Politics

God’s Health Care Plan: Healing the World

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

It was 2000 years ago a man named Jesus came out of Galilee saying, The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.  It is near, or as some rude person in our day might say, “It is in your face.”  Curious… 

The people in that time and place were under the thumb of the Romans and many were not happy with that reality.  The society was fragmented.  Pharisees and Sadducees were like Democrats and Republicans: in charge of things more or less, but fighting each other and even fighting among themselves.  Many people had dropped out altogether, to form communes or live as hermits in the wilderness.  Zealots, what the Romans described as terrorists, were committing great acts of rebellion or great crimes of murder depending on who was describing those acts.  And the common people were looking for a way out: they wanted a leader, they wanted hope. And there were plenty of men and some women no doubt who were glad to step in and be that leader.  The countryside was littered with teachers, preachers, prophets, healers, miracle workers, the wise and the foolish, the sincere and the charlatans.  Many people were wary.  

That fellow John gathered quite a few followers at one time, but then he had the stupidity to insult one of the Roman Provincial Executives and he got himself arrested and eventually got the death penalty.  People might not have thought that was fair.  There were plenty of worse offenders, mass murderers and the like, sitting on death row filing appeal after appeal; but you know, when such things are decided for political reasons, they aren’t always fair.

So now this fellow named Jesus has come saying Repent (like John said), and adding The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.  That was the new part, sort of.  Some scholars asked him once, “Is this a new teaching?”  It was not.  Not really.  Back then, the people basically understood what this “Kingdom of Heaven” or “Kingdom of God” was all about:

They understood that God did not approve of any sickness, trouble, hardship, social collapse, disease or death; but then they also understood that God did not break the world.  We did.  God did not sin.  We did.  God didn’t start the trouble.  We are the ones who rebelled.  We turned our backs, and some are still turning their backs on God and we began all the trouble by our rebellion.  Now, this broken (sin filled) world plagues us and our brokenness has come back to haunt us in the form of struggle, disease and death.  That isn’t God’s fault.  Everyone understood that.

And they also understood that this broken condition was not supposed to be the end of the story.  Clearly, it was not God’s intention that we be stuck in this brokenness forever.  The prophets made that clear, for example in Isaiah (35:1-10):

            The desert and parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom…

            …Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

            Then will the lame leap like a deer and the mute tongue shout for joy…

            …and the ransomed of the Lord will return.

            They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads.

            Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The Kingdom was the place (and time) when all of the brokenness in this world would be fixed, which included every disease being healed.  It was the place of no more tears.  But this Kingdom; it was like a nebulous thing, a promise for some far off future that had nothing to do with present day living.  People had to deal with their troubles, today’s being enough for today, and not live in some La-la land.  So here comes this Jesus fellow saying the Kingdom is near and you can be sure many scoffed.  “Yeah, right!  What Kingdom?”

I imagine Jesus smiled and responded something like, “This Kingdom,” and someone got healed.

The deaf dumb and blind could hear, speak and see.  Skin conditions, paralytics all got healed.  Some, so they claimed, even got raised from the dead and restored to life.  No wonder he gathered such crowds.  Yet he took the most curious position on it all.  “Don’t tell anyone.”  He would say.  Of course, they did tell, and the crowds reached the thousands where he had to borrow some fish and bread to feed them all.  But why would he say don’t tell?  How curious?

Well, it seems to me he did not want to be lumped in with all of the charlatan miracle workers and so-called healers already gallivanting around the countryside.  Obviously, he did not want to be seen as just another mumbo-jumbo magician.

Peter was perhaps the first to understand when Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?”  I always imagined Peter stuttering a bit as he was inspired to respond.  “You are the K-K-King.”

Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.  And Peter understood that Jesus was the King of God’s Kingdom, which of course meant that Jesus was God.  Who else would be King of God’s Kingdom?

Enough people understood this on Palm Sunday to lay palms at his feet.  The Sanhedrin understood this in the last week, enough to accuse him to each other:  “The man makes himself equal with God!”  They told Pilate:  “We shall have no King but Caesar!”

But what they did not grasp was:  He did not come to heal and restore God’s rule over the earth right then and there. NOT YET.  God!  That HAD to be a disappointment to a lot of people.  But instead, he came to tell us about the time (the Kingdom) that was coming – still in some nebulous future – but also to demonstrate it in his life so we would know it was a REAL promise, no matter how far in the future it might be, and then he came to offer himself up on the cross as the Lamb of Sacrifice so that when the time DID come we could receive mercy, not condemnation for our rebellion.

