Congressional gridlock is good? Not always.

I've even said it before, but it didn't feel 100% right. In the case of an activist congress trying to establish as many regulations as possible, then I agree -- Let there be gridlock!

However, gridlock seems to happen only when there are efforts to downsize government, develop a rational energy policy that frees private enterprise to achieve energy independence or reform the tax code. In periods of cooperation, government grows. So, we need a congress and an executive branch that will act together to do something -- downsize, downsize, downsize, lower taxes and free industry to solve the demand for energy.

This is where quibbling and partisan entrenchment and power plays block true progress toward establishing a limited government allowing greater freedom in the markets and less waste on dead-end government programs that soak up tax dollars to the detriment of productive activity.

The Democrats are boxing themselves into an unpopular corner on many issues they need to eat crow on and get on with the business of allowing us to solve our problems. While the Republicans are weakly dilly-dallying and posturing, the Dems could even pull off a sleight of hand and take over the effort to downsize and become energy independent. I don't care who gets credit or who is forced into humility, but a coordinated effort is needed to stop the bleeding. It's not that government needs to be active to fix things -- it's that government needs to quit being the problem.

The point is that we need a commitment to energy independence, we need to overhaul the tax code and we need a foreign policy that limits our involvement to national defense only. The Dems have the skeleton of a good foreign relations policy if they can committ to strength as a deterent -- it will help if we can improve foreign relations, but free trade and a strong defense need to be at the heart of such improvement. However, the public and industry demand an energy solution and the public will turn sour when higher taxes on the rich trickle down (my, how things can turn to bite you) to them and squeeze their 401ks, placing the Dems in the uncomfortable position of obstructionists and tax-hikers.

You can't fool the "middle class" anymore by telling them you are going to cut their taxes and raise the taxes on the companies they work for and in which they invest. A big part of a worker's pay is now dependent on the success of the companies for which they work -- and if money gets tight, they know the big dogs lay off, raise prices, begin automating more, or stop offering incentives. Their small tax cuts begin to be very expensive when all is said and done.

Energy is the next BIG THING, and we need leadership from both parties to free American enterprise to stand at the forefront of the revolution. I wrote an article months ago stating that energy independence is the only way to win the war on terrorism. I believe that today more strongly than then. The worldwide demand for energy will increase rapidly as developing countries put down their swords and join the rest of the world in production. We are on the verge of the greatest economic explosion we've ever known and energy is the key. If both parties can work to become less of an obstruction and more of a proponent for freedom and growth, we'll become so busy producing that we'll forget who was orginally wrong or right -- so neither party need worry about entrenched positions that would be embarrassing to switch on, just do it, get out of the way, then watch and cheer.

The art of free-thinking -- part 2

John Stuart Mill, in Of Individuality, wrote about the great power of individuality and free-thinking:

"A person whose desires and impulses are his own -- are the expression of his own nature, as it has been developed and modified by his own culture -- is said to have a character. One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character. If, in addition to being his own, his impulses are strong, and are under the government of a strong will, he has an energetic character. Whoever thinks that individuality of desires and impulses should not be encouraged to unfold itself, must maintain that society has no need of strong natures -- is not the better for containing many persons who have much character -- and that a high general average of energy is not desirable..."

He also added:

"He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation."

Mill went on to praise the individual who thinks differently and encourages those who would rather follow to at least get out of the way. If I have a core mission at all, it's to do my small part to uphold the existence and survival of individualism. We are a country in danger of allowing government and groups to create a deadening mediocrity that will turn this nation into a crowd of followers and enslaved thinkers, thinking only thoughts that are washed, dried and delivered by the prevailing Thought Managers. Yet, if we do, it will all be of our own making. Only we can voluntarily give up our power and right to reason, dream, create and innovate.

