The Problem with Politics

I wrote the following in response to a post made on a Political discussion board meant for use by residents of my HOA. The original poster felt there was a need for term limits on Congressmen just as there is for the President.

----

What needs to happen is that we need to vote them out, and stop letting Political Parties scar us into not voting for anyone else.

Unfortunately to truly vote someone out and still get a person from the same Political Party that you like means you must get involved in the Primaries and Caucuses. For a country were less then half the population votes regularly, this is asking a lot. Yet when we are offered an alternate choice we get scared of choosing that alternate with ideas such as "throwing your vote away", or letting the worst person win by not voting for the "lesser of two evils".

The real problem with our political system, in my opinion, are the national parties. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for national parties. Yes I know they are not Constitutionally banned, but they are not necessary either. George Washington, in his fairway address did warn of giving our loyalties to Factions (A word he used to describe a Political Party - see: http://www.liberty1.org/farewell.htm):

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."

What we have today, is the very thing the Constitution of our Country was supposed to prevent, a concentration of power. We have one Faction that has almost complete control over the government, so that it no longer matters that the government is split up in to three branches that are supposed to balance one-another. This one Faction has enough control of all three branches to the point were they can push forward what ever agenda they wish; despite what the Constitution or "Rule of Law" may say. If you think I'm picking on the Democrats, we had the same problem not too long ago with the Republicans too. In both cases, things got done that I found abhorrent, and that allowed the Federal Government to gain power were it has no right.

One reason I believe the two National Parties are so powerful today, is because we have term limits on the President. Instead of voting for the person we fill is best fit for the job, we end up voting for the Political Party that will try to replace the last person we liked that they got elected to that same position.



I received an e-mail from one of my state’s Political Parties inviting me to participate in their national convention as an at-large delegate. Something in that e-mail shocked me, and I realized the true problem with the current political parties.

The e-mail had a list of requirements to be considered for either an at-large or an alternate delegate position. The one requirement that made me realize the true problem with having the average person’s voice heard in a nation party was what I would call “the wealth factor”. To even be considered, you had to give them your credit card information, so they could be certain you could afford to attend the convention. The one week long national delegate process was going to cost anyone who went thousands of dollars in fees, travel, and hotel expenses.

For me, taking a week off work, and spending thousands of dollars in expenses is not something I can easily do without careful planning and saving. I can’t see anyone as middle class as myself going to because it's cost prohibitive; let along someone in the poor house. It became clear to me that the people truly running our national parties are either very dedicated to their party or rich enough, with a flexible enough schedule, to be able to take such a trip. The average person’s voice would never be heard in such a venue, and thus I don’t see how we will ever have a presidential nominee from either of the major national parties that truly understands the average person.

What can we do about this? How can the average person ever expect to be heard when it is clear that the well to do have a monopoly on our national elections process? Who can speak loud enough so that the average person can be heard? Perhaps National Parties are not the best way to elect our most powerful public servant after all?

Near the end of the 1700's being dedicated to a party was equated by some to having loyalty to a private selfish faction that stood to conflict with the public good. George Washing himself warned of such loyalties has he left office after his second term as President. He easily would have won a third term (which was allowed at that time), but he knew of one other truth: That absolute power, in the hands of imperfect men, will thoroughly corrupt anyone. Today we have two parties that hold the vast majority of the political power in the USA, a notion contrary to the principle of separation of powers the USA's constitution sought to prevent. This countries loyalty to these factions has undermined this very principle, and that is the real problem with politics in this country today.

These two parties today continue to drive divisions between Americans, and the last time a major party was replaced by a new one was when Abraham Lincoln was elected as the First Republican Party President. Civil war shortly followed. Perhaps the best thing to do is outlaw national party affiliations all together.

Why do we need national parties anyway? The only political office that has any kind of national vote is the one for the executive office, better know as the President. However, the vote of the people isn't really want elects the president, as it really only determines who the individual states will chose to participate in the electoral collage that actually elects the president. Perhaps what we really need is to have people focus on who they are electing to the electoral collage, and let them do the work the way it was intended to be done; without undue national influence from political parties.



I got an e-mail from the CEO of the company I work for. He was supporting a proposition the local city government was pushing that would get the city into a position of competition with other businesses. I don't want to give to much detail on the specifics of this issue, but what's more important was his reasons for supporting the proposition. He sighted what benefits it would have to the company and how it would help the company save money. he didn't care about the unfair competition it would create, or the tax payers that would likely end up paying for a big portion of if. It gave me another reason to believe that there's a big problem with our political system in America today. Big business and Big government are too eager to scratch each others backs, and help each other out, that they forget that they are stepping on you an me in the process.

That same company also keeps telling us employees how a week dollar is good for the companies bottom line. Another good example why our politicians need to pay more attention to the people who actually elect them, and not the companies who can afford to send lobbyists to Washington D.C. and/or Capitol hill go get their own agendas pushed forward. I've been tool after all that it's the small businesses that make up most of the economy.

LDS vs FLDS

I wrote this document in a writing class I had a few years ago, but revised it here for format and additional content. The purpose of this document is to show the differences between the two best known "Latter Day Saint Movement" churches (as some would like to call it - not me, but it works well for this post). These two are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) - often referred to, although incorrectly, as Mormon Churches (there really is not such thing as the "Mormon Church" and anyone claiming to talk about such a church most likely does not understand the subject well enough to be considered an expert).

It's important to understand some people misunderstand that the so called "Mormon" faith, is some how all one large movement or main church (similar to how other churches have their own sects, but still repot back up to one main governing body), because it's all derived from the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. There are actually many different churchs that all claim the "Mormon" nick name, and none of them are in any other way connected to one another. Characteristics that distinguish the LDS and FLDS churches, and others in this movement, are actually very different and separate.

