With the Media proclaimed National Primary (Though how national can it be if most of the states aren't even voting today, I fear the media can't count) going down, I thought I ponder a few alternate primary solutions.  First of all I believe the current primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa to be unfair and unearned.  These states are small, rural and not very representative of the nation as a whole, but through accidents of history have become overly important.

Primary Options

• National Primary:  This is rather self explanatory, every in the country votes on the same day, not only the 22 and half special states of Super Tuesday. This seems to be fair since ideally we'd be back in the relm of one man one vote. However,The states will no longer have any choice in when and how to conduct their delegate selections and would also make it difficult for all but the best funded candidates to compete.  
  
• Delaware plan  divides the states into four groups voting a month apart starting in March. Membership in the groups would be determined by the number of delegates a state would appoint with the smallest states voting in the first group and the largest states voting last.  Theoretically this would still allow small states to have a say and potentially allow more variety of candidates.  This plan is probably best for small states, since the media will get really worked up about the happenings in whatever states vote first.  I think this is a decent plan, but it still has the potential to force all but one contender to quite before the big states.  Also, since the small states tend to be pretty spread out, this adds to campain costs and travel times. This plan was rejected by the Republican Party in 2000.
• California/American plan:  Similar to the Delaware plan except there would be 10.  Again it would arrange things so it moves from smaller states to larger states.  The oddity is that there are different numbers of states in each group and it seems that it has been gamed to keep Iowa and New Hampshire to be the entirety of the first group.  FairVote.org explains, "In the first interval, states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses, or conventions. This is approximately equal to the total number of congressional districts in Iowa (5) and New Hampshire (2)".  Later they grow the allowed number of districts that would solidify a round, but to me it seems like and orderly but just as arbitrary version of the current system.  The primacy of Iawa and New Hampshire's a deal killer for me but the ops-Alaska version doesn't seem to have this pitfall and even a large state such as Ohio could potentially vote in the third round.  This is an interesting plan, but the determination of state order seams more complex than it ought to be. 
• Regional Primary: Divide the country into four geographical regions and randomize the order so no region is first or last in one or another election.  This is nice and simple, but it shares the drawback of the Deleware plan that it might make it to difficult to mount a campaign across that many states. such larg regions.  The Wikipedia version also keep Iowa and New Hampshire first which is exceeding lame.  Some regions tend to lean ideologically "right or "left" and this could effect the types of candidates that might be chosen if that region goes first which is why there's an alternate plan that splits up the south and North east to balance the region ideologically.  I wonder if just subdividing this into 8-10 regions if this wouldn't a simpler and less complicated version of the America Plan.  Then candidates could concentrate on a geographic area which would save on costs and no one set of states would always have undo influence. 
  
• I'm not particully satisfied with any of these plans, perhapse something more sane will work it self out in the next election.  I can only hope, just as I vainly hope that there will still be a point in showing up to vote on Ohio's "late" March 5 primary. 

I recently finished Hayek's Road to Serfdom. This book was complied from essays and thoughts that Hayek had encountered during the Second World War As such it can be a bit dry since he spends time refuting some popular thinkers of his day, who now have been forgotten in our day and age. Generally though Hayek wrote in response to the dangerous Ideas emanating from Germany that he felt had embedded themselves into Western thought and by extension English and American thought.

I fear I have little constructive thoughts to add to a book that is so well known, however, since when has that ever stopper a blogger? I think the most interesting facet of the book involves Hayek talking of the "Great theory horrible implementation" argument in regard to Socialism/Communism. He takes the Sacred Planner who will order everything equitable in the socialist society and shows how this takes the freedom to from the common man. Sure the common man no longer has to deal with the perceived randomness of the Market forces or the perfidies of corporate interest, but instead must deal with capricious bureaucrats who decide from on high how he or she will live.

In general you could say it is the non-fiction version of George Orwell's 1984 in that it was a reaction to the totalitarian tendencies in post world war II socialism. Whereas Orwell created and imaginary dystopia, Hayek wrote a much more conventional critique, write down to having footnotes and citations. Like Orwell, this Hayek is troubled by the similar results of the self proclaimed antitheses of Fascism and Communism, but Hayek reminds us that both these horrid systems germinated from western Utopian strains of Western civilization. Some people claim that the political spectrum is not a line but instead a circle, but with Fascism and Communism right next to each other. I suppose this is a nice to keep the traditional right left dichotomy, but it seems unduly complicated. I much prefer the Multi-Axis Model as it seems offer a more accurate view of modern ideologies than a model based up where people sat in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

The Good

A nice overview of the failings of a fully planned society and how it destroy individual choice and freedom. Likewise it raises the point the totalitarian tendencies found in fascism were quite popular in the Democratic West in the time around the second world war.

The Bad

the book can be quite dry, especially the last quarter when Hayek goes into detail regarding socialist thinkers, that were popular during his time, but have thankfully been consigned to the dust bin of history.

I came across a nice essay Three Centuries of American Declinism on Real clear Politics while surfing the net at work. Sadly it was too long for me to finish during business hours and had to wait until the evening, but I highly recommend that you take the time to read the whole thing. Basically it helps to put the doomsayers into perspective, and in particular digs up some of the problems of the "Greatest Generation" left after they're "mission accomplished" moment, which quickly grew into the many horrors of the so called "Cold War".

The essay mentions a litany of failure's from the cold war from Red Chine to the absolute disaster of the Korean War, barely touches on Vietnam (probably because it's well embedded in the International psyche although one wonders what anyone actually knows about it in this day an age?). Touches on America's allies' desertions, (not entirely blamelessly, can anyone say Suez crisis?) as well as the oil shock and the USSR's technological lead in the space race. It all adds up to grim(or joyful if you dream of American decline) and I think these things are lost upon people who take our current troubles out of perspective and idolize the past as a golden age of just war fought by the book(or convention).

Obviously the article doesn't go much into our current troubles, or even our current commitments. But then again the little isolationists don't really go into how to go from riding the tiger to a happy world where everyone listens to the wise UN. They assume it will happen because it must or that it simply a matter of making a proclamation and all will be right in the world. Sadly it's not so easy because there is not magic wand which will undo the last 80 years and bring back our splendid isolation. It is our fate to deal with a globalized world turned upside down. America government has made more than it's share of mistakes in the last three hundres years, however it's still hear and many of it's contemporaries are not and I suppose that is one the themes in the linked article.

I saw an article ridiculing the foolishness of certain people in our society.(Shocking) This New Penance is to assuage the guilt many people feel for being wealthy, racist, planet killers. So they buy their Carbon offsets, support Mr. Obama's campaign and buy the occasional organic food item. Thus they can feel better about themselves without actually changing their "sinful" life styles, such as giving up their hummer and Lexus SUV's. It's much better to buy a simple "carbon offset" to replace acres of virgin Rainforests with ethanol plantations. (Which actually isn't such a bad idea as long as you don't try and pass off as good for the environment) This way they can point their fingers at the sinners who work in the suburbs, take the bus you heathen scum, don't you know if everyone acted like you we'd need kill three earths!" I could go on, but really, I think you get the idea.

I know this has been all over the internets all-ready, but I found this to be an decent count to the Global Warming Religion. I love how it's always something along the lines of "we're only ten years from disaster! Repent Now!!!". But of course the actions they call for would wreck our society and have no affect on Global warming even it were to be as dire as they claim. Enough of my rants, watch the video.

Super Kim the video. Sadly this art is far too close to reality. The Highlight of the video is Kim's super special awesome move. lol. (Those who sayeth that Germans don't have a sense of humor, never saw this video.)