Now he is gone.  He has ascended into heaven, as the confession says, and we are left to carry on.  We are to “Walk in His Steps,” to live with the question “What would Jesus do?”  We are the disciples now.  We are the Peters of the world, and it is now in our hands to demonstrate God’s Kingdom to the world.

Consider where Jesus, in his ministry, showed the power and the presence of God’s creative, loving Spirit and brought healing to our spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical lives.

  • Where there was evil, he brought goodness.
  • Where there was condemnation, he brought forgiveness and mercy.
  • Where there was darkness, he brought light.
  • Where there was prejudice and hatred, he brought Love and justice.
  • Where there was emptiness, he brought fullness and meaning.
  • Where there was war, he brought peace.
  • Where there was sickness, he brought health.

All of this is healing in the broadest and best sense.  The gospel of Mark begins with the words, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”  The Good News is news about the reign of God in the whole of our lives.

Now, I cannot speak for non-Christians, and might not be able to speak for all Christians, but for those who are followers of Christ, here is what I see:

We are to pray for those who need wholeness of every kind and as we pray for the physical, spiritual, mental and emotional well being of others, we can do so with the sure and certain knowledge that these prayers flow from the heart Christ himself.  And sometimes, even in our broken, rebellious day, God heals.  The details of where, when and how the healing of persons takes place is totally in the hands of God; but the faith and trust that this is the will of God is in our hands.  (Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven).

After that, we are to heal in every way we can; healing “even the least of these” without regard for what people can pay. 

We need to NOT heal the left hand while destroying the right as in healing the body while throwing the family into bankruptcy. 

We need to heal without regard to “pre-existing conditions,” without exclusions by insurance companies (in employer monopolies) or limits by “cost benefit analysis” (as in the proposed government monopoly). 

No one should ever be put in the position where they are made helpless and hopeless and are encouraged to die and as Scrooge said, “Decrease the surplus population.”

We need to reward those who have dedicated their lives to the healing professions and find a way to protect those who do their HUMAN best from being sued. 

We need to encourage the drug companies and hospitals, through the use of profit and fair competition or by some other EFFECTIVE means to develop new and better drugs and therapies in order to stay on the cutting edge of what we humans can do to heal.

We need to each do our part to bring wholeness to this broken, troubled world.  This is what Jesus did, and it is what we should do as well.

That is what I think.  What do you think?

–Michael   “Word & Spirit: The testimony of two.”

Reflection: Tyranny by any other name still smells…

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

Tyranny deletes freedom by definition.  It limits or eliminates choices.  Others make decisions on your behalf: what you must do, where you can go, and at times even what you must wear.  German Jews in the thirties wore the Star of David.  There was no debate.  The face of democracy in Myanmar is currently under house arrest — at least through the next election.

The military is a tyrannical system (perhaps by necessity) where people with rank tell those without rank where to go and what to do and even what to wear.  The fact that the military is often successful in its missions is to be considered.  Tyranny is not necessarily cumbersome or inefficient – not like democracies.  Mussolini made the trains run on time, and the people of Italy rejoiced.

But to succeed, there are two things tyranny must do: it must dehumanize people, and it must insulate (isolate) those at the top so their decisions are not touched by people (common humanity). 

First:  Sometimes, tyranny may demonize people, like the Jews in Nazi Germany or like the Nobility in the early days of the French Revolution; and it is not uncommon to so characterize the perceived enemies of the prevailing tyrannical order.  And to be sure, enemy lists are common:  keep that in mind all of you wacko-liberals and conservative, right-wing extreemists!.  Yet for most people – those not actively engaged in some form of dissent – at the least, tyranny must dehumanize.  This is the only way to insure that “a few people” can make those hard decisions that may mean life or death for “most of the people” living under the tyranny.  It might be hard to deny Bob or Mary their daily bread.  It is not so hard to deny 276-B and 617-M.

The military is well known for name, rank and serial number.  That the men and women have names is nice, but what really matters is the rank and serial number.  In the military, people are not people, they are numbers; and if you doubt the dehumanization that the military does in order to function effectively, try some basic training.

