Today is election day in much of the US.  It isn’t a Presidential Election so many people won’t vote. Most municipalities will have a few referendums, some school board officials, and maybe a judge or city councilman on the ballot.  Since it is not a big election with a lot of TV time, the turnout was relatively low and so conversations start to theorize about voting online.

The argument goes that I can buy many things if not everything that I need online, why can’t I vote? This is much the argument that CNN made today. Unfortunately one cannot make this comparison and even if that comparison was valid, we still shouldn’t do it.

1. Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is.
2. It is inherently unfair to the poor.

Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is

In the case of ecommerce there is a level of risk that is taken by the seller, bank, and user.  That risk is managed but is far from perfect.  It also requires a fairly high level of personal data to be shared and yet is still not foolproof.  The estimated fraud rate is at 0.9% which is far higher than is allowed in voter counting error!  In addition, stores reject over 2% of all transactions.

In most municipalities, a recount can be justified if the race is within one percent.  If we would implement a system based on our existing ecommerce technologies that would force a recount if the vote was within 4 or 5% (1% for too close, 0.9% for fraud, 2.5% for obvious fraud).  Would you accept it if the voting system said it doesn’t believe that this you are a valid voter so it is rejecting it and you will now need to go to your voting booth even though it is 5:45PM.  You would almost certainly sign the petition of your candidate saying that you were denied the right to vote even though you were legitimate and therefore the votes should be recounted or invalidated.

Couple this with the safety and honesty of voting today. In the US, a voter can be harassed and beaten up before and after they enter the polls but once they walk into the building they are very safe.  Unless they specifically ask for assistance, they have no one looking over their shoulder. Even when they ask for assistance the process is usually two people of opposite parties help the individual to insure no undue influence is happening.  Contrast that to the activist preacher that has coffee and cookies at his house and invites all of his members to come over and use his computer to vote and is right there to help you with all of the intricacies including making sure you push the right radio buttons.

With ecommerce fraud, there is the transfer of goods, services, or money to the criminal.  This means that there are clues as to that criminal’s identity and potentially over time the police can catch that criminal.  With internet voting, it happens once or maybe twice per year and the transfer of wealth is extremely hard to connect.

The ecommerce systems also requires a huge amount of personal data that consumers are willing to share with their bank and their store but NOT their government.  Can you imagine the outcries if you were required to have a credit card or a bank account and a phone number to vote!  In the process of checking your credit card, the processing company can check to see if you are paying your bills – no way the government is going to get that right.

Until we allow a national identification system with biometrics, there really can be no online voting and you shouldn’t trust it if it was there.

It is inherently unfair to the poor

The bigger issue is that it is heavily biased to the rich and likely even the white voters. We already have complaints that internet access is difficult for poor and colored people (Jesse Jackson likes to talk about this in his speeches).

Without being too racist or too broadly generalized, rich white people that can afford to have lots of computers in their homes (1 plus for every adult for sure) could easily vote without having to brave the storms, ice, and cold.  It would almost certainly give them nearly 100% participation and they normally vote Republican or at least are more likely to vote Republican.

But what about the working stiff that is barely making minimum wage and therefore cannot afford to own a couple computers with high speed internet.  Let him brave the snow and ice. He is poor and generally speaking is a Democrat so make him go to the voting booth in the back of some school or church, wait in line, and fill out the manual forms that are reserved for the poor people.  The really travesty is that since there will be less rich people at the polls then we don’t need so many of those expensive polling machines and booths and we can have fewer polling locations. Those poor people can take the bus farther to vote.

So even when it is technically possible to vote online, until we can make the access to that voting infrastructure equal we shouldn’t do it. Thurgood Marshall taught us that “separate but equal” is never possible. We cannot make it easier to vote for the wealthy than it is for the poor. It probably already is slanted this way with access to transportation and more flexible work hours but at least all people, rich or poor, need to trudge to the same voting location to make their voice heard.

