of these same coworkers visited, bringing their appetites as well as their children.

My workplace is dog-friendly as well. One of the upper management women owns two dogs that are always present. The dogs stay with her at all times, following her from office, through store, to shipping room, back through store, to office again. This is something I'm not accustomed to.

Business was generally light this afternoon, which afforded the parents an opportunity to show off their babies throughout the building. At one point a customer came in for a lengthy period of business and asked if he could bring his bulldog puppy in also. He was welcomed to do so, and no less than a dozen people descended upon the animal to pet it & rub it's belly. It looked much larger than a puppy to me, however. This sudden halt of work was very much the same scene each time a different baby was brought in.

I had no desire to break from my work anytime a new drooler was paraded through. I realize that these children and puppies are cute, but I just don't see the fuss. These days I see dogs and babies as slobbering nuicanses. I may have gone too long in my life without a child. It's possible that 20 years without a dog has made me intolerant. In addition to my distain for the slobber, I really have no desire to hear barking or crying ever again. Both sounds top my list of the most annoying noises.

Now, I know I'm not too far gone. I love my three-year-old niece, and I will love my sister's new baby, due in May. I also have a soft spot for cats. Other people's children and dogs however... not so much. I hope I don't offend new parents, but don't expect me to talk baby talk to your child, and no, I don't want to hold the little tike. I offer my congratulations on the birth of your new baby or on adopting a mutt, but that's your bundle of joy, not mine. If they can't talk to me about music, movies, science or politics, I'm not interested stopping whatever I'm doing. Sorry.

And Merry Christmas to Kids from 18 to 92!

Late Miocene, Early Pliocene, Gulping Down Thorazine

Because I'm working again (and a day job of all things), I wasn't able to comment in a timely manner on the big decision in Harrisburg today, but as you all know, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design, as was introduced into the Dover, PA school, is unconstitutional. Yee-haw!! The ruling isn't the best part, however. As Alan Boyle reports on Jones' memorandum opinion:

"...The 139-page opinion was devoted to the proposition that intelligent design was repackaged creationism rather than science. At times, Jones sounded more like a biology professor than a judge — for example, when he countered the view that some biological mechanisms were irreducibly complex by referring to "exaptation," the idea that a mechanism that was developed for one purpose could be adapted to another."

I read through a very small part of the pdf file, but it really tears the original school board new cornshoots:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community."

And futhermore:

It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the
IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation
of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in
McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept.

Plus:

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago."

And:

"ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.”

Judge Jones ended his opinion with "BI-ATCH!"

In other evolutionary news, I noticed a news report in the science section of MSNBC.COM which tells of research showing the human-chimp ancestor split having occurred between 5 million and 7 million years ago, which narrows the original range considerably. Exciting, eh? What you don't think so?

Well how about this: It won't be long until the return of the Wooly Mammoth! At least 88% of one, anyway, because a planet suffering from the greenhouse effect really needs more sweating beasts.

Time It Was And What A Time It Was (Bookends Theme)

For the past month I have done nothing but sit on my ass in a reasonably warm apartment, growing whiskers and learning what it means to be a house-cat. I've got to tell you, it was the best of times, it was the liverwurst.

I quit a supervisor postition at Home Depot after less than three weeks of employment due to a ridiculously agressive management staff who had a number of the supervisors walking on eggshells. I left without another job lined up (a fool's folly, by the way, if you're ever looking to be bold like that), and I had been living with my wallet close to my chest while I searched for something to avoid the imminent selling of blood plasma. Luckily, a friend let me know of an opening where he works (a police & rescue worker equipment supply company), and I begin Monday morning. It isn't the career path I want, but they agreed to pay me a little more than I expected (though still less than the bookstore), and it will get me though the next few months or so until I find a vocation or sell my soul.

The pre-Christmas vacation I've just completed would have been full of more blogging time, but unfortunately my computer has only recently been back online after losing a battle with a sadistic spyware villain. I also spent a great deal of my time feeling sorry for myself, playing fetch with the cat and mixing drinks at all hours of the day. The nice thing is, however, that primarily what kept my spirits up when I wasn't relying on distilled spirits, were the comments on this site made by my fellow bloggers (and Jack Sadler who needs to get his own blog before it becomes so 5 minutes ago). With the lives everyone has, and the blogs each of you keep rolling, it's nice to know that you're all out there keeping worthwhile conversation alive in an age where it feels like a dying artform. And it's a pleasure for me to read what you have to say on my site after I'm done with my attack on the English language.