Second:  It is imperative that those at the top be isolated in order to make the hard decisions without being swayed by genuine human considerations.  This follows like night and day from the need to dehumanize.  Those at the top and also those on the job need to live in a psychological bubble, if not in a real one.  This is the way bureaucrats have worked successfully since the beginning of time.  The chief defense for death camp prison guards at Nuremburg was “I was just doing my job.”  It did not matter to them that people were being gassed and thrown into ovens.  “I was just paid (required) to do my job, and that is all I did.”  The bubble is imperative for any tyrannical system to operate effectively.

Why is this important?  Because too many people are suffering and I cannot see any relief on the horizon.

Tyranny through the last century and into this one has come in many forms.  One primary form has been in the board room and the upper reaches of the corporate world, and it is particularly apparent when a company becomes “Too big to fail.”  Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the past several months at an alarming rate.  Do you think anyone has lost any sleep over that fact?  Corporate Executives generally cannot even name a person on the “front lines” in their own business.  It’s just numbers.  We had 50 in that department.  Now we have 30.  (And to be clear, those 30 now have to work like slaves for fear of their own job).  Meanwhile, 20 more have joined the ranks of people who through no particular fault of their own have been discarded.  Yet the company goes on, telling people what to do, where to go (if they want to keep their job) and even what to wear (dress code).

And, of course, there is the government.  Now, you knew this was coming so don’t get your partisan knickers in a twist.  Instead, let’s go back a bit in time.  One (if not the) primary purpose of the United States Constitution was to guard against tyranny.  The Great Experiment, so-called, was to have a severely limited and deliberately restricted central government which would be responsible for the minimum duties deemed necessary for unity.  The central government was to keep its hands off and fingers out of everything else…everything.  Life was to be in the hands of the states, the local communities and with certain individual liberties guaranteed.  I don’t believe anyone would argue with the fact that we are a long way from the American ideal.  These days, it is nearly impossible to find any aspect of life where the federal government does not have some stake – a finger if not a whole hand.  So what happened?

It is debatable, but just as fast as I can put it: I believe the tipping point came when the Union (central government) forces beat the States (we called it the Civil War).  And Lincoln was a Republican.  By the time of Herbert Hover (another Republican) things had slid so far (and the central governors had become so isolated) the answer perceived for the stock market crash was MORE regulation and HIGHER taxes.  (Can you say, “Let them eat cake?”).  Of course, this led to the election of FDR, (a Democrat) who, far from pulling the government back from intervention in life, actually accelerated the process.  (Crisis you know: Depression and then the war).  The agricultural business in this country was socialized so long ago by price supports and subsidies, we don’t even question it.  Likewise steel, railroads, well… etc.  Then, LBJ (another Democrat) further accelerated the process by designing federal programs that actually encouraged dependency which, to speak plainly, encouraged the tyranny of the central government to tell people what to do, where to go, where to live and how much they were worth!

I believe both Kennedy and Reagan (in their own ways) did try to slow down the growth of tyranny, but more recently, Clinton sped it back up again, and so did Bush.

So now we have Obama and we find we are going to be told what kind of cars we can drive, what our salary will be, how much money we can make with the warning that if we make too much, it will be taken from us.  We are to be told what doctor we can see, what treatment we can get if we get ill, how we can heat or cool our homes, what energy we are allowed to use, and how much it will cost us… and what can you do with your own property without getting nine million permits and plan approvals first, not the least from the EPA.

With all of this, do I blame Barak Obama?  Absolutely not.  He is the conclusion, not the premise.  So what then, is the Great experiment over?  Despite all of the safeguards built into the system by the founders, have we slid into tyranny anyway?  Perhaps we have.  What I really want to know, though, is what our uniform is going to be.  It can’t be brown shirts.  That’s been done.  Personally, I vote for green shirts.  That would seem to fit the current culture and climate.

Reflection: The Proof for God: Religion vs. Science continued.

M G Kizzia 1 Comment

            Is God a Mathematician?  That is the title of a new book by Mario Livio.  I am sure it is a fascinating book, but the short answer is, duh! Of course he is, and everything else as well if I read the PR correctly. 