One group of people left out of this year's election, although McCain did mention them briefly, only to go off on a tangent about "service", is the producers of this country -- specifically, the free-thinking entrepreneurs and geniuses who make incredible changes and move us all closer to peace, prosperity and a higher standard of living. There are few of them and they have no political group to lobby their interests, but they can only be realized in an environment of freedom. The more government control we have, the less likely the environment will be conducive to the greatest free-thinkers among us, and the less likely we will realize them.

Everyone wants the best energy-efficient vehicle that can be created. I guarantee that a handful of geniuses would create the most energy-efficient vehicle possible if the business environment had assurances that re-tooling and investing in great changes would not be wasted by unforeseen government regulation and red-tape -- thereby creating the environment for individuals to envision and create alternative energy sources we all clamor for.

We don't need more freedom just so we can frolic irresponsibly in a utopian world of free-sex, pot and no controls (although this may be the choice of some), we need more freedom so we can produce and invent and innovate and grow without the clumsy and deadening intervention of bureaucrats and special interest politics.

We need more freedom so the diverse ideas of brilliant men and women can interplay and supply the solutions to demands. The greatest demand we have is for energy -- it's wonderful we've created all the sophisticated technology we've created so far, but we need energy to keep it going, and we need it cheap and clean and efficient. Government programs and subsidies will not get the job done, but entrepreneurs  and geniuses will -- individuals who will rise in an environment of freedom that supports, and doesn't interfere with, their efforts.

That's not the only benefit of free-thinking and less government control -- all areas would be given another kind of energy -- spiritual energy -- so that art and education and healthcare and charity and literature and our realtionship with nature, and all the aspects of a civilized society would grow in creativity. We need energy, and not just the kind to run our machines, but, also, the kind that fuels our spirit.

Just one election year I would like to see a candidate who full-throatedly hails and pledges support to the idea of freedom and the great potential of production in a country with a truly limited government, challenging the people to go to work to solve their problems to create something magnificent where all can particpate who so choose -- not run for office or join a special interest group, but become a part of the great effort to create prosperity, art, charity, equal opportunity, health, a clean planet and the energy to make it all happen. Once we have esptablished energy independence and our economy is super-charged to create jobs and opportunities for all, we can take one step closer to peace. Free trade and production, not war -- working, free-thinking, innovative individuals, not jingo-drunk nation-states -- it can be a reality rather than a scoffed-at utopian scheme.

The art of free-thinking

The source of opinion should never be the determinant of its veracity, yet throughout the political conversation each side is denigrating every opinion of the other based on source. This is an intellectually stunted conversation with victory the only goal and ignorance its greatest source -- the search for truth be damned. This sad trend in political thought has been progressive and we may be witnessing the culmination of self-imposed ignorance this election year.

A free-thinking, objective person would take an idea as an idea and judge its validity according to reason, yet it seems more expedient to judge an idea, opinion or proposal according to whether it originates from a Republican or Democrat, or even the particular Democrat or Republican from which it originates.

Part of the problem is hard-core partisan warfare -- the commenter knows better but is involved in a war to win, so will never admit the other side has a point. Another part of the problem is personality over priniciple -- the commenter simply hates the person, therefore dismisses everything said, even though intellectually they know the person's position is valid. The biggest part of the problem, though, is lack of knowledge and falling prey to group-think -- the commenter's group belongs to a certain party, or element of a party, and the commenter spouts off cliches they've picked up without ever doing the hard work of gaining knowledge concerning the issues being discussed -- this, I believe, is the biggest problem.

I'm not sure there's much hope for the first two problems -- people who are partisan hacks and people who hate require major, life-changing shocks to break through the walls of self-imposed ignorance they've carefully and diligently built for years, but the third problem might be remedied with knowledge -- many people led by group-think can escape ignorance if the right inspiration moves them. Perhaps they get a little older and wiser and begin looking around and seeing inconsistencies in their superficial acceptance of group-think and begin questioning a little deeper.

