Senator Roland Burris is in Fact, a Senator

On Friday, CNN reported that the senate leadership has decided to not accept Roland Burris, the junior Senator from Illinois, to be admitted into their caucus, their body, or even on the floor of the Senate. This move, which has only been done by the House, is a rare move that it usually used only for the purposes of removing a person who will not remove themselves. It has never been used on a new comer, and it is Constitutionally dubious.

Nobody is questioning the fact that Burris is clearly a well qualified man for the job. He is the eldest black statesman from Illinois, served as the first black elected to two high-power positions, and basically laid the groundwork for Obama. He also has a granite carving of his qualifications, and it is quite impressive. Also, nobody is arguing that Blagojevich has the power to appoint Obama’s replacement. Really, the Senate is arguing that they have the right to make a power play over the states, and this is essentially a bad move.

While currently there is a state-wide court battle to confirm Burris as appointed (the SoS is refusing to do it, but the office will probably be ordered to by a court), the bigger battle is with the Senate. The Senate is arguing that they have the power to decide who is admissible into their membership. By using Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution the Senate is arguing:

“judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members”.

Basically, the Senate is saying that they have the right to decide who becomes a member of the Senate, and who does not.

The Senate, as has been their fashion lately, is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Constitution then spells out what the qualifications are in Section 3 of Article 1:

“No person shall be senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States.”

Basically, the Senate can enforce these conditions, but if the person meets them, and they were put in legally, as Burris was, then they must be allowed to be in the Senate.

The Senate, of course, disagrees with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, who, on the other hand like the Constitution, has held that the qualifications are not up to the Senate to decide. In ruling against the House the court said that:

“The House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership”

Basically, if they meet the requirements (age, residency, etc.) then they have the right and power to be seated in the House. This ruling should also apply to the Senate.

Basically, the Senate is ignoring the Constitution and precedent simply to make a political point.

Now, let’s take this a step further, let’s talk about the fact that this is an attack on state’s rights. While I support state’s rights somewhat, depending on the situation, I see this as a major attack on the power of each state in picking their own leaders. Sure, this is a very iffy nomination, and arguably, it shouldn’t be happening, but that is irrelevant. The Senate is blocking a legally selected appointee from their position! This should be freaking people out, I mean, the Senate could, in the future, BLOCK AND ELECTED PERSON, simply because they disagree with who the person is. No citizen of the US should support this move, as it greatly harms the states.

Lets take this even further, what if the Senate decided that it wanted to punish Ohio? Well, they could remove Voinovich and Brown, or just not let them talk. What if Brown proposed a measure that they didn’t like, but that would help Ohio out, well, they could fire him. Think about it, the body that was created to represent the states will be able to override them, simply because they disagree.

Basically, I think that the Senate should seat Burris as he is the legal appointee to the seat left vacant by Obama. Plus, if they do not at least let him vote (via phone) as the Junior Senator from Illinois, then I think the state should sue.

As a side not, I think that Blago himself should show up to the Senate. Forum rules provide him the right to walk around and address (not formally) the body. Seriously, this would be hilarious and kickass.

Read more ...

Map update for the week of 10/19-10/25

State-by-State (swing states)
Overall, Obama is winning 364-174

Nevada, and its 5 EC votes has moved into the Obama column with a +4.2 average
Colorado is staying in the Obama camp with a +6
Pennsylvania is now solidly Obama (I am no longer considering it a swing) with +13
Ohio is staying in the Obama category with a +3.3; however, two recent polls show McCain winning
Missouri, with its 11 EC votes, has moved into Obama. However, it is far too close to call... +3
Virginia, like Penn., has now moved out of the SS column by showing a strong +9 for Obama
North Carolina is now a +1.3 for Obama, still easily in the margin
Florida is +3.2 for Obama
New Mexico is no longer a swing state as well, with a +8.3 for Obama
New Hampshire has moved out of the swing state grouping, +8.3 for Obama

West Virginia is staying strong for McCain, with a +2.4 average
North Dakota is still with McCain, +4


National

Nationally speaking, the overall polls are roughly the same as they were last week: Obama is leading with a 5.3 point average.
When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead RAISES to 9.3 points



Map



Read more ...