Starting Monday, my free time will again be cut short, although I hope my energy won't be spent by the time I get home at 6:30-ish each weekday. I'll try to save an hour most nights to read each of you and write something reasonably original of my own. Now as we slip into these last two weeks of the year, I'd like to say thanks for visiting in 2005 and be careful driving home. I wish I could send each of you home with some leftovers, but the cat ate them.

Pardon Me, Do You Know the Score of the Game?

According to an MSNBC report, as of Dec. 6, 2005, "At least 2119 U.S. military men and women have died in Iraq since March of 2003." The page at the link also shows numbers by state. During his pep rally for the war in Philadelphia on Dec. 12, matter of factly Bush declared, “I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,” and, “We’ve lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.” Of course since then the numbers continue to rise.

In the War on Christmas, so far the death toll remains at zero.

Hmm.

Well, I guess I know which war I will support.

Soon, my cousin David, an Army Lieutenant, and one of the nicest people I know, will be GOING BACK to Iraq. He was there during the "Major Conflict" and is now in training to go back in January. I would really prefer it if he were fighting the Salvation Army rather than Iraqi insurgents. An for those who think that not supporting the war means not supporting the troops, you better believe I support my cousin and his entire platoon. He's not unlike everyone else who has been deployed in the middle of the desert, but their mission now is to clean up the mess that President Bush put us in. This has been a badly managed effort, which was begun on a lie. How can I support the mess?! My support is for the troops, and they need it because their lives are at the whim of a White House that Americans cannot trust!

A Christmas Tragedy

Here's a story that'll make you wonder why they ever let teachers tell the truth, found on Boston.com:

Sandra Jolly said her 6-year-old son's Christmas was spoiled when his teacher told the first-grade class Monday that "Santa Claus is make-believe."

D.J.'s teacher, Geneta Codner, was reading a story about the Tooth Fairy when the class started discussing what was real and what was not, said district spokesman Joe Donzelli.

When the subject of Santa came up, the teacher started questioning parts of his story -- How could a fat jolly man fit down a chimney? How could reindeer fly around the world in one night? -- and told the children that wasn't possible.

The teacher said none of the children acted upset or sad during class.

But Jolly and others disagree.

"How do you destroy a 6-year-old like that?" said Pam Sturt, whose son Bradley is in D.J.'s class.

Donzelli said the school's principal "had a real stern conversation" with the teacher. But there will be no written reprimand because she did not violate any school district policy.

"We have no Santa clause," Donzelli said. "We would think that teachers would use better judgment."

How on Earth can we have teachers telling the truth in school? The next thing we'll hear is that science teachers will be teaching evolution! Actually, I think this is different because there is real value in threatening 1st graders with "No Santa" if they are bad. I'm just glad for the sake of the teacher that she didn't say there was no Jesus either!

Realistically, it can be a sticky situation that is nothing like the teaching of evolution. Sure, science can prove that there is no Santa, but unlike Intelligent Design's effect of promoting anti-science, allowing children their beliefs in Santa, et. al. is a personal thing, like telling them that their parents should vote for a particular candidate or that certain religions were wrong. Of course, when I found out the "truth" about Santa, I didn't really care because I figured the presents were going to come anyway. I just knew I had to suck up to my parents a little more.

Where Have You Gone Mr. Ross Perot? A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You...

I remember the Dana Carvey impersonations the best. But I also remember my mother & sister talking about the possibility of voting for "Ross for Boss" in 1992. I thought they were mad. Now I know they were just frustrated.

The two-party system is really all that we know as Americans. Knowing that third parties are possible, we imagine that somewhere there is an apolitical hero who will rise up out of a movie script and save us from corruption and waffling. H. Ross Perot was the most unlikely presidential candidate. His hobbit-like looks and homespun charm were enough to make anyone take notice, but I think most of his votes came from the dangerous mix of drinking and voting. Still, his boring infomercials were almost enough to make a lasting movement. Almost. (See Dave Leip's Site under 1992 through 2004 to see the changes from Perot's 18.91% to the lack of a party listing over four elections)

Perot was not cut for politics. He dropped out of the race, then dropped back in, complaining of, "Republican dirty tricks." It cost him a great deal of credibility. The political party he started, primarily with emphasis on protection of American jobs and fiscal responsibility. Personally, I had a hard time understanding him. I preferred to interpret through Dana Carvey, so I guess I never really got the real scoop.

