Tuesday, November 8, 2016

My prayer for every Christian on Election Day

Many are hurting right now, in our election season. 

We Americans have hurt each other, bitter and angry and convinced that their choice is the only moral/ethical/rational choice.

Of course, some of this is to be expected:  any issues of disunity will cause people to lash out. Politics reveals so much about how you view the world in general, so it will bring our deep differences to the surface.

But then what really hurts is that the media, the parties, and the candidates—in an attempt to get out the vote—pour fuel on the fire, by claiming that “this is the most important election in our lifetime.”

(Interesting note:  if you search through Google Trends, you will notice that usage of the phrase “most important election in our lifetime” skyrockets every four years. It peaks to almost precisely the same level.
But this isn’t just an Internet age issue.  In 1864, the New York Times called it the most important election in history. Gerald Ford said it in 1976. Walter Mondale, in 1984. John Kerry, in 2004. Barack Obama, in 2008. Newt Gingrich, 2012. And on and on.

It is hard to believe it when every election is “the most important election of our lifetime”—don’t we all remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?)

And so it is that you are going to the polls today to do your civic duty. And chances are: you won’t be happy. People there will fuss and fight and argue. You will hold your nose and vote for someone you don’t really like. And you will be confused at those who see the world differently and vote differently. Don’t they see reality? you will say.

Christians, let me make a plea to you today, as you go to the polls.

It has nothing to do with whom you vote for. It has everything to do with how you vote for them.

When Jesus was talking to Israel, He said that God’s people were meant to be different from the others.

And He gave three analogies:  we are to be a city on a hill, a light in the darkness, and the salt of the earth.

In the dark, ancient times, when you were lost in the woods and darkness and desperately needing to find a place to stay, a city—lit up, on a hill, visible for miles around—was a sign of hope.
When you are in a dark room and scared, a light provides comfort and security.

When you salt meats, they have flavor and are preserved.

So Church, what I just prayed for us all today is that when we are at the polls or discussing the election, we will fulfill that role for society.
When people watch you, will they see a Hope that draws them? A Light that comforts them? A salt that preserves them and makes this world taste better?

That is our calling, and it is what I pray for all of us today.

For no, this isn’t the most important election of your lifetime. Your Election—voted on only by Jesus, paid for by His blood—that is the most important Election. 
And if that doesn’t give you comfort and strength and allow you to have hope in this election season, then I encourage you to re-read Philippians 3:15-4:1, and refocus our minds so that we can fulfill this much-needed role in our society.


God bless and with love,



Thursday, October 27, 2016

That moment when God gives America exactly what we asked for

Recently, I read to my kids the fantastic short story The Monkey’s Paw. (They were terrified; it was not a good choice for bedtime. Lesson learned.)

In The Monkey’s Paw, a magical – well – paw of a monkey shows up at a British family’s house. The Paw grants three wishes but it might not be the way you want it. When the family wishes for two hundred pounds to pay off their mortgage, their son dies in a factory accident and two hundred pounds is the payoff. When the mother wishes for the son to come back from the dead, up hops a zombified son.

You get the idea: be careful what you wish for…you just might get it.

In I Samuel 8, the people of Israel anger their prophet by bringing to him a request:  we want to stop being led directly by God’s chosen judges and prophets. Instead, we want a human political philosophy that seems to work so well for our neighbors (in their case, monarchy).

Samuel is furious, but God obviously knew this was coming, and says basically—“Sure, go ahead and choose a king…but beware that you will get what you ask for.” They wish for a King; they get a King; the result is an angry depressant on the throne and hordes of armies with giants at the gates.

I heard someone the other day saying, with regard to our current election, “Vote for candidate X or God will judge our country.”

And I couldn’t help but think:  we have gotten what we asked for.

We as a country have idolized American democracy. We have given lip service to God, but placed our trust in Supreme Court appointments and elected officials and the law as the appropriate method to enforce morality in the world. We have assigned to politics things which only God can provide—conviction, guidance, ethics, morality, wisdom, and compassion. And we have commoditized and packaged this democracy and sold it around the world (and forced it into the places that didn’t want it.)

Now I’m not hating on democracy—as Winston Churchill once said, it is the worst form of government except for all the others. I think democracy is by far the best human form of government to ensure that rights are upheld; and I think that a democratic state is the most likely to be able to provide long-term religious liberty.

But the greatest strength of democracy—rule of the people by the people—is also its greatest weakness. As the great philosopher Tommy Lee Jones said in Men In Black:  “A person is smart…people are dumb.” Once a critical mass of people exist in a democracy who think democracy is the source of their good rather than God, they will (by virtue of being the citizen-rulers) be able to take actions to reinforce this everywhere.

And as a result, democracy is flawed—but we seem to have forgotten that. Over the past fifty years we have created a civil religion in which we idolize America and Democracy and act as though our Constitution was written on stone tablets and delivered to Moses on Sinai.

The result of this idolization has resulted in this:  we Americans have made exactly the same mistake that the Israelites made.  We have told God, “Please give us Your blessings, but when it comes to politics, stay away—Democracy has got this.”

And God has replied, as He did before:  “Sure, go ahead…but be careful. You’ll get what you asked for.”

We asked for the right to choose our leaders. And we got this election.

Understand, folks (and this is just my opinion, but I think it’s valid):  God won’t judge us if we choose the wrong candidate. God has already judged us, and it comes in the form of Clinton vs. Trump. 