Signs Signs, Everywhere are signs...

Post 61

See, and none of you thought that the last sentence in my last post meant anything. Look, I was giving you all a hint, enjoy it...

I drive down any street and see signs in every yard. From signs about certain landscapers to signs about roofers to signs about painters to signs telling me that something is art (a Worthington thing, the item is not art, and we should have no art building here). All of these signs exist to capture my attention, to get me to use the product next time I need that sort of product, or to get me to support another cause. These signs are colorful, have 'catchy' slogans, and they sometimes even have pretty little pictures. Yep, you agree to advertise for companies, politicians, and organizations for free. Don't you feel used?

Signs appear more often during this time of year, especially, on the even years. We have signs for Kilroy, signs for Strivers, signs for Obama/Biden, and signs for McCain*Palin. All of the signs have small text and disclaimers, they all have websites, yet the only thing you can usually read is the candidate that is running. These signs, of course, give you only a brief view into the house owners psyche. Did they just like the colors? Do they support all of the policies or only more than the other persons? Why McCain over Obama? Why Obama over McCain? You know absolutely nothing about these people.

Wait, but you actually know a lot more about people then you thought. Say I have a sign that says I support Obama as well as a sign that I support Kilroy; clearly, the assumption is that Kilroy is similar to Obama. Now, this seems obvious, unless you get signs for Strivers and signs for Obama. Yep, a rather-right candidate with a rather-left candidate. Hmmm, see a problem here? Certain good candidates could be lost by their grouping with the bad candidates. This sort of thing is common, and has cost several persons and issues their passing. If I see a sign for Issue 6 with a sign for McCain, odds are I will vote against Issue 6. When you start dealing with undecideds (as I am for most state based issues, not federal or local) then you need to be cautious of what signs you put out.

Now, you are all probably asking where this all came from; well, the other day I was following a car that had bumper stickers galore on it. From “make love not war” to “Obama/Biden” to “no more Bush in the white house until we elect a woman” it seemed like a typical left-leaning (far) car. This is all fine and dandy to me, as I already associate Obama with anti-bush. The problem was the oldest and biggest bumper sticker: “Free Leonard Peltlier”. You know what, he shot and killed two federal agents, WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE FREE HIM. If I knew nothing about the candidates they supported, the positions on the stickers, and Mr. Obama, then I would never would support those people after reading these crazy bumper stickers. Keep your stickers rational if you want to help somebody mainstream get into power.

Guys, if you want to help somebody, make sure you don't alienate everybody else.

*MAP UPDATE*

I have finally resigned to the fact that every week is going to be poll after poll. While Ohio is still standing in the Obama category, the most recent poll gave McCain a 2 point lead; Ohio is a state to watch. Surprisingly, Virginia is now strongly in the Obama category (+8 average) which is far above the hidden racism issue. New Hampshire, which was considered one of the must wins this year, now has a +10.3 average for Obama.

Some good news for McCain, not only is he gaining in Ohio, but he is also regaining in Florida and holding in Missouri.

Overall, Obama is winning the EC 353 to 185 which is a strong lead. In the general polling, Obama is winning with a 49.7 to 42.4 point lead (7.3 points overall). When Barr and Nader are added to the equation, Obama is winning by only 4.2 points. Nader is pulling 2.5 points where as Barr is pulling 1.3 points. No wonder more Republicans donate to Nader than democrats. While the polls do not include the hidden racism, he seems to be outside of that margin in most states. With these constant leads, it seems more and more that Obama has this in the bag... barring a October Surprise...

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Taxes Part 2

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.

I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.

This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

A brief look at the veep debate

Just some things to think of off of the Veep debate (there will be a special update either later Friday or Saturday containing my full analysis of the debate)


Biden was an idiot when he referred to the 1st article of the Constitution as being the executive and thus the mentioning of the Veep in it meant he was. It is legislative and helped Palins argument.
Vice president is legislative as well? Hmmm, the Constitution seems to disagree:
“The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...”