Dominionist teachings have been in the news quite often lately. The Houston based meeting, The Response, brought quite a bit of attention to this issue. Various cable TV commentators such as Matthews and Maddow ran stories on the more extreme preachers that are proponents of dominionism. They also tried to tie Republican nomination candidate, Rick Perry, to these aggressive preachings (Maddow’s clip is even called, “Rick Perry, conduit to radical Christian overthrow of US government?”).

I have no idea if Rick Perry is a dominionist. I sincerely hope not since, as you will see in this article, this is a false teaching. If Mr. Perry’s goal is to govern the US as a theocracy where punishment is delivered due to lack of adherence to biblical teachings then he would be failing to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have tried to find evidence that Gov. Perry is dominionist by his actions as Governor or scripted speeches (I try to avoid non-scripted off comments in political analysis as these are frequently misspoken, mistakes of wording, or simply out of context comments). As of this writing, while I am not sure that Gov. Perry is qualified to be the President of the United States, I find no evidence of dominionism aside from some people that are dominionists were at a religious gathering that he helped kick-start.

First, what is dominionism? It isn’t the worship of dominion. Well, actually, it is kind of close to that. According to the best definition that I can find (Wikipedia) it is:

"the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law."

The key point of this definition is the concept of a nation governed by Christian understanding of Biblical Law.

I will dig into the concept of Biblical Law in a bit but first a bit of understanding to the viewpoint. In a world where several influential nations are governed by Islamic Law (or Sharia), it is not surprising that in a nation that has a large population of another religion (Christianity) for those people to feel threatened and therefore try to entrench. Also, in times of hardship, it is easy to think back on younger days when everything is remembered (or rumored) to be wonderful and blame the changes in religion for the hardship. I don’t want to dismiss the frustrations of many people that feel that our government could be more ethical or more fair and think that if there was more religious observation in the world, that could be a good thing. However, the ends doesn’t justify the means – a government or a empowered constituency cannot make others be Christians. It just doesn’t work that way.

Sympathies to the concerns aside, the major fallacy of dominionism is the lack of understanding that there is no such thing as Christian Biblical Law.  Yes, Christians are required to keep the 10 Commandments but only because, as Jesus interpreted for us several times, they are all based on one simple commandment: love God above all else and love one another. This interpretation is most obvious in the book of Matthew in the verses 34-40 of the 22nd chapter:

"34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

So we see that the 10 Commandments and the laws of the Torah are subset to these two commands.  Jesus is saying that if you keep these two commands then you will keep the rest of the commands of God and all of the laws. But He doesn’t say that punishment will be given to you if you fail. In fact, He says the opposite – He gives a carrot and not a stick in John 15:10 where he says that "…ye shall abide in my love…." if we love God and one another.  This is different than a law. A law delivers punishment not reward.

Your local government may make a law that says you cannot drive your car faster than 20 mph in on a certain road at a certain time. You receive no reward for keeping this law. The police officer doesn’t stop you and give you a coupon for a free oil change if you don’t speed. Instead, if you drive the car over the speed limit and break the law then the police officer can give you a moving vehicle violation ticket that punishes you with a fine or worse. Laws deliver punishment for breaking them but Jesus speaks of reward for doing an action.

Soon before His death, Jesus gave a great deal of advice to His disciples. He knew that He would be dead in a very short time so it was His time to give the strongest and most urgent advice.  He didn’t recite the 10 commandments or the many rules of the Old Testament but instead simply told them (us) to love one another.

John 13:34

"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

And then in John 15:9-17

"9 Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. 12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you. 16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another."

We can now make the conclusion that Biblical Law really doesn’t exist for Christians. Law implies punishment, for law breaking is punishable. In this case, Christian teaching is not about punishment but reward and being like Jesus. A Christian should love all others because Jesus loved us (an example not a law) so that the Christian can have joy and love as Jesus enjoyed love (an example not a law or punishment).

With this understanding, dominionism starts to fall apart but I doubt if I have you convinced yet so I will do a bit more. Let’s discuss why dominionism is not compatible with Christian teachings.