God has said to us—you are so in love with this idea of choosing everything in your life, including your leaders? Fine… then choose!

And so through primaries, we chose. And we are now facing the terrible reality of choosing as our leader either a hotheaded, prideful, highly immoral, failed businessman or a lying, warmongering, strongly pro-abortion, politico.

This is what we asked for, right?

There is silver lining in this cloud. CS Lewis once said that there are two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “Fine, then have it your way.” If we are dead-set on having our freedom, even to our own destruction, God will give it to us.

And He has:  Trump v. Clinton is our judgment. It is our choice. The parties didn’t do this to us. We did this to us.

But as I said: silver lining.

Millennials, who have grown up in an era of income inequality, reeling from the effects of decades of war, and seeing high-definition ultrasound pictures, are increasingly anti-war, anti-poverty, and anti-abortion. These are all great things for the future.

This election is forcing Christians to look at themselves and be really honest about where their hope lies: for Christian liberals weren’t generally hoping for Clinton, and Christian conservatives weren’t hoping for Trump. In both cases, they are being forced to admit that their party allegiances have not led to a Christlike country.

And at Liberty University—one of the fortresses of the Moral Majority/Religious Right movement—thousands of students are saying that what they are being taught in Scripture courses is not aligning to the political actions of many religious leaders.

This election is a judgment on us. But—God’s mercies are new each day. And these silver linings, I think, show us a path forward.

If we will recommit ourselves to trusting only in Him—not a party, or a system of government—but only in Him, then I think we will see the country grow more Christlike.

We are learning the same painful lesson that the Church had to learn during the Roman Empire, during the Byzantine Empire, during the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor really an empire), during medieval Catholicism, and during post-Reformation Britain: namely, that every time the Church becomes too wrapped up in State, the Church ends up damaged and corrupted.

We are, painfully, being forced to accept the fact that Democracy will neither save us nor sanctify us nor protect us; only God can do so. We are, painfully, being forced to remember that our hope is not in a politician’s promises of what they will do, but a Promise already fulfilled by One in our past. We are, painfully, being forced to remember that our kingdom is not here—no matter whom we elect—but in heaven. We are, painfully, learning that ages-old lesson that no matter how great a man’s politics are, he cannot remove sinfulness through law but rather, sinfulness against the only Law which matters was already paid for once and for all time.

There is a silver lining—but only if we learn our lesson from this election:  to destroy not democracy, but our Civil Religion, and return to the One True Religion. Fail to learn it, and we will all be right back here in four years.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Our election, and our Election

You may have seen a meme floating around, quoting John Calvin:  "When God wants to judge a nation, He gives it evil rulers."  (That's not strictly a quote from Calvin, more of a paraphrase: but it gets his point right.)

I currently have the pleasure of being in Denmark for work during the political insanity, so I am somewhat insulated from what is going on back in the States. Nevertheless, the newsfeed does keep me somewhat up to date, so I have I think a pretty good read on everything going on right now.

And based on what I have seen from these two candidates, I think that one of two things is happening. Either:

  1. God is not really "judging" us per se, but is allowing America to choose her leaders (as He did when Israel wanted a king), and we reap what we sow for choosing two bad nominees, or
  2. God is actively judging America, by giving us two aggressively bad options.

That both are bad options are, to my view, undeniable. Dangerously so.

Below are not a list of personal attacks, but rather a list of facts:
  • Mr. Trump is a thrice-married, adulterous, hypocritical owner of strip clubs and casinos--all of which are anti-Christian actions. He has publicly said that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness, because he needs none. He is easily angered, lacking the temperament of wisdom that the Scripture asks for in a leader. He is sexually broken, committing adultery many times and admitting that he grabs women and forces himself upon them in sexual ways.
  • Mrs. Clinton is aggressively pro-abortion, as she again confirmed last night (side note: a recent article suggested that this was a 'recent' position of Christianity...not so! See my series on The Didache and you will find it is one of Christianity's most ancient positions). Her leaked emails show that she lies reflexively and frequently, as a matter of habit: lying to her President, lying to Americans, lying under oath. Publicly she denounces Wall Street and bankers, while in paid private lunches with them, she says that she must maintain "both public and private positions" and in truth she supports them. She is not an honest person.

Again, this is not to say whether I like either personally, or who I think would do a better job of running the country. I'm not talking Supreme Court or Russia or nukes or anything else. I'm just talking about character.

And understand--I'm not saying that our leaders must be Christian. Far from it! Some of our greatest leaders in history were Deists (like George Washington, for example). 

What I am saying is that when you look at what Scripture says--or my experience in business says--make good traits of leadership, neither of these have them. Trust is the basic foundation of leadership, and neither of these can inspire trust to any but the blindest followers.

And so, either God is letting us hang ourselves, or He is actively judging us to wake us up.

What, then, shall we as Christians do?

I think a few things.

(1)  Remember this election is not our Election.  The Scripture says that we are elected by Christ into a new Kingdom--we don't choose the leader, He has chosen us as followers! We have an eternal security. As such, this election holds no hope for us...and it never did.  Let me be clear:  a good government on Earth does nothing but minimize sin, it doesn't eliminate it. We will still be a broken, sinful country. A good President might be able to make our sinful lives more comfortable, but sinful they remain.  Our hope has never been in the GOP or the Democrats, it has always been in our Election to eternity.