Palin makes a great point by saying that Alaska is bigger than Delaware, governing a large state is an important test in executive power

I mean, look at the size difference, you can not even see Delaware


However, when we talk about size does the actual size matter or does the population? Let's look at the population of the two:
Delaware - 865,000
Alaska - 670,000
Again, Palin wins in this area as Biden represents only 432,500 persons vs. her 670,000


Palin should stop talking about education and plans therein of hers. For somebody who talks about teaching creationism, she has not real educational groundings.



I like how both sides talked about protecting their children. They are very similar, both have a tough job (Palin with the special needs, Biden with flying to and from Washington daily to take care of his kids after his wife died). The only thing is that neither is doing anything to help the children over all (this will be heavily covered in the special update)


So, if both veeps say that contractual 'marriage' is okay for same sex couples then how the hell do they avoid the 1st when saying no gay marriage.


How is there an argument about change? Sure, both sides are changing, but which one is real and which one is fake?
Straw to Stick or Stick to Brick



Biden seems to have some issues containing his argument; if you are arguing that somebody should not be increasing our debt then don't, especially in the same exact breath, get pissed that they didn't increase spending on some things you wanted.


Both sides refused to answer the questions, Bob Woodworth, shut up.


Ending note, even Palin agrees that it should be Obama [on McCain] “he is the man that needs to leave” Read more ...

Who Really Won Saddleback?

Post 45

So, I was sitting at my house reading the newspaper when an email popped up in my inbox from McCains staffers (I am signed up). It talked about the Straigh-Talk-Express, Obama’s stumbling, and how McCain won the Saddleback Forum. The e-mail then used this opening to ask me for money. Now, I thought about it for a second and decided that I was not going to take their word on it. Therefore, I took the transcript, went through it, and figured out who really won…

To start with, we know that Obama was the odd-man-out at this forum. The majority of questions, the interviewer, and the audience all were biased against Obama. He stumbled a bunch because he was caught of guard at most of the questions, not because he was thinking up a lie. Obama handled himself well for not knowing what was coming; the fact that McCain had answers right away make me think something fishy was going on…

This is my overall view of who won the Saddleback Forum. This is based on my belief structure and that of which I think most Americans have. Keep that in mind and use a grain of salt. The winner of each will be bolded (as are the points each score), in ties neither is bolded.

With all of the questions I am paraphrasing the question and response, please check the actual transcript to see what the real question and response were. Here is a link to the transcripts


TOTAL
McCain +1
Obama +7
WINNER
OBAMA




Three Wisest People:
Obama (0)
-Mentioned Michelle as being wise and one of his three; this is a mistake as most conservatives and moderates do not like her. This choice harms Obama (-1)
– Mentions Grandmother, the woman he threw under bus. Uses her to build up feminist credentials and hard working American values (+1)
– Uses this to name names and list some people he has support of, is quite nuetray (+0).
McCain(+2
- Talks about general David Patreas. This helps him with independents (who are shown to support staying in Iraq) and conservative, hurts him with liberals (+1)
- John Lews: who the hell is this guy? So, he sacrificed himself and then kept on sacrificing, this does nothing (+0)
- Similar to Obama’s Grandmother ratio: By mentioning Meg McCain pulls out the American Work ethic and feminist values (+1)

The Greatest Moral Failure in your life
Obama (+1)
-Very choppy response but he was thinking. This shows that he struggled with a large deal and was needing to articulate it. Admits to selfishness, lack of faith, and general humanity. (+1)
McCain (-1)
-His cheating on his wife, wow, does not admit to being troubled or anything else besides cheating. I find this to be far off of what he has said in the past and of being very political. (-1)

The Greatest Moral Failure of America
Obama (+1)
- Hits the minority shot. Good point as we are all the minority in certain circumstances. May harm him in the GE when people actually think of Race but he showed that all people are people (+1)
McCain (+1)
- McCain responds ties into my entry about how McCain is really making this a campaign about doing more for your country. He calls for volunteer work and helping each other. (+1)

