Unelectable

There comes a time, when once enlightened or at least enamoured of reason one rules oneself out indefinitely from ever becoming a leader 'of the people' due to the compromises inherent in the process of 'assuming' power.
What a great word 'assuming' is, noteworthy because it is a true representation of reality. It is my belief that power is never at base taken, only given. This doesn't mean things like coercian cant make the act of giving power seem very much like taking power. A fine example is the Pascal's wager base argument (note not the actual thought exercise) that if we love god, who is great and good and only an idiot wouldn't love him anyway we also have a choice between giving our will over to god's master plan in order to achieve etrnal bliss, or choosing otherwise, the MOST unpleasant everlasting experience ever with no chance of reform or repent.
But the emphasis must be placed not on the coercive aspect of hell, but the fact that as Dawkin's pointed out Hell would only have to be midly unpleasent to work as an effective disincentive to choose the path of light. That is that one chooses to give power to God by virtue of it being the only 'rational' thing to do.
But enough enough, what I really wanted to look at was Democracy not religion. I have been reading Chomsky's 'Deterring Democracy' which is a stunning book and well worth reading, if I could believe in a world where its hard enough to get a majority of people reading a piece of entertaining fluff like 'the life of Pi' or 'The Kite Runner' let alone persuade enough people to adopt a lifestyle where they don't have to take a holiday in order to find time to read (and usually light pieces of fluff) or choose a method of commute to work which takes their hands of a stearing wheel.
these are ironic thoughts to come from someone who writes a blog.
Infact the point I am trying to make of my own ineligibility to be elected can be demonstrated easily by reading the '1 star' reviews of 'Deterring Democracy' which for me inspire ammendments for my UN charter on Public Debate namely the old chestnut I also found in the Amazon.com review of 'My Isreal Question' which is that they simply have no place to comment or publish on their subject matter because their credentials aren't reliable enough. Chomsky being a linguist and Antony Loewenstein being 'I was very disturbed at his apparent lack of academic qualifications, which further reduces his credibility.' and I even hesitate to mention the two because when it comes to the Isreal-Palestine conflict, I don't care well not anymore than any other conflict in the world by two tribes that hate eachother.
And again you have a fine example of democracy at work. All three potential presidential candidates condemned Jimmy Carter's trip to visit the leadership of the PLO. And in the last Australian election you could vote between Rudd & Howard and subsequently between Apologising and not apologising, combating climate change or combating climate change, war in Iraq or Staged withdrawal but not any divergance on the 'peace process' in the middle east.
I mean we have come a long way in being able to vote on whether to stay in Iraq or not. Due to unfortunate timng we didn't have a choice about going, and the first time around we didn't have a choice about going to the first Gulf conflict.
And furthermore if you are running for president of the US the 'practical realities' are you have to believe in God, and that is something I and people like me can't do.
And furthermore if you believe in say Land Taxation you can't be elected because everyone knows that you need financing for advertising space to get elected.
And that means you need donations, and once you need donations you have boundaries on what you can actually do. You have to otherwise there is no incentive to donate.
And now my head is full of too many poisonous ideas to well documented here for me ever to be a contender and recieve donations.
So hereby I bow out of all leadership races ever.