(2) Because of this, we can be different.  Unlike the lost among us, we need not fear whoever is in charge. Whether Clinton or Trump is elected, whether we end in feast or famine, whether we end in war or peace...we need not be disheartened.  If you become angry or disheartened at our leadership, it is because you were looking to them as a Messiah-figure. If your hope is in Christ and Him alone then you can pray for and honor any king--no matter how horrible--because you know that God reigns and can use even the worst among us to bring about His Kingdom in the end. 

As a result, we have the opportunity to be VISIBLY, NOTABLY DIFFERENT from our peers. We can be kind and loving. We can show hope. We can cross aisles. We can be friendly. We do not get disheartened. Why? Because our election was never about 2016 anyway. Our King already reigns! Internalizing this allows us not to be one of the millions of shrieking voices online or despondents at the office, but rather to be the priests to this world:  to offer hope and healing in times of crisis.

Christians, regardless of who gets your vote (or doesn't), make no mistake:  we are going to have evil leadership for at least the next four years. And there is going to be hurt and pain among the people as a result.

It is our job to remember where our Election hopes really lie, who our King really is, and be the light for a dark time; to be the salt in a tasteless environment.

My prayer for all of you back home this election season is that you will be kind; that you will be positive; that you will love others; that you will serve others; and that you will not seek from Clinton or Trump the things that only Christ can provide.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Breaking the Code to Madden 17 Scouting

One of my most popular posts ever is actually not about apply my mind to Christianity or politics or philosophy...but to Madden NFL video games. Oh well, I'm not complaining about readers, so let's update it for Madden 17!

What's Changed

For Madden 17, scouting has gotten much tougher in several ways. They are onto us! They changed four major things that make it harder...although not impossible. :-)

  1. Instead of spending 5 scouting points for the first attribute, now you have to spend 15. That makes initial inquiries eat up your scouting points REALLY fast.
  2. The Combine is no longer exact:  the combine has perhaps 10% variation built in, so someone who runs a 4.24 instead of being 99 speed is somewhere between 91-99 speed. This makes it more difficult to rely exactly on the Combine.
  3. There are more players in the pool, giving you more people to scout (and therefore, a lower overall percentage of players can be scouted).
  4. The number of "stud" players is much less. In an average draft, I'm seeing about 33 players who are above 78 overall, with only 12 of those having "superstar" or "quick" development traits. Only about 11 players in an average draft are 80+ overall. So it's much tougher to get a great draft.

But never fear...I do believe I've cracked the code again. And to be honest I think that the changes make it more realistic, more challenging and more fun. So I'm fully behind it.

Overall Strategies Recommended

  1. Start with the coach type who has the Expert Scouting Package. You're going to need all the points you can get.
  2. Scout every week. Otherwise you lose half that week's points--they don't all carry forward.
  3. Only scout players you actually want to know more about. If you are stacked at HB, don't waste points on HBs.
  4. Never spend points on FB, K, or P.
  5. Follow my guide below exactly. :-)
  6. Use your WATCH LIST to capture players who "pass" all the Scouting trials below. That way on Draft Day you can simply sort by "Watch List" and you have all your players.

Specific Details

For the specifics, you can download the entire guide here, or you can just bookmark this page (photos embedded below). 


Because we have to be picky on Scouting Points this year, we will wait on scouting certain positions until the Combine, using the 'free info' we get from it to help us sort out people. (If you get everything below done for the positions you want before the Combine, feel free to move forward to the "After Combine" section.)

For best results, follow the below order exactly, only deviating to "skip" positions of strength.

If someone fails to meet the criteria of the first bullet point, DO NOT WASTE ANY MORE POINTS. Move on to the next person.

1.  Quarterbacks
  • Throwing Power A- or higher
  • Minimum score B- or higher
  • At least Accuracy score (Acc Short, Mid, or Deep) should be a B
  • Don't get excited about:  Throwing on Run (only 2% of overall score)

2. Offensive Linemen
  • At least one B
  • Minimum score B-
  • For left tackles I strongly recommend a Pass Block of B or higher 
  • Don't get excited about:  Speed or Agility combine drills (all < 6% of overall score added together)

3. Free Safeties (I've rarely found 78+ FSs, so this is based on a very small sample size; just be aware it's a bit riskier)
  • Zone coverage B
  • Minimum score B-
  • Don't get excited about:  Hit Power (only 3% of overall score)
4. Halfbacks
  • Carrying B+ or higher
  • At least one B in:  Elusiveness, Trucking, or Ball Carrier Vision
  • Minimum score:  B-
  • Don't get excited about:  Stiff Arm (only 2% of overall score)
5. Defensive End
  • At least one B+
  • Power or Finesse Moves B-
  • Don't get excited about:  Hit Power (only 1% of overall score)
6. Outside Linebackers
  • Block shedding B+
  • Minimum score B
  • Don't get excited about:  Hit Power (only 2% of overall score)
7. Middle Linebackers
  • Tackle B+
  • Block Shedding B-
  • Minimum score C+
  • Don't get excited about:  Power or Finesse Moves (only 2% of overall score each)
8. Strong Safety
  • At least one B from the following:  Tackle, Zone Coverage, or Play Recognition
  • Minimum score:  B-
  • Don't get excited about:  Hit Power (only 4% of overall score)


The first thing we do after getting scouting combine results is to REMOVE people from our watch list. Some of those above qualify until we see their measurable combine ratings, and now should be removed.