The information age is powerful for those who use the information to form their own opinions, but on the other hand, bits and pieces of information can be used superficially by people enslaved to group-think. You can see this in new reporters with the major media sources who have accepted their employer's, or colleagues', political leaning and when confronted by a free-thinker they don't have the depth to discuss the issues -- they can only spout cliches. You would hope that some of these reporters will begin questioning their unformed beliefs after being embarrassed a few times with facts, and they will move more toward objectivty. I find it difficult to believe they are all part of a media conspiracy to rig the elections -- I prefer to think they are just caught up in group think and have not gained enough knowledge to think for themselves.

The same goes with all the people who comment on political blogs. Surely a number of these commenters will see the wild arguments and realize inconsistencies in positions they have so easily accepted because their group thinks a certain way. Some of the hyperbole in these blogs is so incredible, any person with a smidgen of intelligence should begin questioning motives and veracity. When certain bloggers and their supporters pontificate endlessly about the total evil of one party, one begins to get a queasy feeling that a hatchet job is in process and that no party could be that wrong 100% of the time on every issue.

Once a curious person begins researching, they usually see how they have been misled by group-think, and this is when individuation begins. Gaining knowledge requires reliance on many sources, but basically it's a solitary pursuit by an individual with a love for learning -- otherwise a person is dealing with second-hand knowledge unfiltered by his/her own reason. Universities are notoriously churning out second-hand parrots who merely repeat the indoctrination without learning how to freely think for themselves. It all begins to sound the same, the same cliched points, the same tired arguments, the same superficial ideology. It's like universities are factories for social machines who all say the right things and promote the right causes.

Free-thinkers are an endangered species, but with information flowing freely, hopefully more people will begin researching and developing informed opinions that are earned through the work of learning -- hopefully the art of free-thinking will be developed through the easy access of information. It would be a great thing if more students rebelled against indoctrination. Perhaps more political alternatives might arise and we can break the strangle-hold of two parties in constant war for adherents to the party lines. Perhaps a libertarian spirit will arise that rejects group-think and cliche-laden crap that passes for true thought. Free the party slaves and perhaps a real conversation will begin -- one that moves past which group will best control the world, and on to how we can all create our own better worlds -- worlds where free-thinking individuals still matter. 

Let the games begin! Sister Sarah

It's still too early to know how Sister Sarah will perform on the campaign trail and in a debate with Biden. Anything can happen and the MSM will attempt to destroy her, but I foresee a cultural battle ahead that will be very interesting.

Sister Sarah is a natural and she has connected with the heartland. What is the "heartland"? Is it racial code for all the white people in the fly-over country, the red-state Homers and Janes across the country, the silent majority?

No, I think it's just ordinary people, a lot of independents, people who are not politically sophisticated but know about day to day life in the mundane activities of work, family, community and enjoying a few pleasures -- of all races.

The people who I think will love her are the "individuals" -- those unaffiliated with "groups". Individuals don't make it to the front pages of the papers with their opinions, but their opinions are viral, spreading from cafe to cafe, from neighbor to neighbor, from workplace to workplace. One big group that will love her is the Republican Party, but many of the party faithful will love her for political reasons, hoping she can help win an election.

All the individuals will love her for a different reason -- she will touch them and they will see themselves in her and her family. I wouldn't write this off as phony populism -- it's actually real populism. You might not like the popular culture but it runs throughout the nation in all its "tackiness" down-home-honesty and simplicity.

The realm of high ideas and refined culture is actually a small realm, lost on most of the nation. The "people", for most politicians and social engineers who talk about helping the "people", is a floating abstraction to which they have no direct connection. Sister Sarah has a direct connection, individualized, and the "people" will support her.

Policies? Oh, there will be a lot of smart advisors on policy -- they're the ones you have to worry about.

Palin's Speech

The Democrat's are in trouble. After this speech the Democrats will flail and fail. They have no one genuine to fight against her influence, and as a result will look bitter and small..

My prediction.