Today I spoke with a friend on the phone while I waited to for a little Chinese restaurant to open and I could get lunch to take back to my desk. We talked about the idea of praying for a business miracle. We agreed that such powerful mojo should not be wasted to defy the laws of reason for such an individual serving end with limited mass market appeal. One has to consider unintended consequences and trickle down economics when pondering the effects, post-miracle. Please pray responsibly.

I just got a chill. I felt the collective eye roll as you read that. “Does this guy really think he is capable of ill effect from a poorly considered prayer”? I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for.

Too close to a Bible thump for you? How about applying the same logic to legislation, where I am obviously less reluctant to offend people. Why? One is based in belief and faith, with or without proof. The other is based in history, logic, mysticism, and superstition with or without proof. I know that was as clear as an Oreo crumbled and dissolved in a half glass of milk. Can you tell the cookie from the milk? I doubt it makes any difference. Some practice politics with religious fervor and view skepticism as heresy.

I am a Methodist, or claim to be. This was the denomination of church I started attending as a child, so I must be one. Right? It turns out it suits me. I later learned, Methodism was a label applied to the methodical, critical evaluation of the basis in the historical documentation of the teachings of the Church of England, and at times, the lack thereof. The original Methodists believed the actual words were the source of information instead of the interpretations of previous generations. Each generation could re-discover the facts instead of being bound by dogma. I wondered as I was scooping up a half a pound of coconut shrimp in a styrofoam box if this is my political belief. (Being free from dogma, not the shrimp in the box.)

So what am I? I am regularly in a conversation with someone who says, “So you are a libertarian, or conservative, or constitutionalist, or neocon, or moron,” or fill in the blank. I usually say, yes, but. . . then I have to explain exceptions. I am not a libertarian, not always. I don’t think that we should be as close to anarchy as possible without killing one another. I think that there are some limited areas where I am willing to give up some personal liberties to get some other benefits. Investors from other countries need a certain amount of confidence that our laws will protect them from anarchy, for instance. In years past I have benefited from that investment in American growth but suffer now from the hesitation caused by the political anarchy in Washington today.

Likewise, I am not always conservative, which Mike Church points out begs the question, “What are you trying to conserve”? Not everything, I think that we should constantly be attempting to improve on our current strengths, sometimes moving forward, sometimes back. This is why I don’t think that the Constitution should be left alone as a sacred document and should, from time to time, be changed. (Notice I did not say updated or improved.)

Moron . . . well . . . I’m not sure my defense would benefit me more than my silence.

We Americans have an obsession with being able to label people and put them in classifications. So I guess I have to be classified but can’t find one that always fits. Logically, there can be only one fix. I have to make one up. Then I have to change it whenever it doesn’t seem to fit, until it doesn’t need tweaking again. Here goes.

I feel ethics and emotion and empathy should be lead us when setting our goals and direction. But, I think that facts, logic, and reason should direct our actions toward those goals. I am a political protestant, unhappy with the established government priesthood scolding us into dogmatic ritual with unclear connection to the original core truths. We want to feed the less wealthy in this country, but discourage food production in this country and promote more expensive importing of it. They can’t work here in food production and can’t afford the imported food. We want to end hunger in other countries, then put free food in their market which runs local production out of business and food becomes more scarce. We want to help the poor to rise from poverty but incentivize it with protections for self esteem and other non-poverty related acts of “social justice.” We take good intentions and implement them with good intention. We ignore what has improved the standard of living for the most people in human history for fear of looking uncaring. Shouldn’t we care about helping, not looking like we care about helping?

I want to be a policy result scientist, of sorts. I believe in poli-logic. I suggest applying the scientific principles to public policy that we advocate for global warming and other scientific concerns. Test, conclude, confirm, then open the results up to public scrutiny. Simply, prove that the intended outcome actually comes out of our policy. When I am asked to give up personal liberties, I want some scientifically substantial logic that the promised benefits will actually come to pass and if it still does not, that we are committed to giving me back my liberty. Limiting American manufacturing pollution to the point that our manufacturing moves to countries where they are worse polluters, will not pass this test. If the reason for the imposition is to limit pollution, the end result cannot be higher pollution in another country.

Likewise, any restriction on Americans and American business must be shown to be important enough to extend those restrictions on any imports from other countries. Anything less is dishonest. When an idea is supported on the premise that we should “give it a chance,” it is still in the research stage and is not feasible enough to insure that infringing on someone’s freedom could be justified. The first tenant of poli-logic: Be careful what you wish for, be certain that your actions actually lead to what you wished for, and be ready to take it back if you are wrong. Pray responsibly.