9.  Offensive Linemen
  • Remove anyone from your Watch List with less than 32 reps on the bench press. (This correlates to their Strength score.)

10.  Free Safety
  • Remove anyone from your watch list with a 40 yard dash slower than 4.60 seconds. (Speed)
  • Remove anyone from your watch list with a vertical jump less than 30". (Jumping)

11.  Halfbacks
  • You don't have to remove anyone here, but look at the 40 yard dash 3Cone, and Shuttle times.  Anyone who is very fast at all of these, and made it to your Watch List in step 4, is going to be very good.
  • (3Cone + Shuttle are the predictors for Agility and Acceleration).

12.  Defensive Ends
  • Add together 3Cone + Shuttle times.  If it is over 12.04, remove the player from your watch list; if below, they will have good enough Agility and Acceleration.

13.  Outside Linebackers
  • Remove anyone with 3Cone + Shuttle score over 12.04. You want them to be agile.

14.  Strong Safeties
  • Remove anyone slower than 4.76 in the 40 yard dash
  • Remove anyone with vertical jump < 30"


As a final step (if you have any points left!) we will look at those who we have not yet scouted.

15.  Cornerbacks
  • 40 yard dash must be faster than 4.60 seconds
  • 3Cone + Shuttle time added together must be less than 11.32
  • Man Coverage B-
  • Zone Coverage B-
  • Minimum score C+
  • Don't get excited about:  Press (only 3% of overall score)

16.  Defensive Tackle
  • Minimum weight:  300 pounds. (NOTE:  I don't think this matters....but so far I've not found a really good DT less than this. Could be coincidence, but I'm using this as a factor.)
  • Bench press must be greater than 32 reps
  • Block shedding B- or better
  • Minimum score C+ or better
  • Don't get excited about:  Pursuit (only 2% of overall score)

17.  Wide Receivers
  • 40 yard dash must be better than 4.60
  • 3Cone + Shuttle must be better than 10.80
  • Minimum score B-
  • Don't get excited about:  Spectacular Catch (it is only half as important as Release or CIT, and one third as important as Catching or Route Running)

18.  Tight Ends (Along with the Safety positions, this is the hardest to predict in my model)
  • 40 yard dash must be faster than 4.68 seconds
  • 3Cone + Shuttle time added together must be less than 11.56
  • At least one B in a catching skill (Catch, CIT, Route Running, etc.)
  • Minimum score C+
  • Don't get excited about:  Release (only 2% of overall score)


So on draft day, if you have two players in the same round or at the same position and can't decide, what do you do?

What I do is look at the heatmap below that I made, which pulls together how each position is calculated. I pick the one who, based on the info I have, I think will be best at the most key skills:


I hope that this is helpful for you guys! If you don't like it, remember that you didn't pay anything for it so get over it... ;-)

If you do like it, I would love for you to do the following things for me:

  1. Comment. Tell me that you like it.
  2. Post elsewhere about it. Reddit forums, Madden forums...let others know!
  3. Read other things on my site! I have a...unique way of looking at the world, which has given me tremendous spiritual peace and helps me avoid a lot of the stresses of this world, particularly politically, etc. I apply this same level of nerdity not only to Madden, but to how I live my life as well...and maybe you can benefit from it, too. If so, that makes me happy. :)

Happy drafting!

Friday, August 19, 2016

An Election Season Prayer

I could not help but think about both of the major party candidates for President this morning as I read Psalm 140 for my quiet time. Obviously they are not what David was referring to, but I do see his evil enemies as good stand-ins for our own candidates:

"Rescue me, Lord, from evildoers; protect me from the violent, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day.

They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent's; the poison of vipers is on their lips. 

Keep me safe, Lord, from the hands of the wicked...

I say to the Lord, "You are my God." Hear, Lord, my cry for mercy.

Sovereign Lord, my strong deliverer, you shield my head in the day of battle. Do not grant the wicked their desires, Lord; do not let their plans succeed. ...

May slanderers not be established in the land; may disaster hunt down the violent. I know that the Lord secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy." (Psalm 140:1-4,6-7,11-12)

Only the Lord will secure justice for those who need it. May God do something miraculous this election season, so that evil plans do not succeed.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Stop Telling Me I'm Wasting My Vote

Not long back, I told everyone that I would be voting third party or write-in during this election. I find the parties equally inept and morally-repugnant, and also despise both candidates they've put forth.

Since that time, I have heard a steady refrain from everyone:  that's just wasting your vote.

So let me officially give you four reasons to stop telling me that I'm wasting my vote:

1. I respect your vote -- why can't you do the same?

If you support Secretary Clinton as your candidate, I disagree with you. If you support Mr. Trump as your candidate, I disagree with you. I do not think either of them would be good Presidents; I think in both cases, the best case scenario is "Ineffective" and the worst case is "Disaster."

So I disagree with you, probably pretty strongly, if you support one of those candidates.

But that doesn't mean I will disrespect you by trying to convince you that you are "wasting" your vote.

How insulting is it, that you can't offer me the same respect?

I do not think your voice is wasted--even if I disagree with it--because I actually do believe in this whole "democracy" thing. I actually believe that each of us is supposed to make a formal official record of our desire for the country ("vote"), and that the Electoral College should take that into consideration when choosing the President.