            In Switzerland, Scientists are touting the new multi-billion dollar, seventeen miles worth of particle accelerator where they hope to find what THEY call “the God Particle” (The glue that holds matter together).  It is all nonsense to equate any particle with God, you know.  Particles, by definition are neither theistic nor atheistic; but I am sure they are just using the name like some manufacturer might use the terms, “new and improved,” or like so many food venders presently use the terms “natural” or  “organic.”  It doesn’t necessarily mean what it says.

            Then, another recent publication is the book by a former Christian Scientist – a reporter who reportedly went in search of the science part.  The conclusion, as I understand it, is she grew closer to some of her Christian Science family and friends, but she did not really find it – not exactly.

            I would have been surprised if she found any scientific evidence at all.

            Science and the scientific method have a marvelous place in the universe.  With mathematics, we may be able to eventually understand everything there is to know about matter and energy and the relationship between the two and science may describe for us the beginning and the end of the universe (especially if it turns out that energy can be created and destroyed after all).  But what it cannot tell us is anything of value (for example):  why we should be interested in science, mathematics and the scientific method, what good are the scientific laws and discoveries, or why we should care.

            To be sure, more of life is understood by means non-scientific than scientific and “proved true” by means other than the scientific method.  A BS degree from the university is a valuable commodity, but there are other places where a BA is much more highly regarded.

            Consider Art, which is about as unscientific a category as you can find.  Greatness (validity) is often a matter of consensus, but not entirely so.  The art world depends on documents, expert and eyewitness testimony, and the jury of history in making its determinations.  Of course, someone can still insist that the Mona Lisa, Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and Shakespeare’s Hamlet  are not great works of art, and they may try to justify their opinion by suggesting it is all subjective and only (no more than) a matter of opinion in any case.  What that suggests to me is one of two possibilities:  either the person is a “Contrarian” which I have defined as people who get a kick out of taking a contrary opinion no matter how irrational or unreasonable that opinion may be, or the person is in some serious need of some asylum time.

            Of course the above mentioned works are great works of art, and whether we like them or not is honestly irrelevant.  The jury of history alone has declared their greatness, as any jury would say, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            Consider history, which is totally unscientific no matter how much historians may grumble otherwise.  It cannot be understood by mathematics.  I cannot be replicated under strict laboratory conditions, and while it may produce some good advice, it does not imply laws that can be applied invariably to the future.  History, instead, is again a matter of documents and what the archeologists can discern from their shards.  It is determined by expert and eyewitness testimony to the point where it can only be, “rewritten by the victors” (as is often the accusation for unreliability) only so far before it is contradicted by the known facts and again, by the jury of history.

            Did Alexander once conquer the oikumene?  Did Cleopatra abandon Anthony at a crucial point and thus place Egypt in the grasp of the growing Roman Empire?  Did Victoria once rule over an empire on which the sun never set?  The answer of history is absolutely yes (true, for real); and while you or I may not see what relevance such things have to our lives, that consideration is, to be blunt, irrelevant.  History is one of the only things we have that explains not only who we are, but suggests where we are going, and the jury of history proves the reality of nearly everything quite apart from what science may or may not have to say about it.

            The jury would say, “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That has always been the legal answer to the scientific method, and keep in mind that justice is also a thoroughly non-scientific subject; and to be sure, no one (other than a contrarian) wants to honestly live in a world where justice is merely a matter of subjective opinion where one opinion is equal to another.  That would put us all in danger of tyranny – subject to whoever was slick enough to obtain the judgeship!

            Do juries sometimes make mistakes?  Certainly.  Juries have been wrong.

            Do scientists sometimes make mistakes?  Certainly.  Science has constantly been revised.

            Is this true even when the appropriate procedures are followed to the letter?  Yes.

            So is science the only arbiter of reality (to determine what is real and what is not real)?  Absolutely not.  “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt” works just as well for reasonable people.  When a jury considers the facts (what hard evidence is available), studies the documents (contracts, affidavits), considers the expert and eyewitness testimony and follows the time tested procedures, they will far more often than not come to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Science (for example DNA testing) may have much to contribute to considerations of the law in a given case, but be clear about this:  Law is in no way a matter for scientific inquiry or investigation.  Other forms of investigation are involved, and they often relate to motive and opportunity.

            I could go on to subject after subject that is essentially if not entirely non-scientific, but in nearly all of it, the truth (reality) is proved in the same way and by the same method, and at this point, someone must be asking, but what about God?