The biggest distinction is of course Polygamy; which started within the early LDS Church but was discontinuation over a century ago - largely for compliance with new federal laws unconstitutionally aimed at the so called "Mormon Problem" - which caused the split off of the FLDS church. Today there are a great number of differences in the currently widely used practice of polygamy among FLDS church members, and the original and very limited practice of Plural Marriage during early LDS Church. The LDS church today only allows legal marriages verses the FLDS church's practice of illegal marriage ceremonies contradictory to the 12th Article of Faith, written by Joseph Smith, that says: "We believe . . . in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law".

The differences extend well beyond just polygamy, such as with the FLDS Church using of a perverted form of the Law of Consecration and sucking funds from publicly financed programs for their own benefit, and funnel all church members pay checks into a single fund. Compare this to the LDS church that encourages its members to give tithes and offerings to fund its vast array of buildings and service oriented programs. The LDS church uses standard accounting practices and obeys tax laws in their financial dealings, and does not accept funding from government or political sources.

The LDS church has an outward reaching missionary program that also offers service to those in need along with proselytizing. The LDS church also has a worldwide membership of over 13 million members. Compare this to the reclusive behavior within the FLDS church that lives in compounds like the Yearning for Zion Ranch. LDS president's travel the world and some have even made appearances on national TV with well known and renowned reporters including Larry King, verses FLDS president's Warren Jeffs who hid from the law while on the FBI's most wanted list, and is now in prison on charges related to rape.

The LDS church puts a high priority on families and taking care of each other. The FLDS church kicked out a bunch of young boys likely because they had no wives for them as all the young girls were already destined to be married off to older men.

The LDS church is a big proponent of Education, and puts a lot of funding behind Brigham Young University. The FLDS church puts much less value on education and may even see most things taught in school as being of the devil (may of the other resources I've linked to discuss this).

Here are some other articles on the subject from a variety of different points of view (including some self proclaimed "Fundamentalist Mormons"):



- Posted by S.J. Hollist

The Future of communications

I've had a vision of the future in the form of a historical article:

“The Last Words spoken”, A History of Humanity, April 6, 2250, pg. 420

“In today’s world of telepathic communications threw commonly used brain integrated computing technologies (BICT), one might wonder if humans ever used there mouths for more then just eating. In fact they did. Before the use of BICT humans use to use their hands quite a bit for communicating threw something called a keyboard which was connected to a primative vision array and a large fiber based network call “The Internet”. They used software and large “lap-top” computers, most the size of a large book, to send what was called Instant Messages to communicate across this network; despite the already wide availability of much smaller handheld communications devices. It was at the beginnings of this primitive instant messaging technology, almost 200 years ago, that it is believed the last human actually used sound to communicate. It is believe the last words spoken were done over something called a “phone” to say: “I.M. Me.”

- Posted by S.J. Hollist

The Unknown Author


I'm starting this blog in hopes that some day my fans will want to come here.

Why would anyone want to be a fan of mine, you ask?

I like to write, and hopefully someday that will equate to a new career direction for me. Hopefully I say, because it's certainly not an easy field to get into. You not only have to know how to write well, but you also have to write things that people want to read. My writings are my resume, so what more can I say?

- S.J. Hollist

Merging of Technology

As the web continues to emerge from a monolog into a dialog, my thoughts turn to other technologies. Will TV, Phone, Computers, and Internet all eventually merge into a single platform for information, entertainment, and communications? Many people are already receiving all of these technologies from a single carrier threw cable or fiber optics being run into their homes.

I see a vision of a day when we’ll all be carrying around our portable communications device everywhere we go. This device might even be used as a sort of e-commerce and self identifying device that can be swiped passed a reader at you local store or government office, much like the new "PayPass" technologies being used with Credit Cards or how Bluetooth on cell phones is used to buy items from vending machines. This all-in-one device would have a camera and microphone for communicating with others, taking pictures, or making video and voice memos. It could also display or play your Multimedia files. You could even take it home, plug it into your home "computer" (that will have become more of a glorified docking station and backup/storage device), and use the portable device's capabilities to provide you with internet access, or to watch videos on a full sized screen that you download as you wish instead of waiting for it to be aired; then comment about it on the providers blog.

One might be concerned that such a portable device would be easily stolen, but such crimes could be thwarted by imbedding microchips under the skin in the palm of the hand; or forehead if you don't have hands. This microchip, much like the one’s used to identify lost pets, would be required by the device to insure you are an authorized user of the device. Reprogramming the device would automatically wipe its encrypted memory, so that if stolen it would be impossible for your personal information to be stolen as well. These devices could then be required as a tamper proof identification system, required for all transactions. It would be the end of identify theft, or at least make it much harder and greatly reduce it’s occurrence.

It will contain GPS technology so that it can be tracked down to locate anyone simply by obtaining a warrant from any judge willing to sign their name to it. It would become impossible for anyone to leave it behind because they would be instantly arrested if they were not in possession of it, or they would be defaulted to a life of exile, unable to involve themselves in any legal transaction without the device.

Of course Evangelical Christians will protest it, and call it the mark of the beast. Technology, just like anything else, can be a great help or hindrance depending on how we use it. Often times it is seen as a way to simplify our lives, and yet it seems that the more of it we have, the more complex our lives become.

(Don't get the wrong idea, I really don't believe in 666 and/or the mark of the beast, but I know other people do).

- Posted by Spaldam