So stop telling me that mine is wasted: every time you say that, you make it clear that you are so invested in 'winning' that you will gladly give away Democracy in the process, and support an oligarchy instead.

The only wasted Presidential vote is if you are voting for someone you don't actually believe would do a good job in office. (So, for me, to vote for Trump or Clinton is actually a wasted vote.)

2. A vote for one person is--stay with me now--a vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone else

A sub-version of the "waste" argument goes like this:  "a vote for Gary Johnson is really a vote for Hillary!" or, "A vote for Jill Stein is really a vote for Trump!"

Okay, let me go slow and break this down for you.

Adding +1 to one person's total does not actually add +1 into a different person's column.

That seems pretty clearly first-grade arithmetic, but it is a common statement in today's political debates.

The basic idea of Democracy is that each candidate has a bucket, and each voter has a chip or rock, and they place their rocks/chips in the bucket of the guy or gal that they like. At the end, they are added up. Placing one in bucket A does not add one to bucket B.

And even children can see that.

So why would an intelligent person say, "Voting for Johnson is actually voting for Hillary"?

Well, what they are actually saying is this:  "Johnson won't win, so if you vote for him you are taking a vote that would have gone for my candidate and spending it elsewhere."

You see? A third party vote is only wasted if I would otherwise have voted for your candidate.  You are assuming that your candidate WOULD have had my vote, if I weren't some idealist out there voting for a third party.

But that's not true.

I am voting third party or write-in precisely because I think the other two are terrible, terrible potential leaders. I will not face Jesus saying that I was willing to put my support behind either of these two candidates. (More on why, later.)

Whenever I make this point to someone, they get flustered and say something like:  "Well, I hope it makes you feel better when you wake up on the 9th and [Trump/Hillary] is President!"

I don't think it's actually that much different who wins. It doesn't matter who is in the pilot's seat when the plane crashes, you still wind up dead. And neither of these two can pull America out of her tailspin. So it really doesn't matter who's in charge. Both are terrible choices.

If we wake up on the 9th with either as President, we are worse off as a nation. Significantly worse off. The best case for either candidate is that they will be an ineffective and bumbling Carter; the worst case for Trump is that he's Mussolini and the worst case for Clinton is that she's Nixon. These are not good names to be throwing out!

No, I will not feel good with either of these winning the Presidency. I will not feel better with one over the other. I will not wake up feeling better because we elected a possibly fascist, and I will not wake up feeling better because we elected the next Nixon either.

It will make me feel better to know that I did my duty as a citizen, which is to cast my vote for someone who would run the country well.

I don't trust either of your candidates. So I am not "wasting" a vote for either of them.

3. The situation could be fixed immediately, if Independents would stop falling for this argument

When you perpetuate the "wasted vote" argument, do you realize that you are actually sharing in one of the great propaganda campaigns of political history?

In basketball, if I have a bad team (and I've coached some bad ones!), my strategy is simple:  suppress down the pace (so that small point totals can win), and remove options for the other team (so they have to play "our game").

That is precisely what the Democrats and GOP have done for more than a generation, and you have not only fallen from it, you are now helping them.

You see, the Democrats and Republicans have terrible favorability ratings. No one likes them, so no one wants to vote for them.

So, what will they do to remain in power?

Simple, two things (and they both do them).

First - suppress the vote.  That is, stop eligible voters from turning out, so that your small base of supporters have a disproportionately large say in things. The GOP targets minorities in this, making the US the most difficult place to get an ID and then forcing voter ID laws to keep them from voting.  The Democrats target busy wealthy people, and so in 44 of the 50 states, the Democrats have succeeded in scheduling special interest votes at times that aren't part of the normal federal election cycle to keep busy people away from the polls.  In both cases, the goal is the same:  lower voter turnout so you don't actually need very many votes to win. They've done it well--despite being the "cradle of Democracy", America is 29th in voter turnout, with a dismal 54% voting rate.

But suppressing the vote isn't enough.

You also need to make people feel they have no other options. Convince people that since no third party candidate has ever won, therefore no third party candidate can ever win.  Of course, that argument makes no sense. By that logic, Obama wouldn't have been elected because we'd had no black presidents, and Clinton wouldn't have just won the Democratic nomination because we'd never had a woman do it. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen.

But that strategy is effective.  Because odds are, many of you will vote for Trump or Clinton even though you hate them, because you think anything else has no chance of success.

But is that truth, or just the lie of the parties who need you to believe it?

As the NY Times pointed out a few days ago:  a very, very, very small percentage of people have actually supported Trump and Clinton in the voting booth thus far. There are 221 million registered voters in the U.S. The parties have successfully suppressed 88 million of their voices--they won't bother to vote. Let's assume that this won't change; that leaves us with 133 million likely voters...of whom about 13 million have cast votes for Trump during primaries and 17 million have cast votes for Clinton during the primaries. Let's assume those are all firm commitments.

So 103 million votes are still up in the air. That is 77% of the voting population!

77% of the voting population does not overtly support Clinton or Trump.

If everyone voted their conscience, all we would need is about 14% of the remaining voters to get behind one man or woman and they would beat both candidates.

Literally:  Pokemon Go has gotten more downloads in the past month than we would need to get votes behind a third-party or write in candidate.

If we would all stop buying into the propaganda they are selling and just vote our consciences, we would change everything this election.