According to Famous Texans:

"In 1995, Perot announced the formation of the Independence Party (now called the Reform Party) and said it will attempt to qualify candidates in every state. The next year, Perot won the Reform Party nomination for president, beating former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm by a two to one margin. This time, instead of financing his campaign himself, he accepted contributions and matching government funds. But strange things continued to happen to his campaign. Lamm, seemingly upset by his party's nominating process, refused to endorse Perot. Then he was refused a spot in the presidential debates because debate sponsors decided his low poll numbers disqualified him as a serious candidate. President Clinton wanted him in the debates, Republican opponent Bob Dole did not. In the election, Perot won eight percent of the vote."

Perot did not run in 2000, but the fight within the party (as widely reported) created the picture that the movement was failing. Famous right-wing reactionary, Pat Buchanan, took the nomination, and the party has been licking its wounds ever since. Perot's Reform Party still exists, but without the power it should have kept with vision and leadership. The party was victim to hubris, infighting and Patrick Buchanan. Nothing good can survive that triple threat.

There is also a splinter group from the original party, the American Reform Party, which claims to avoid "social issues" in order to focus on "fiscal responsibility, taxation, deficit spending, campaign financing, ballot access, health care, illegal immigration, international trade, jobs and the economy, conservation and the environment, and a sensible foreign policy that does not foment hatred of America by the rest of the world."

The official Reform Party website, includes some of the following interesting points in its 2003 platform:

- We believe workers should be encouraged to organize and practice collective bargaining. We oppose the efforts to relocate American jobs offshore. We stand for the promotion of higher wage jobs.
- The United States government should be more proactive in opposing mergers of large corporations and in restructuring those that have achieved an excessively controlling position.
- Corporate Reform: Insure punishment and fines fit the crime. Give corporate criminals real jail time. Money collected through fines should be reimbursed to stockholders, retirement funds or 401(k) plans. Fines should be commensurate, not small percentage.
- Provide real pension protection for workers by limiting company stock in 401(k) plans. Give employees a voice on the pension board.
- A temporary Freeze on all immigration, except for spouses and minor children of US citizens until the these are assimilated, and a Constitutional Amendment that will not give automatic citizenship to children born on US soil to parents OTHER THAN legal citizens of the US.
- The Reform Party recognizes that ecology and the economy are inter-related, and therefore holds the following to be of great importance: Scientific management of privately held lands has proven more successful than agenda-driven, agency management of government lands.
- Accordingly, the Reform Party calls for greater private property rights, and demands that hard data replace politics as the basis of land management decision-making and land use regulations and laws.
- In the words of John Quincy Adams, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
2a) We respect the sovereignty of all nations, and reject the belief that the United States should use its military power to engage in nation-building.
2b) The United States should not be the policeman of the world.
2c) The United States should no longer support foreign despots who utilize torture, murder and genocide to control their people. Rather than supporting these regimes we should utilize pressure through international cooperation, including volunteer boycotts.

Additionally there is a call for a change to financial foreign aid, and a great deal of language calling for more protectionism and what seems to be greater isolationism, but there are also some Green and Libertarian ideas in the mix as well (read the whole page if you get the chance). Overall, the platform seems to be pretty disjointed.

The differences between the official party platform and the American Reform Party show how voter dissatisfaction and the views of registered independents cannot be summed up into a single challenge to the status quo. But is that why Perot's party did not keep it's strength? What is really missing that kept the Reform Party (and other third parties, for that matter) from being a lasting challenge to the big two?

Pudding in the Mix Tape

I caught my FWOB (friend without benefits) making a mix CD for her brothers & sister as part of their Christmas gifts. Of course I had to make the negative argument of, "Does anyone really listen to those things?" Then I remembered that she made a couple of them for me when we were dating and realized that my question not only showed my insensitivity, but also my cruelty. I haven't appologized yet, though, because I'm hoping that pretending I never said anything is as good as never having said it at all.