            Well, clearly God is not a scientific subject, being neither composed of matter nor energy.  God will never be replicated in a laboratory, proved by the scientific method or described by mathematics.  So does that mean God is not real?  By no means (unless you are truly a contrarian who is also willing to insist that art, history, the law and a myriad of other things are equally unreal).  Rather, the “Truth” of God is “proved” by other means.

            Consider the documents, the evidence or facts (such as they may be), the expert and eyewitness testimony, the jury of history, and the fact that there are billions of people alive today who will look you square in the eye and declare that God is “Proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  You may not agree, but honestly, it is the atheists who have a terrible uphill battle, and all I can see is Solon, pushing that boulder up the hill only to have it roll down again.  I always feel sorry for anyone who has to work so hard to close the mind (and heart).

            I will say this again, science and religion have no business being at odds with each other as long as each sticks to its area of study and understanding.  It is when the Theologians deign to make definitive statements about this universe of matter and energy and when Scientists draw unwarranted conclusions about reality that excludes any consideration of non-scientific life that we all get into trouble.

Reflection on Science vs. Religion

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

            It really is nonsense, you know.  Science deals with matter and energy and the interplay between those two worlds.  Religion deals with what matters and what energizes, if I can play with those two words.  There is no crossover (or minimal at best).  Science and Religion should walk hand in hand through life.

            Of course, you realize it is not just religion that runs in non-scientific realms.  We should include philosophy, history, law, and a host of other non-scientific subjects.  As my friend at the University says, “You can get a degree in the Arts (BA) or the Sciences (BS) and both are equally valid; but to be well rounded you probably need some of both.”  I concur.  Hand in hand is the way all of the arts (including religion) and sciences should be.

            I think the trouble brews when people on one side cross over to the other side, as it were, without justification, reason or often common sense; and invariably without admitting that this is what they have done.  I recall Carl Sagan’s opening of his most famous book:  “This universe is all there is, all there was and all there ever will be.”  How does he know this?  It is a plain and clear philosophical statement based on rather obvious presuppositions and it certainly isn’t remotely a scientific statement.  I found it a strange way to begin a science book; yet I suspect he wanted to cut off any appeal to religion at the outset, but in doing so I fear he cut off his proverbial nose to spite his face.  Since then, scientists (such as Hawking) have toyed with the idea of parallel universes, among other things.  So it goes.

            On the other side, I know there are sincere people (I trust they are sincere and well meaning, too) who insist that the world was created not all that long ago in a literal seven days.  I can see the hair rising up on the back of the neck as I say that.  Nothing could be further from even the most basic facts we have been able to discern, scientifically, about the universe in which we live.  I do wish, though, we could all try and reason with such people and bring them to a point of common sense rather than ridicule them with our sharp and sarcastic tongues.  Ridicule will only deepen the determination – and sarcasm is not a good social skill.

            But here it is:  Most scientists I know are believers and attend church regularly, and most theologians I know respect the science that made possible a fresh cup of coffee every morning (even if the laws of motion and gravity do not always cooperate when one is still half asleep).  But for the most part, theologians and scientists respect and appreciate each other.  Rather, it is in the board rooms, the news rooms, the schoolrooms, on the street corners and in the work places and play places where religion and science duke it out – in places where there aren’t any real theologians or scientists.  That is where you find the fundamentalist who gets (rightly) angry at being ridiculed but who nevertheless steps into his car, drives home, turns on the lights and television to stew.  (Technology may be the step-child of science, but without science there would be no child at all).  So he enjoys the benefits of science, but I suppose it must be a pick and choose as to what scientific facts he will accept and what he will reject.  A sad story.

            On the other hand, though, no matter how firmly the other person says they will only accept as “Real” those things that science has proved or likely will prove, you and I both know they do not live in a world devoid of love, beauty, and at least the hope of justice (all non-scientific concepts).  No one lives there, nor would any sane person want to.  But then, philosophy, history, the law, the arts – these are not the issue.  It just seems to be religion, and if I may be blunt, I would guess it is often the concept of God that such people find most irksome.

            There were ten of us out back a few nights ago.  It was a lovely evening with the sun setting dutifully in the west.  One woman remarked at how beautiful the sunset was and in no time there were eight of ten in agreement.  It was a beautiful sunset.  The ninth person said it was beautiful, too, what he could see of it.  You see, he confessed that he was color blind so all he saw was shades of tan and browns; yet he accepted the word of the other witnesses and said he saw the beauty in what he could see.