Good of America over party and/or self
Obama (+0)
- Mentions his legislation with McCain. This is a good move as it shows he will work with both sides over huge objections from his party (+1)
-Mention Opposition to Iraq. This is a bad move as most Americans (who are independent) support Iraq. Furthermore, at that time Obama was pro-invasion (-1)
McCain (-1)
- I do not care what you were early on but what you have been recently.(+0)
-With torture you harmed our country by JOINING WITH YOUR PARTY. (-1)
- You have fought with your party on climate change for the better of the world (+1)
- With spending you have voted party line often enough (-1)

Flip Flopping over 10 Years
Obama (-1)
- Did not understand his response at all, sorry (-1)
McCain (-1)
- Offshore drilling is a good thing??? (-1)

Gut-wrenching Decision
Obama (-1)
- Again with Iraq, again with the unpopular position and the lie. (-1)
McCain (+1)
- His decision to stay in the Hanoi Hilton was brave and a great decision. (+1)

What does following Christ mean to you?
Obama (+0)
- Blah Blah Blah, Christ Rocks, we need to follow him (+0)
McCain (+0)
-Blah Blah Blah: STOP, STORY TIME… Christ Rocks, we need to follow him (+0)

At what point is a ‘baby’ given right
(BARGA NOTE – The use of baby here is misleading. I believe we should refer to it as Fetus)
Obama (+1)
- My Body My Choice, with limits at a certain point (+1)
McCain (-1)
-Pro-Life 100% (-1)

Marriage definition
Obama (-1)
- Throws gays under the bus but does not support an amendment (-1)
McCain (-1)
- Leaves gays where they were (under the bus already) and supports an amendment if the courts rule one way. Gets antsy about the Supreme Court (-1)

Stem Cell Research
Obama (+1)
-Used as long as they do not support Abortion and are going to be thrown out anyways. Believes that Adult Stem Cells can work well (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Supports research provided nothing else shows up (+1)

Evil exist, how should we handle it
Obama (+0)
- Blah Blah Blah, did not understand what he said (+0)
McCain (+0)
- Plans to follow Homer’s Odyssey to a tee, too bad that it is a fable (+0)

What Justice would have not nominated
Obama (+1)
- Thomas as he had no expierence and was far right (+1)
- Scalia as he is extremely intelligent but far right (+1)
-Roberts as he gave too much power to the executive branch (-1)
McCain (-4)
- Ginsburg as she legislates from the bench (-1)
- Stevens for the same reason (-1)
- Breyer for, well, the same thing again (-1)
- Souter, well, McCain should not have hit the left four of the court at all (-1)

Should Faith Based Groups get Government Cash
(BARGA NOTE: I find it interesting that the percentage was changed in each of these)
Obama (+1)
- There should be no penalty or help due to faith, only based on merits (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Same Basic Thing (+1)

Should Teachers get more pay?
McCain and Obama (+1 each)
- Yes (+1)

What is rich
Obama (+0)
- Anybody below 250,000 a year with a family (+0)
McCain (-1)
- 5,000,000????? Oh, and taxes suck (-1)

What is worth an American life?
Obama (-1)
- Go into war only when there is absolute evil and we are the only ones who can (-1)
McCain (+1)
- To protect our nation (Hey, I was in war) (+1)

Emergency Orphan Plan
Obama (+1)
-Need to work around the world, with out own local governmental and private organizations, and kick some orphan ass (+1)
McCain (+1)
- Make adoption easier, hey I adopted (+1)

What should we do to end religious prosecution
Obama (+1)
- Speak out, take a stand, use our power (+1)
McCain (+0)
- Bully the countries, imply that only Judeo-Christian matter (+0)

What do you plan to do about slavery
THIS WAS ONLY ASKED OF OBAMA, THEREFORE NO GRADE

Why do you want to be president
Obama (+1)
- To help those who can not help themselves (+1)
McCain (+1)
- To inspire service and a JFK attitude (+1)