The mix CD, and its antecedent, the mix tape, are founded in the mid-teens years as a way for young men to woo young women. My earliest mix tapes, however were made for driving around with friends, while looking for parties. I used to love to make mix tapes because I preferred it to the annoying banter and unfortunate popular crap on the radio. My best friend and I had a reasonably diverse record collection (yes, we're back in the mid 80's here), as well as a handful of CD's. We liked to push the "mix" as far as we dared, adding old and contemporary pop-rock, country (mostly old), R&B, and even a disco song or two (at a time when disco was still considered a mistake by most listeners). I did not have Jazz & "easy listening" in my collection then, but I would have added at least Sinatra and Louis Armstrong at the very least if it were possible. The tapes were amazing, from my point of view. I thought for certain that everyone I knew would love them as well, but the fans were few.

When I was a little older and more confident, I made a few mix tapes for various ladies I liked. I put a lot of thought into them, usually creating a kind of theme or story with each one. Of course there was also a smooth transition from song to song, so there was a feeling of a real album for the listener. I have no idea if the mix tapes had any effect on the wooing process. They didn't always work. I remember some conversation about the tapes afterward, that they were a good mix, but I don't remember the tapes being played much.

Since those days, I spend most of my mix CD time just creating discs of songs grouped by release date. A friend downloaded almost all of the songs from the top 100 of each year from 1965-1999 on my computer, so I've been arranging them by actual entrance on the Billboard charts on CD for use on today's roadtrips to the grocery store. Beyond that, I rarely listen to CD's at all anymore. With songs as MP3's on my computer, there isn't much of a reason to listen to pre-made mixes at home anylonger.

With MP3's on computers and the iPod replacing the Walkman, the days of mix tapes and mix CD's seem to be falling into the past. With hundreds and thousands of songs at the listener's disposal on iPod, a mix is immediate. A mix CD is obsolete. It feels like the end of an era for me, and I wonder if an important part of the wooing process is being lost. I guess I'll need to rely on constant refills of her wine glass now.

The War on Xmas

Am I a freedom fighter? A Contra? A Rebel? Perhaps I'm a guerrilla, or more likely a gorilla (if you've seen most of my evolution posts). Of course my battle is part of the War on Christmas. Unlike Bill O'Really, however, I'm on the side of the Axis of Grinchis. Yes, I don't believe that saying, "Happy Holidays," is such a horrible thing. After all, my favorite version of the song is by Percy Faith. You can't get much more conservative than that!!

The most important thing about Christmas for me is this: when Linus stands under the spotlight on that stage and says, "...behold! I bring you great tidings of great joy!" Linus speaks of Peach on Earth (although I prefer Pears), and Goodwill toward Men (although I prefer the wool-clothed Salvation Army women). This speech is what Christmas is all about for me, and it always makes me a little misty. Seriously.

The phrase "Goodwill toward all men (persons)," means to me the ability to be happy despite other beliefs. That the season, and it's meaning for Christians, brings something more than mere tolerance. Christmas is about a return to innocence for those that have a difficult time remembering it. John Lennon was clearly not a Christian, but his "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" is one of the most beautiful songs of the season. It captures the spirit of Christmas because the holiday is about inclusion. Much like the tale of the battle between Allied and Axis armies during the Second World War, when Christmas Day was a respite from hostilities, we are supposed to think of love and hope during Christmas, not war.

When I hear someone say, "Happy Holidays," I think of this same spirit. No matter what belief someone may have, or what specific holiday one may celebrate, this person is still worthy of the blessings of peace and hope. Any person who thinks that saying, "Happy Holidays," is somehow a War on Christmas is missing the point of Christmas. I hope that Bill gets an opportunity to have his mind opened to the love that his religion offers this year and begins to see his brothers and sisters in the light that his Lord casts.

Christmas allows me something that is denied through most of the rest of the year. There is tradition, there is familiarity, there are cookies. Christmas gives me a window to my own innocence. You know, before I stopped believing in miracles, and magic, and stop motion animation. A yearly remembrance of pine trees is more important to me than the invites I get to High School reunions I never intend to attend. But I would rather a clerk at a department store wishes me, "Happy Holidays," than, "You get what you pay for. What do you expect me to do?!"

Oh! And what has Bill O'Rifle got against New Year's anyway? Isn't that one of the holidays assumed with, "Happy Holidays?"

Here They Come

I read on the MSNBC site two days ago about VOTER DISAFFECTION which may turn into strenght for 3rd Parties come election time. Because I am using a Mac, I'm having a hard time linking, so copy & paste this to find the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10286455/ The article shows how recent polls are preferring Democrats over Republicans on many issues, but not really wanting Democrats either.