If you aren't one of those who voted for Trump or Clinton in the primaries...then MY vote isn't being wasted--YOUR vote is, because you are spending it not on someone you believe in, but are a puppet to the propoganda of the parties.

4. Stop blaming me because your party put forth a terrible candidate

I'm a registered independent. I don't have an affiliation with either of these parties.

So stop blaming me that your party just nominated a terrible candidate. Putting forth a terrible candidate and then complaining that I 'waste' my vote by not supporting them is ridiculous and illogical.

You won't bully me into supporting a bad candidate by making the other one a boogeyman.

And by the way--no one should do that. When Ford was selling exploding Pintos, people stopped buying them...and so the company stopped making exploding cars. It's the same way in politics: if you keep giving a party your vote no matter who they put out as candidates, then why would they ever need to put out a good one?

This election has made one thing clear to me:  if the GOP were to nominate Hitler and the Democrats were to nominate Mussolini, Americans would just gobble them up, and be complaining to ME for refusing to cast my vote behind one. They would spend their hours arguing which fascist was worse, when it is obvious that both would be evil.

The truth is, these are terrible candidates. The president's job is essentially the "CEO" or Chief Executive for the country. His or her role is to provide leadership that unites Americans; to command our armed forces; and to operate the largest bureaucracy in the world (the Executive Branch of the government employs nearly 2.1 million employees, so running it is the equivalent of running every Wal-Mart in America plus every Target in America plus every Kroger in America).

So those are the three key things:  lead our military; unite the country; oversee the largest employer in the world efficiently and effectively.

And our two parties have given us terrible, terrible choices.

I do not believe Secretary Clinton can do this job.

She is terribly hawkish, being a part of both George W's wars and Obama's fumbling in the Middle East--and, before that, the decisions of her husband which helped put the Taliban in power in 1996 and led to a lot of this. Sec. Clinton has proved to be one of the most active warmongers in the history of our nation.

She is also massively divisive; has been ever sense her time in Arkansas as First Lady. She uses personal email servers to hide from FOIA requests, she cares far too much what others think of her--causing her to switch radically from one "deeply held" position to another, following wherever the political wind blows. The only people united behind her are Wall Street bankers (Bernie wasn't wrong here): 99.96% of Wall Street money has gone to Clinton over Trump.

I will not cast a vote saying that this woman should be in this job.

Nor will I do so for Mr. Trump.

Trump should not be in charge of our military. For one thing, he has publicly advocated war crimes (torturing and killing family members of terrorists), and has publicly hated on POWs and war heroes. Furthermore--and it's stunning this hasn't gotten play publicly--he dodged the Vietnam draft five times, and said his time as a prep school student gave him better military training and understanding than actual soldiers. The man is not going to make wise decisions in charge of the world's most powerful military.

The only thing more stunning than hawkish Republicans getting behind a draft-dodger and military-hater is that Christians are willing to support him. If you'd told me that Christians would get behind a guy who owns a strip club for goodness' sake, not to mention multiple casinos, I'd have said "No chance." If you told me on top of that he would be a multi-time adulterer, three-times married, longtime pro-choice candidate who only switches literally during the election to get votes, and who says he doesn't confess sins to God because he doesn't make them...I'd have said you were crazy. Not unless the guy made a deal with the devil could he convince Christians to vote for him. But even though my brethren might be falling for it, I won't. He is not a good man. He's a morally very bad man. He should not be in charge.

And perhaps most relevantly:  he will lead poorly. Critical to success as a leader is being the "steady hand at the wheel"--and he is anything but steady. He will careen the country all over the place. He will crash it into the ground--just as he has four of his companies. If he can't lead small companies with a few hundred employees, how can he run the largest organization in the entire world (more employees than Wal-Mart plus Target plus Kroger)?

So no, I won't vote for Trump.

I won't vote for either of these two. It is not my responsibility to choose one over the other. It is my civic duty to cast my voice for someone who will lead the country well.

Right now, that is looking most like a write-in for Marco Rubio or Condoleeza Rice.

I refuse to put my vote behind either Nixon or Mussolini. And you shouldn't, either.

P.S. -- Stop with the Supreme Court argument, too.

When you go through this with people, they usually don't have much to argue with. So they usually do this:  "But what about the Supreme Court!!!!"

This is a boogeyman used in every election, and I for one have seen through it.

A couple of things:

(1)  The President can only nominate justices. He/she can't appoint them. If you care about the Supreme Court, choose your Senators. As we saw with Bork and Myers, the Senate can simply refuse to vote, or vote down, a candidate that they don't like. They can keep sending the President back to the well a thousand times until he comes up with one they like. The power is 100% in the Senate in this case, so don't worry about Supreme Court with the President--he's largely irrelevant in this case. The Senate is what matters, so if this is important to you, research your Senate votes.

(2) There is no way to tell a "liberal" from "conservative" judge. Most judges so rarely interact with the specific legislation they will see as a SCOTUS member, that they are unknown.  People thought Scalia was a moderate and was elected 99-0. People though Ginsberg was moderate and she was elected with similar overwhelming margins--every conservative there liked her, too, at the time. People thought Kennedy would be liberal but he's actually a swing voter; O'Conner was supposed to be conservative but turned out moderate.

So not only does the President have limited power over putting justices in place, but he can't predict what they would do anyway.