They like to reference teachings before Jesus’ time
Most, if not all, of the teachings of dominionists reference the Old Testament of the Bible. This was the time of the Law and not forgiveness. Forgiveness came from Jesus Christ, therefore, the punishment of the Old Testament is not applicable after the death of Jesus.

Jesus did not want to rule the world and neither should we
Christ didn’t want a theocracy. If He did, then He would have come as a king and conqueror just like many Jews of the first century expected and wanted from the promised Messiah. When Jesus was entering Jerusalem for the last time, many of those along the path thought he was their political savior not their savior from sin. The Man that stopped a raging storm would have had no problems defeating the Roman conquerors. In fact, He was specifically offered to set up a theocracy with Him as ruler of all the lands by the devil in Matthew 4: 8-10. When his time of death was very near and He was obviously dreading what was coming, He specifically did not defend himself and defeat the soldiers in battle as He says that He could in Matthew 26:53.  So the idea of government that is a theocracy is obviously not the desire of Jesus and it shouldn’t be the desire of Christians.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s because we don’t understand God’s Law anyway
It is very clear that Jesus did not want a theocracy or a government built on religious laws. He specifically broke some of these “laws” of his time and declared that enforcers of the law didn’t understand the law they were enforcing (Matthew 12:1-8):

“1 At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. 2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; 4 how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? 6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Jesus specifically tells us in Luke 20: 20-26 to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This is significant because Jesus is saying that he is not the government and wants nothing to do with the government.  It is worth noting that this is such an important concept that this story is repeated in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. Very few stories are repeated multiple times in the Gospel and the fact that this point is brought out 3 separate times gives weight to its importance.

If Jesus wanted a theocracy where a portion of the wages of mankind were forcibly given to him, he would have answered this tax question much differently. However, He is saying that the laws of man are just the laws of man and God’s will is much bigger and more powerful (as is evidence in the continuing verses where he says that the laws of man at that time regarding marriage are not applicable after the resurrection).

Punishment of a people
Several dominionists like to say that a certain calamity was the result of the sins of that city or that country. They compare this to Old Testament stories about vast punishment. This is part of their justification that we should compel Christian authority over the government and the citizens to prevent such calamity given as punishment for sinful behavior. This is poor logic since all of these events are in the Old Testament and therefore not applicable after the time of Jesus. The storm that Jesus calmed before it capsized the boat with his disciples was not delivered because of the evil of those disciples, it just happened because storms happen according to the physics of the universe that God created. Storms are not punishment therefore it is foolish to believe that Katrina ravaged New Orleans because of sinners in New Orleans. The disciples were easily better Christians than most of us today and better in the open sea and yet these experienced fishermen were in fear for their life. The storm was not about punishment because they were not good enough, it was simply a strong storm.

I hope that I have given you a few things to think about as why dominionism is not compatible with Christian thought. To be honest, I am not naive enough to think that my words will make you change your mind. Rather, I hope that my words will allow you to ponder the subject and that other influences will allow you to ignore the teachings of dominionism and adopt a belief in love and forgiveness rather than punishment.

And if you find true evidence that Governor Perry is a dominionist, please let me know. Don’t give me examples of where dominionist leaders like Perry – that is rejecting the candidate based on his supporters and an unfair analysis.

The Wall Street Journal just did a story on the benefits of sex. At a high level, the conclusion was that more sex was good for you. Obviously, this has to be conditioned upon that the partners in the sex act are adults, the sex is consensual, and that the goal is to have a loving bond. There is also the condition that both partners are healthy to begin with and they are taking appropriate steps to not transmit diseases to each other.

Does this really surprise anyone? Would anyone think that LESS SEX is better for you than MORE SEX?

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

A flurry of small studies suggest that sex is as good for your health as vitamin D and broccoli. It not only relieves stress, improves sleep and burns calories, it can also reduce pain, ease depression, strengthen blood vessels, boost the immune system and lower the risk of prostate and breast cancer.

Much of that is due to chemistry—the rush of hormones and neurotransmitters that rise and fall during sexual activity. Arousal boosts dopamine, which activates the brain’s centers of craving and reward "just like chocolate and winning at gambling," says Erick Janssen, a senior scientist at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University.