The movents toward third party recognition are underway, as shown by Third Party Watch, http://thirdpartywatch.com/category/election-results/ examines the strong showing of the Constitution Party Candidate.

No third party has ever taken the White House (I don't consider the Republican Party of Lincoln's day a real third party because it was more of a reorganization of the Federalists & Whigs). However, third parties have taken relatively high level government office, and have had great affect on the outcome of elections. Over the past 15 years, Ross Perot (and his Reform Party) and The Green Party have managed to do damage to the major parties. Judging from the status quo of Democrats and Republicans in that time, I wouldn't doubt that the 2006 election will be a testing of the waters for alternate candidates, and the 2008 race will be up for grabs.

It could get very interesting.

That's it... COLD TURKEY

My PC is in the shop tonight because I caught a virus, or a worm, or a disease or something. Since this is going to cost me money I don't have, I swear to avoid any website that doesn't have proof of recent VD tests from this moment on.

I have a hard time understanding why there are such dangers in my e-mail and on naughty-naughty sites. Granted, sin MUST BE punished, so I deserve it, but are there really people out there who think, "I'm going to screw up some computers and muss up peoples' lives" and have no regret for the MONEY THEY'RE MAKING ME SPEND? Alright! Cybergeeks are smarter than I am. I get it already. Now why are you making me pay one way or another for being on sites my mom told me to stay away from? I'm an adult for croonin' out loud! Can't you geeks get your kicks creating problems for the music industry again?

Well, I'm sure my pleas will go ignored, so from now on when I'm bored and curious, I'm taking a cold shower. If priests can avoid temptation, why not me?

I would put a great link to a news report about priests arrested for molestation charges, but I can't figure out how to do it on this Mac. Damn cybergeeks!!

Did You Ever Have To Make Up Your Mind, The Third?

I'd like to thank Lisa Renee & Steve for their ProLibertarian comments on my last-Tuesday post, and I also checked out the NeoLibertarian website which was recommended. It throttled about the head what I thought I knew about the movement, and made me realize that even within smaller parties there is room for changing points of view.

The article threw me off a bit, because I reviewed a post about Murtha My Dear, and there was a great deal of challenge to his "facts" that left me a little cold. One of the things I've always liked about my Libertarians is that they tend to be against involvement in foreign affairs. However, the author did not convince me that the war has been worth it, just that some figures are not quite as bad as they seem. I'm sure though, with as many people who state they are Libertarian (such as Joe Scarborough), there is much room for argument on ALL arguments, including the war. I still see valid points in many of the other posts.

I'd also like to add that the Libertarians are a force that demand attention. The party may not be making huge waves in presidential elections yet, but local, state and US House elections have seen many turns toward Libertarian candidates. California, for instance, had several double digit percentages for Libertarians running for US House seats in 2004, with the 11th district candidate, Jerry McNerney, taking 39% *(please see correction below)! Now wouldn't that be interesting if we could have a Libertarian in national office soon?!

But I've said enough about the Libertarian Party, there are other voices that are stirring up trouble for the two-party system as well. In the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate race, Arlen Spector, (now in his 50th term) should have had no problem defeating Democrat Joseph Hoeffel. Well, he did win by 11%, but there was an another 4% that Rick Santorum (had it been his year) certainly would have kept. These votes went to James N. Clymer, running on another one of those third party tickets. Many Republicans had more than misgivings with Spector due to possible decisions he would make on future judiciary nominees for their views on abortion. However, Spector just being moderate was enough of a sticking point for a the greater central portion of PA, which is conservative enough to earn nickname Pennsyltucky.

The Democratic and Rebublican parties are great corporations (says Ralph Nader, I believe), like CocaCola or the Catholic Church, and full of people who do not feel their views are expressed by the two-party system. For the Democratic disaffected, I posted about the Greens two weeks ago. For the Republican unsatisfied I posted about the Libertarians last week, but there is another side of the Republican mind that cannot find comfort in the Libertarian Party, so I offer that the Constitution Party may be a better fit.

I have heard many Republicans claim to be Libertarians in philosophy. Libertarians want government out of their business almost completely. The Republicans pick up on this at times. There are some similarities, such as tax reform and smaller government, which Libertarians embrace and Republicans are supposed to be for. But there is no mention of God that I have found on the Libertarian website, and there is a push for the decriminalization of drugs. For the Constitution Party, however, there are distinct differences from Libertarians, and a much more conservative agenda than mainstream Republicans. From the main page of the official website, it is stated, "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations."