This should not affect your Presidential vote at all. The President will have almost no influence on the SCOTUS, but it is used by parties to try and force you to abandon your convictions and support them instead.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

How I'm Voting

I've pointed out before that no, your vote actually doesn't count; and I've also discussed why that upsets you so much for me to say so.

But, Russell Moore actually makes a powerful argument in a recent article published on Christianity Today, one which I highly recommend that you read (click here, then come back).  Moore's conclusion is that as Christians we have a duty to participate in the process, but also we cannot in good conscience support candidates who have "first-level" major morality stances which oppose Jesus' teachings.

As a result, he concludes that one should in those cases vote for write-in or third-party candidates. The primary argument people seem to have is that this makes your vote meaningless, but as I shared in my first post, mathematically it already is meaningless; you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. So in that regard, Moore is right on track and I fully agree with his conclusions.

But as I've thought about it more and more, I think that his conclusions don't go far enough.

He spoke of the issues on a candidate-by-candidate basis: that is, what happens when I am faced with a choice between Candidate A and Candidate B, both of whom have major moral issues?

I think the issue is actually much bigger:  what happens when we are faced with Party A and Party B, both of whom have major moral issues?

Because make no mistake:  the person you vote for--whether they be Congress or for the Presidency--is simply one part of a large machine. Being elected President does not give you carte blanche to do what you want, and every President has always found himself needing the backing of his party plus the "swingable" members of the other party in order to get legislation passed. Likewise, Congressmen find themselves requiring significant financial and connection backing in order to win an election or do anything meaningful in Congress.

The fact is, we are playing a rigged system today--no matter what candidate for which you vote, the reality is that you are choosing Party A vs. Party B.

And that's fine...when one Party is more or less right. But on major moral issues, neither is right.

Major Moral Issues

Now, Christianity does not have (and never has had) a list of key political positions. I wrote extensively about a true pro-life position in the past (read here for entire series), as well as having written extensively about the Adamic and Noahic Covenants which apply to us as Gentiles (see here and here and here).

Based on these links, I will argue that the following are "non-negotiable" or "first level" Biblical worldviews of politics--the things that we as Christians cannot compromise on in the name of pragmatism, when casting our votes:

  • Christians should only support candidates who wish to conserve and preserve nature and care for and restore Creation
  • Christians should only support candidates who oppose murder in all its forms, including (but not limited to):  traditional murder; abortion; active euthanasia; most warfare; any war strategies which have high civilian casualties; and the death penalty for non-murder cases.
  • Christians should only support candidates who encourage religious liberty (for the basis of Christianity is freely choosing to follow Christ, with no compulsion)
  • Christians should only support candidates who are passionate about social justice, ensuring that all God's creatures are treated fairly. This is a consistent Scriptural theme, including no cruel/unusual punishments; providing aid for the needy; abolishing slavery; opposing inequality against races or classes.

On these issues, I don't feel that a Christian can disagree with a person and still vote for them.

Our Two-Party Problem

Here is where we get into issues.

Both of the major American parties are, to be honest, opposite sides of the same coin. Both care for little other than the protection of their own power, and increase the government to do so. Spend merely a few minutes googling, and you will see that neither party has cared one whit about limiting size of the government or efficiency, etc. Both care only about getting and retaining power--which is why immediately after election, a re-election campaign begins.

Whereas other countries often have ten or more parties--and thus, the opportunity for multiple voices to be heard--our two parties actively and aggressively oppose this, for no value to the country but purely in a bald attempt to maintain their own power.

They secure this power by being willing to do whatever it takes to get the (a) financing, and (b) political support of major corporations or donors--which is why fewer than 200 families in the US account for over 50% of all election donations (see here for the shocking truth). Nor is this just a Republican problem, for the Teachers Unions are also the largest lobbying group, and if you will take two hours of your life to watch Waiting for Superman (here), you will be sickened to consider what that does to our educational system.

Now, what does this mean?

It means that neither party is primarily focused on hearing from the people, but rather upon protecting its current power and platforms. This is why those elected generally do the same things as their predecessors, regardless of what was said during the debates...it is why, for example, in 2008 we had one candidate defending Gitmo and one opposing it, and yet here we are after the opposer won two terms and Gitmo is unchanged.

If I start with Russell Moore's strong argument that we should vote, but cannot support a corrupt candidate; and combine this with the reality that voting for a candidate also means supporting their party's platform (for in all practical matters this is what is always the result), then this means we must analyze whether either party can pass the four "moral tests" for Christian candidates which I lay out above.

So...can they? Let's see.

Test 1:  Preserving and caring for nature.

Preserving and caring for nature is a requirement from Genesis 1 and part of the Adamic Covenant. It is our duty as Christians to help create a better environment, something which some politicians do not do.

Good examples of this are abundant in the Republican Party for example. (Largely, in my opinion, due to the fact that they are heavily financed by the Chamber of Commerce and Big Oil lobbies--both of which are top 5 lobby groups.)

This results in the GOP as a party being almost always opposed to any regulation of company emissions, auto emissions, and attempting to battle climate change.

Now, let me be clear: we, the consumers, are the true villains here. We want to consume everything, and conveniently; as such, corporations provide a supply for what we demand, and expect to make a profit. So anything which gets in the way of that profit--like, for example, alternative energy, ethical treatment of animals, or pollution reduction--is cast aside as "anti-jobs" or "anti-business."