We are in a church, some people don’t like that, what is your response
Obama and McCain (+1 each)
- We need to talk in all forums (+1)

What would you tell America if there would be no repercussions
ONLY ASKED TO OBAMA, THEREFORE NO GRADE

Right to privacy V. Security
ASKED ONLY TO MCCAIN, THEREFORE NO GRADE









As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

Obama, Part 2

Post 27:


*NOTE*
I am currently in Sandusky, Ohio. If this is updated at 12 AM (midnight) on Monday then it is all good. If this is not and posted later (by myself when I get home) then I apologize for the problem.
*END OF NOTE*

This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1 and http://whalertly.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-part-1.html. This time I am addressing some of Obama's newer issues and one of his older issues (that is also current). I have several problems with Obama, among them these three pop to the top of my mind: His Flip flopping - His liberal voting record (the older issue) - The Fist Bump. While these may seem petty and pointless, this is a blog about my opinion; these issues actually are issues to me. Obama: what really grinds my gigantic notched wheels.

His Flip Flopping:
In 2004 one issue hurt John Kerry more than anything else could, the fact that he was labeled a 'flip flopper'. Granted, Kerry made it easy on himself when he said “I supported the war before I didn't”. Come on now, have some subtlety. While it is typical for nominees to pledge far out ideas to the party base prior to sealing the nod and then move to the center for the actual election, they normally do it with some style and hide their move; McCain has started to flip on some positions and move to the center, but he is mostly doing it under radar. Obama, on the other hand, holds press conferences announcing he is migrating his position. From NAFTA to public funding to Iraq (still not nearly as far as he will move in the end) to Wright, he makes it well known. This annoys me to no end. While I am all for changing your mind when new evidence is presented, changing it for sole political gain really turns me off. Obama, I thought you were not politics as usual, turns out that you are the same.

His Liberal Voting Record:
Time and Time again the records come out and show that Obama votes constantly with his voting block. He is rated as the most liberal senator in most polls, and in almost all polls he is at least in the top 5 of most liberal. Now, as I attacked McCain as moving to far to the right, I am attack Obama as being to far to the left. When I vote for a president I am picking a person who I think would be good at leading the country, not just 40% of it or so. I want a person who will work with both sides, a person who crosses the border, a person who actually is an American, not a Republican or Democrat. Obama just does not seem to have that record. If Mr. Obama were to move more towards the center than I think that he would be a much much better candidate.

The Fist Bump
This is just a personal pet peeve of mine. After sealing up the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama and his wife celebrated by bumping fists with one-another. To me this just reeks of immaturity and a pompous attitude. I want a president who shakes hands, a president who acts his age, a president who doesn't act like a deal just went down. I bump hands during a good play DURING FRISBEE, I would never bump hands with my boss after he win a big case. To me this just seems way to immature and out of place. Please, Mr. Obama, act like you are running for the president, not like you are running for Homecoming King.





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

McCain; Part 1

Post 19:


I was originally planning on having a three part series with entries on Clinton, Obama, and McCain but Clinton dropping out of the race brought that to a stand still. So, I am going to have a two part series with McCain and Obama; well, the series is two part for now (hence why I have 'part 1' in the title). I do expect to have more to complain about with this two people in the near future and closer to the November deadline of the campaign.

It is hard for me to say that I am thinking of voting primarily Republican in November. I am used to being a true-blue democrat (against my own party-liners policy) and have some issues voting for a overall ticket of more than 25% republican. But, you know, that is how it is looking to be this year. That is, unless McCain keeps his downward run that he is on (I think it is to take in some conservatives). McCain has started to wallow in a few areas, most notably: Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next - You want to drill where - Stop flirting with the base. There are several other reasons that I could consider ditching McCain over in the next few months, but, I will save those for future posts. John McCain: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next:
Recently McCain is on the record as saying Sam Alito and John Roberts are the type of judges that he would appoint to SCOTUS. I have a slight issue with this, as they are vastly different judges. While both are geniuses and great Constitutional Scholars (there is little doubt in either party about this), they are vastly different in their thought processes and decisions. Alito is right wing, believes that moderating from the bench is bad (yet he does it) and works the Constitution to what he want. Roberts, on the other hand, is more moderate (yet still right), believe that moderating from the bench is okay when needed (does not do it) and works his desire to what the Constitution says. Clearly, Roberts and Alito are vastly different, and I only want judges similar to one of them (Roberts) on the bench. So Johnny Boy, what is it, Roberts or Alito?