The Constitution Party mission statement is stated:

"The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations."

The history of the CP states:

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, pro-gun, pro-American sovereignty and independence, and in favor of a strong national defense. It is also the only party that is anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, and anti-unchecked immigration. We also oppose special rights for homosexuals, the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws,and both foreign aid and military interventionism.

These focus areas are a departure in many key areas from the Libertarians, and in complete opposition to the Greens. Clearly, not my kind of party. However I wouldn't mind if they stole a large portion of the far-right Republicans to bring the party into a more centrist "John McCain" area.

The Constitution Party, (American Independent Party in California) developed from the U.S. Taxpayer's Party, formed before the 1992 election. It was in 1999, gearing up for the 2000 election, that the name changed to the Constitution Party to reflect the fact that it's members were interested in the bible.

The Taxpayers, just starting a run in '92, only won 43369 votes (0.04%), but earned 184,820 (0.19%) in 1996. Then, possibly due to a name change that departed from a symbolic "anti-tax vote" or the competition from Pat Buchanan's hijack of the Reform Party (taking 0.43%), the newly named Constitution Party received only 0.09% of the 2000 election votes. It rose marginally to 0.13% in 2004.

The Constitution Party is gaining momentum is some states, such as Pennsylvania, but as the Greens have done to the Democrats, The Constitutionalists are taking a strong voice away from the Republicans. Much of what I've heard on the news about Bush's judicial nominees comes down to the religious base, if they continue to defect to the Constitution Party, the Republicans may no longer be annoying to me.

For now, like the Greens, the majority of their votes seem to be over a dissatisfaction with a major party. Maybe this is because they are still a recently created group, but there has been very little buzz about their message, and little or no movement toward candidates winning double-digit percentages of the vote. Like the Greens, however, I continue to hear talk about the party, so if things continue status quo for the Republicans, we may see a spoiler in a near future election from the Constitution Party. I wouldn't doubt that 2008 will be rife with voters looking for new places to throw away their votes.

* It has been brought to my attention that the Washington Post information regarding Jerry McNerney was incorrect. He is a Democrat, which would certainly explain the high numbers. Perhaps the words Liberal and Libertarian are too similar. However several of the other double digit California Libertarians do appear to be, in fact, Libertarians. Unfortunately I cannot find a way to strike-out text on Blogger, but the mistake will remain with this correction according to blog etiquette. Thanks to Matt for the real information.

Aquaman & Marine, Boy Where Have You Gone?

Last Wednesday I picked up a USA Today and read an Op/Ed "debate" titled, 'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear? For some reason the voice from the left, Bob Beckelis, seems to think that ID should be allowed in schools, stating:

"But if this debate continues to be viewed as an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to get their beliefs into the public schools, then intelligent design will never get a fair hearing, and it deserves one. The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this.

It bothers me that ideas derived from "missing evidence" or "we have no other explanation (or don't like the current explanation) so it must be true" arguments are taken as valid reasons to teach in school. What's even worse is how ignorance in Bob Becelis' case fuels his point of view. At least with Cal Thomas, the conservative side of the discussion, I understand he has an agenda.

Evolution continues to be on my mind lately, partially because it remains in the news, but mostly because I find it fascinating. I manage to drag it into most dinner party conversations. This past Friday (Oops!) I did it again.

A friend of mine, Jack Sadler, mentioned a few theories I'd head about, but never bothered to learn. The Aquatic Ape Theory, was the one that took up most of the conversation. Neither of us believe it (right, Jack?).

Per Wikipedia:

Aquatic Ape Theory states that the ancestors of human ancestors went through one or more periods of time living in a semi-aquatic setting and that this accounts for many of the characteristics of species in the Homo genus that are not seen in other primates, such as chimpanzees or gorillas.

The theory identifies such human anomalies from other primates as minimal body hair, salt tears, and reproductive traits which are similar to aquatic mammals, as well as a special bond we have with dolphins.