The practical result is that many politicians support policies which actively and consistently harm the environment, and we as Christians are in fact charged to govern and protect said Creation in Genesis 1--and they make this a party platform, so anyone in their party who is elected, in effect, is often arm-twisted into voting in this way..

Test 2: Opposing Murder in All Forms.

Pro-choice is the worst offender here, as abortion accounts for about 10 Holocausts-worth of baby deaths so far according to the Guttmacher Institute statistics. Human life, depending on your interpretation of Scripture, either begins with conception or the heartbeat...thus in the conservative case (heartbeat), there have been at least 58 million murders in the US alone. This is generally speaking a Democratic position.

In addition, under Obama's presidency, we have seen drone strikes become a common and horrific method of warfare, which frequently results in accidental murder of non-combatants, such as the killing of 42 in a Doctors Without Borders hospital.

Nearly approaching abortion in terms of evil, it was a Democratic president who dropped two atomic bombs, killing approximately 250,000 people, of whom 92% were innocent civilians. If we are to be honest and objective, this ranks among the worst war crimes in history from a Christian viewpoint, based on the insanely high percentage of non-combatants killed.

The Republicans are not free of this category either, though. It is generally speaking Republicans who engage in preemptive wars--that is, "fight the war there before it comes here", which in most Christian scholarship throughout history is never justifiable. We saw this most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, under George W Bush's administration.

Likewise, the Republicans are generally speaking very pro-death penalty, which can only be Biblically defended for Gentiles in the case of murder ...but the GOP is willing to apply the principle in much wider cases.

We simply as Christians cannot ignore one basic fact:  both of our major political parties actively pursue policies which are, under Biblical definition, murder.

Test 3: Religious Liberty

Although some would disagree, I think both parties pass on this one.

Sure, the Republicans tend to be a bit too anti-Muslim for my tastes, and the Democrats too anti-Christian, but I have traveled the world and can tell you that even the extremes in America are still exceptionally tolerant compared to most of the world.

We don't have much to complain on here.

Test 4:  Social Justice

Neither party has clean hands in social justice, either.

It was the Democratic party who voted unanimously against emancipating slaves and against the Civil Rights Act. It is the Democrats who back abortion, which disproportionately affects minorities--and whose founder outspokenly saw abortion as a benefit for eugenics, "thinning out the herd" of "undesirables" who just so happen, coincidentally, to be not white. Also, it is generally the Democratic party who opposes faith-based programs, even if they are aimed at the same goals. Basically if your social justice also includes handing out Bibles, many Democratic politicians aren't interested.

Meanwhile, it is the Republican party who generally hampers attempts at expanding welfare or healthcare for the poor, is discriminatory against minorities today, wants a wall on the "brown" border (Mexico) but not on the "white" border (Canada), and fights harshly to defend tax breaks for the wealthy.

In addition, both parties have cooperated together to create a bloated and labyrinthine government with systems which--although great at perpetuating their own power--are nonetheless disproportionately unfair to minorities and the poor (regardless of race).

The Moral Dilemma

So the moral dilemma, then, is that any vote you cast continues the power of a Party which has a long and thorough history of opposing Biblical values.

I find, then, that just as Moore concluded with regard to candidates, I cannot in good conscience continue to support either party with my votes, unless the party platforms agree to change in these key areas.

In other words -

  • Until the GOP says publicly and demonstrates with actions that they will become more dovish on war, more compassionate on capital punishment, and take better care of the environment...then I cannot support their candidates.
  • Until the Democratic Party says publicly and demonstrates with actions that they will eliminate abortions, and will end horrific practices in their past (and current) like drone strikes and use of weapons of mass destruction...then I cannot support their candidates.
  • Until BOTH parties start taking social justice seriously (neither ignoring it as the GOP nor paying ineffective lip-service to it as the Democratic Party)...then I cannot support their candidates.

My Conclusion

So my subconclusions are:

  1. As a citizen, I owe it to my country to vote (as Moore argued, changing my mind).
  2. I cannot in general support the Republican or Democratic Parties.
  3. Going back several decades, there has not been a Republican or Democrat since Reagan for whom I should have voted, and even Reagan had some caveats.
  4. As long as the two-party system remains in place, the likelihood of having a party follow these four moral rules is negligible.
  5. The Libertarian Party is the most likely party (on the ballot in 49 states) to be able to break the two-party system.

Which leads me to my overall conclusion, and how I will vote in this election and going forward.

From now on, I will actively oppose both the Republican and Democratic parties and their mutual protection of the two-party system, which continues to limit our choices.

Thus, my final conclusions:

  1. I will vote in every election.
  2. I will always vote for a third-party candidate--never again for a Republican or Democrat until their parties change their anti-Christian platforms
  3. If an acceptable third-party candidate is unavailable I will write in a choice.
I will not, going forward, vote either Republican or Democrat because I cannot support such morally repugnant parties staying in power. In the end, either party will lead us to ruin--they will simply do it in different paths. But the end result remains the same.

It is a folly to believe the lie of the current powers, which is that given two terrible choices, we should pick the less terrible. The better option is to cast your vote in a way that might make meaningful change in the long-term by creating more choices than only those two.

So if you wonder where I stand, for all intents and purposes going forward, I am an Independent voter who will support any third-party which is likely to break the two-party corruption of our current government; if I also find the only available third-party candidates morally repugnant, then I will do my duty as a citizen and write in a politican as my vote who could actually do the job.

I recommend that you do the same.