You Want To Drill Where:
Today (yes, today, I am up to date) John McCain said that he would plan on removing the ban on drilling off the coast of America. This is loosely related to my gas problem entry and the Glass City Jungle entry about China Drilling. McCain argues that we can help end our dependency on foreign oil simply by drilling in our pristine waters off the coast of this country. I, as do 33% of Americans, strongly disagree with this view. We should not risk our natural beauty and the ecosystems any more simply because we want to save some cash. I think that we should invest in alternative energies or go without a car before we destroy our oceans further.

Stop Flirting With Your Base:
McCain, we moderates and independents support you because you are bipartisan, break from you party, and are a good guy. STOP FLIRTING WITH THE BASE. You are destroying all of your bipartisan work by doing this. You Finance Bill, your Immigration bill, and your breaking from the party is why we love you. We are sick of partisan politics in Washington and want somebody who will not be partisan to be in the White House. So, what do you do? You take your gang of 14 credentials and toss them down the toilet to try and get the base. NEWS FLASH, the base is not going to vote Obama, court us moderates.






As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Read more ...

Anarchist

Post 3:

There is very little I dislike more in a person than one who drinks way too much koolaid. No matter what that koolaid is I don't like it in a per at all. Most people drink koolaid about simple things, like computers (Mac and Linux), schools (Yale and Harvard), football (Patriots), and the like. However, some drink koolaid that makes them so distorted, so odd that they are able to go around any criticism, any clear logic, all of that and keep their point. Look at the Paulites, look at the Conspiracy Theorists, look at the income tax evaders. However, there is no group of koolaid drinkers that I despise more than anarchists. While there might be some that are able to properly argue their position and hold their ground, most simply hold this position because of what they believe it is. I realized that anarchists are something THAT REALLY GRIND MY GIGANTIC NOTCHED WHEELS!!

Let us start by looking at what exactly a Anarchist is: As defined by Merriam Webster [quote]absence of government [/quote]. Now, based on that definition the real Anarchist is very simple, very basic. They do not support a government. Now, if the anarchist has that position I really can not say or do anything about it. We can argue over the extent government should be (as a Lockeovian I know the limits and allowances I would like to place on government) and the like but really there is nothing to do. Those type of anarchists are fine in my book.

However, the sad thing is, most Anarchists think that anarchy would be much more than this. They think that it would be a utopia, with all rights preserved and freedom. Tell you what people, that can not happen. They think that without governmental interference (remember, as a Lockeovian I am fine with government protecting Life, Liberty, and pursuit of property (and any derivatives thereof)) the people will be free. While we are free on one scale, when one thinks about it it is not any great scale. What am I free to do? Well, I am free to die if my neighbor is stronger than I. Most Anarchists think that somehow human nature will keep us sane and keep us from all killing each other. The problem with that is we have seen time and time again why we need government to keep us safe. Do they think we suddenly just up and changed?

Besides the obvious flaws in their logic listed above the other thing that annoys me the most about anarchists is their idea that anarchy will last. If we suddenly went into an anarchist system I would give it 3 days tops, at that point I want to sleep. We fall into lawlessness, killings, rapes, stealing all around. I stay awake, keep my gun ready, but grow tired. I notice my neighbor (who I have been watching quite suspiciously) is nodding off. I have two options: one - Try to take him out and get his stuff - or two - team up and switch watches. Boom, there is a tribe. Suddenly, we no longer have anarchy. So, is it worth it to have three days of lawlessness to get back to tribal warfare? This Lockeovian says NO!

Read more ...