Besides the missing fossil record to support Aquatic Ape Theory, what bothers me the most about the AAT is the way that supporters tend to believe that a lack of evidence seems to make the idea stronger. In large part it reminds me of conspiracy theories such as the JFK assasination, Area 51, Paul is Dead. In each of these cases, there is a spark of "It could have happened," which then turns into a mad dash to find specious reasoning to defend it. Yes, there are many gaps in the human fossil record, but taking a leap to say, we must have lived in the water is too close to the stoned-mind theory "did you ever think that our galaxy could be an atom on the finger of a giant?"

Like Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 movie, the entertainment value of sifting through the clues of a mystery are limitless. To imagine that we are decended from swimming apes, possibly one branch of which became the citizens of Atlantis, is the kind of stuff that will keep me poring over the cheapest internet sites and watching the Fox network for Alien Autopsy programs. As fun as it is, there is no more scientific value in the Aquatic Ape theory than in believing that astronauts never landed on the moon. Indeed!

I have a hard time taking anyone's word when they tell me outrageous information. I was really hot for a girl I knew several years ago who told me about ghosts in her house. I kept nodding my head in fascination, all the while thinking she was half-nuts, but really attractive. I didn't buy into her tales at all. It wasn't just because I'm a skepdic, but also because perceptions are often wrong. Think of the difficulty of finding a true description of a criminal when several witnesses are interviewed. More importantly, sometimes people just lie or force a "reality" so others will believe them. As a matter of fact there is a current controversy over Wikipedia, which I often use for info, over absolutely incorrect information added by the outside sources who can add to the free information site.

In the case of the Aquatic Ape theory, it's just a fantasy that would be so cool if it were true, but there's no real reason to believe it. The same is true of Intelligent Design. What possible reason is there for thinking that there was a creator? It isn't about the complexities of life that "need" a creator, it's just that we want to believe. This isn't not enough for me.

A Child's Garden of Bear Traps

JB has an interesting post about children's books (specifically the work of Roald Dahl), which blends nicely with some the thoughts I've had about the past few days I spent being in the constant presence of my niece.

I have a hard time with the practice many parents have of protecting their children from (several of) the harsh realities of the world. There are constant positive and negative influences in a child's environment which affect them in such random ways that there can be no real prediction into how individual kids will develop without complete maps of their brains. A sheltered life tends to leave a child ill-prepared for more difficult issues which they could encounter at anytime.

Due to problems of her husband's schedule, and an unavailablity of her mother'n'father-in-law, my sister brought my three-year-old niece along on the 3+ hr drive, as well as the viewing and funeral for my grandmother. Although initially, I though it would be important for her to understand what death (and the end of things in general) is about, I soon realized that her presence served as more of a burden for my sister than a benefit for my niece's development. She is just to young to make any sense of death or understand how it affects her world.

Between my seventh and ninth birthdays, there were several deaths in my family; Both of my grandfathers, my aunt and a great-aunt passed away within a period of a year and a half. Although each loss affected me with sadness, it helped me to understand the finality of death, which allowed me to appreciate life at a very young age. I was at the right age to begin to work through these issues, although having been taught that these people were all with God left me in the unfortunate position of coming to terms with it all over again for the past few years of my re-awakening.

My niece is a cute little girl, but suffers from a touch of the only child spoiled-ness (her father just can't say no to that cute little face). My sister and bother-in-law try to do what is right for her, and excel in several areas, but the munchkin has a hard time understanding limits. Her toy room is the largest room in the house, full of items she will never have time to play with. Her father, who loves her very much, has a hard time seeing her upset, so he spends a lot of time entertaining her. She cannot understand a world where she is not the center of attention. Again, she is an only child, plus there are no children in her neigborhood for her to play with, so the default is mom & dad. Now that there is a new moffet on the way, however, I think there will be no other course but for the three-year-old to learn a few lessons. I have very good feelings about in the coming development of my sister's family. Let's hope the dog can handle it, though!

It's a natural desire for parents to want to shelter their children from the cruel world. Several years ago I knew a guy who started crying when I mentioned to him recent school shooting. As rare as that would be for his family to deal with, he was so afraid of what could happen, he started to get emotional. Having kids is a way of fixing all of wrongs that did not have to be. It's a chance to live again, vicariously, through the improved world of the daughter and son. Creating the fantasy world is everyone's dream, I suppose. Of course my fantasy world is a little dirtier, but I think I can understand what family values are all about: protecting children from the evils of society and the natural world. That's why homeschooling and burying our heads in the sand is the confirmed sure-fire (or rapid-fire) way to protect our children from... um... themselves?