Onthe November 2, 2008 “60 Minutes” TV program, Scott Pelley will report on one of the most amazing and importantleaps in technology ever achieved by Man. I predict that this discovery will be the stepping stone to never-before-imagined possibilities inhuman activity during the coming century.
As a CBS promotional message sums it up: “People who are completely paralyzed due to illness or trauma …are getting help communicating with a remarkable new technology that connects their brains to a computer. In the future, brain computer interface, or BCI, may even restore movement to paralyzed people and allow amputees to move bionic limbs.”
Now, on to a lessinspiring topic: The U.S. Elections.Obviously, for someone like mewho seeks a moral, individual-rights-based, laissez-faire capitalist society where no one’s income is takenfrom him against his will, where no one is forced to financially support projects he does not choose to support onhis own, where businesses, investors and banks are free tosucceed or fail without government regulations and without governmentbailouts that steal from taxpayers (andalso reduce the buying power of each dollar by inflating themoney supply via deficit spending)—and for someone who seeks a government with a consistent foreign policy of pure self-defense, where no American soldier is sacrificed needlessly and no mercy is shown to our enemies — and for someone who seeks separation of church and state — and open borders to immigrants — there is no acceptable candidate for President.
Even if you simply seek a candidate who consistentlyspeaks in depthof actual ideas rather than one-liners, who speaks from actual knowledge of history rather than pre-determined slogans, who acts like a human being rather than a marionette, you are out of luck. Of course there are brief exceptions here and there where the two candidates show a glimmer of actual thought, but nothing measurable.
The way the candidates act like robots,perhaps they arecurrent examples of the merging of Man and Machine.
Here’s what I plan to do on Election Day.
I think that even if you don’t want to vote for President, it’s important to vote for good candidates for the House and Senate. Good candidates are (approximately) the non-theocratic, non-socialistic and non-pacifistic ones. In other words, the ones that are generally pro-capitalism, pro-freedom, anti-taxation, anti-spending, anti-regulations, anti-bailouts, pro-defense and pro-choice, who primarily follow reason and not a mystical or religious guide. Few are going to fit all of these criteria, but some will fit most of them.
Many of the anti-bailout House Republicans, for example, should be rewarded for their fight against nationalizing the banks, withyourvote. (But don’t vote for any Huckabee types.)
Also, since thepacifist-socialist-altruist-leaningObama appears to be headed for the Presidency, voting forany relatively secular, pro-capitalist and hawkish Republicans you can find for the House and Senate is a good idea, in order to fight Obama and at least create gridlock. But don’t votein any more theocratic Republicans. Basically, look for pro-choice Republicans, or those who are not primarily known for religious-right views. In New Jersey, I will vote for Zimmer for Senate, a pro-choice Republican who has beenpraised for his anti-tax record, and Lance for Congress, another pro-choice Republican.
In New Jersey, I will vote for Zimmer for Senate, a pro-choice Republican who has beenpraised for his anti-tax record, and Lance for Congress, another pro-choice Republican.If (pragmatist-socialist-altruist) McCain wins, there is automatically gridlock, as he will be fighting the majority-Democratic Congress. But since McCain is expected to lose, the best hope for gridlock is voting for the better Republicans for House and Senate seats. Gridlock is good because usually, the less the government accomplishes, and the fewer bills that become law, the better for all of us.
Finally, if Obama seems headedto win in a landslide, it may be worth voting for McCain just to avoid an Obama “mandate” by reducing the margin of Obama’s victory.
To sum up, both candidates for President are unacceptable. For Congress, the religious-right Republicans, and big-spending altruist Republicansare unacceptable. The pacifist-socialist-altruist, tax-and-spend Democrats are also unacceptable.
But it’s important to vote for any secular, anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-bailout hawkish Republicans for the House and Senate, if you have any in your district. There is a chance theywill fightwhoever isPresident and the rest of Congress, and at least create gridlock, which is a relatively good thing.