Sex also increases oxytocin, known as the "cuddle hormone," which promotes bonding, reduces fear and stimulates endorphins, the body’s natural painkillers, which is why sex can bring temporary relief from back pain, migraines and other body aches.

All together, this chemical cascade has a lasting effect that helps people handle stress, which Dr. Brody showed in a study in the journal Biological Psychology in 2005. He had 24 women and 22 men keep diaries of their sexual activities for two weeks, then took their blood pressure while they were told to give an impromptu speech to a hostile audience and do rapid math calculations in their heads. Those who had had traditional sexual intercourse during the fortnight had smaller blood pressure spikes and recovered more quickly than those who engaged in other forms of sex or none at all.

Frequent sex may benefit men’s health another way: by boosting testosterone, which in turn is linked to stronger muscles, more energy and better cognition. (Sex’s effect on testosterone was shown in a now-famous article in Nature in 1970. A man stranded on a remote island with no women saw his beard stop growing. Then it resumed when he returned to civilization and sex again.)

Several studies also suggest that having sex extends life in general. A study in the British Medical Journal found that men who had sex less than once per month were twice as likely to die in the next 10 years than those who had sex once per week. A 25-year study of 270 men and women aged 60 to 96 conducted at Duke University found that the more men had sex, the longer they lived. Women who said they enjoyed their sex lives lived seven to eight years longer than those who were indifferent. But factors such as intelligence, health and activities also played a role in living longer, too.

Microsoft used to be the first follower of the computer software.  They used to take all of the good things that were in the OS or software offerings from their competitors and put those offerings into Microsoft offerings.  Now Microsoft is so confused, they aren’t even being good followers.

I want to be fair, it is okay to be a first follower. In fact, it is often a great strategy. They can take the great ideas from the computing world and improve them to offer to their consumers at a much lower cost. This has been the modus operandi of Microsoft for decades. This must be a particular trait of Bill Gates that Steve Ballmer just doesn’t have.  Since Billy left Microsoft, Microsoft cannot even seem to copy good ideas anymore.

My current favorite complaint about Windows is the lack of Spaces that are on the Mac or Workspaces in Ubuntu.  This is the ability to have only certain application showing in a given screen. It really helps to keep your desktop less cluttered as you work. It eliminates having windows behind windows behind windows.  At a certain point you just don’t need those windows open if you cannot click on them in the desktop.  If you have to go to the taskbar to select the window/application that you want, then you have already learned the need for [Work]Spaces as they exist in more modern operating systems than Windows 7.

A good friend that absolutely loves all things Microsoft (he even thinks that their phone OS will someday be successful – LOL) tries to explain this to me. You can download an application that will patch the OS and make this functionality work. Sure, instead of an OS offering I install a hack into the OS and hope it doesn’t screw up everything else. I used one of these hacks when I switched back from Ubuntu to Windows XP and it completely screwed up my Registry. I don’t want to go down that road again with my Windows 7 laptop.  If you would like to try, here are some possible add-ons that might work for you to improve your productivity (try at your own risk – I am not saying any of these are any good):

• Open Source http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/
• Dexpot  http://www.dexpot.de
• Crystal Desktop  http://www.brightek-soft.com/virtual-desktop/
• Sysinternals Desktops  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881
• Virtual Desktop for Windows 7 http://www.sondle.com/resource/virtual-desktop-for-windows-7.asp
• Windows Pager http://sourceforge.net/projects/windowspager/
• mDesktop  http://code.google.com/p/mdesktop/
• 360desktop  http://www.360desktop.com

Now that it appears that the Democrats and Republicans agree on how to increase our US deficit by $500B-$1T, it is time to talk about throwing out the old tax code. With the passing of the unemployment extension, the Bush tax cuts and other deficit growing measures, we have succeeded in making our tax code even more unwieldy and unfair.

Eliminate the loopholes and eliminate the tiered system. Make it fair and make it easy.  Here is a great video explaining one way that this might be possible.