            Now, the tenth shook his head, and he apologized.  “I’m sorry.  I have never been able to see sunsets as beautiful.”  It was like he was confessing some flaw in his character or make-up.  It was like he wanted to see the beauty, a beauty which he had no doubt was there, only he was not capable.  We all hugged him and assured him that we all have our blind spots and that was OK.

            I suppose he could have been crass.  He might have said, grumpily, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  That is this kind of thing we hear a lot of these days.  It suggests that beauty is only an opinion and even if everyone in the world disagrees with him, his opinion is still as good as any.  There is a subject worthy of consideration, but for now I want to point out what he did not say – what no sane person would imagine saying:

            “Beauty is an illusion, a fantasy.  You are all living in a fairy tale.  Can’t you handle the real world?  I think maybe you are all suffering from some pathological delusion.”

            Of course no one would really say that about a beautiful sunset, or anything declared “beautiful” because beauty is clearly something real even if it is not a proper concept for scientific study.  Yet when it comes to religion in general, and especially to God…

A thought about Sarah you-know-who

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

People, for God’s sake leave the poor woman alone!  She was a VP candidate, normally worthy of about two seconds of scrutiny.  I would bet there are plenty of Americans who have no idea who Joe Biden is.  Palin was a VP candidate, and lost no less.

Look:  regardless of how you view her personally, politically, or whatever, she is a human being.  Trysaying that three times fast.  She is a human being.  I haven’t seen this big or this vicious a feeding frenzy in the media since… well, ever.  I don’t believe even the eternally despised Bush (the one responsible for every ill conceived of by the  human mind) was treated this badly.

A word to the wise to the Washington Press Corps and their Talking Head friends on the tube:  even the dullest Americans are beginning to catch on.  I am hearing from the most ordinary folks (most of whom you would not know on a bet) that “If the media hates this person, they must be pretty good.”  And, “If the media likes this person, we better watch out for them!”  I would strongly recommend backing off for a while.  Don’t think for a minute the viciousness won’t translate into votes, so for now, why don’t we all…chill.

Mid-Week Reflections: A New Political Party?

M G Kizzia Leave a comment

A New Political Party?

            People, I am very unhappy with all of the political parties that are presently active in this Great Experiment we call the United States.  Judging by the increase in the ranks of registered independents, I assume I am not alone; yet when I thought about it, I came to realize that independents really cannot fix anything.  Every future vote and every political choice will still be between hacks from one party or another.  SO, I was thinking we need a new party, an independent party, if you will.

            Now, I will probably lose half my readers in saying this, but I still see the virtue in this nation: the Great Experiment, and I would like to see the experiment continue.  Because of that, I imagined a name for the new party that would strike a chord with anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence; like, maybe the Independence Party; but the problem with the Independence name is, what are we seeking independence from?  Pogo put it very well when he said, “We have met the enemy and they is us.”  I want to fix “us” not go split personality, so I have to say no to the Independence Party.

            I thought next about the Inalienable Rights Party?  But, that is precisely one of the things I am so unhappy about.  More people, in particular Judges, have found more inalienable rights (even inillegalalienable rights) than our founders could have ever imagined.  I am not one who believes the founders are spinning in their graves, but I think their heads may be spinning.

            Then I rejected the Life Party because there are already plenty of Right to Life people around, and I rejected the Liberty Party because I assumed I would be sued by the Libertarians.  As far as I can tell, Libertarians believe people should be allowed to live without interference – as long as it doesn’t infringe on their copy write.  SO, what does that leave?

            Allow me to introduce the Pursuit of Happiness Party.  We should at least be able to attract the under thirties and the college crowd, do you think?  Hey!  Get ‘em while they are young.  Yes:  The Pursuit of Happiness Party wants YOU.

            Of course, I don’t expect our party will be perfect either.  Surely we will have our share of arguments, like the one today at work where two co-workers argued about who had lost more brain cells for various reasons in their pursuit of happiness.  I said, “Don’t worry about it.”  (Always the peacemaker)  “Most people only use 10% of their brains anyway.  Heck, I know some people who only use 2%, but they mostly belong to political parties.”