"Citizens" vs "Government": Which serves the "will" of the "people?"

 Violence recently visited our nation's Capitol.  Elected Officials responded with fear and outrage.  Some died.  Generally, the Media condemned the people who demonstrated anger with the Federal Government.

Does anyone else note the similarity and parallels of this event with the Boston Tea Party and other violent events in our country that proceeded the Revolution? 

For years, we have been surrounded by the attitude and claim that government exists to serve the people.  We even used to call our elected officials and other who get a paycheck from the Government as "Public Servants."  Not sure if that term survives in today's America, however. But is is curious how that concept was jettisoned universally in the wake of the demonstration of anger against what many today refer to as "the Washington Swamp."  Across the political spectrum, few deny that our elected officials no longer act and vote in a way that demonstrates that they represent those who live in the districts and states from which the were elected...ostensibly to represent the whole of those states and districts rather than serve their personal goals, wants, and desires.

No objective person believes that if Ms. Hillary had been elected anyone not "in the know" in Washington would ever have known about the weaponization of our security agencies, about the lying to the FISA court, and other self-serving motivations of those at the head of these Federal Agencies.  The hatred of a person coming to office that wasn't looking for or flattered by being offered a ":seat in the Washington 'club' " was not only natural but essential to the "swamp's" survival.  And survive they did,.

Perhaps, however, those who are members of and who value "the Swamp" might be wise to know that those who showed their anger can very well be described as a "small faction" of the electorate, but for each person who was protesting in anger there are 100 who could not attend and who are just as convinced that our government no longer serves or cares about us but instead exists to create power and financial security for themselves.  They act and speak as if none of us notice how our elected officials come into office with average self-worth, are paid salaries that barely cover the cost of living in D.C., yet retire with vast fortunes...the source of which is never explained or questioned.

For now, "the Swamp" abides.  But I wouldn't bet the farm on just how much longer its control will survive.  And the Media is seen as just as corrupt.  Tomorrow is another day.  As investment firms advertising always says (quickly, in small print or too fast to actually hear) "past performance is no guarantee of future performance."  I would add to that "or of survival." 

COVID-19: a discussion

(Disclaimer:  I am not a medical doctor.  I have no qualifying scientific degrees.  But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about.  That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts.  So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate.  Proceed at your own risk)

My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):

• The "unknown" causes fear
• Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear
• Fear eliminates logic
• Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions

About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.

The fear was immediate and grew exponentially.  The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction.  Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing."  "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.

One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted.  But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps.  These are to be expected.  But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong.  Consider the following:

• Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.

One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person.  

• Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.

This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.

Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds.  Some of these errors:

1. Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;
2. Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.
3. Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care.  Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless PROVEN FACTS point to a specific line of action.

When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind.  Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span.  The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years.  Others have the same record.  So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:

• If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus?  Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?
• Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus?  Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"?  
• Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment?  Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause).  And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death.  Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections.  If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover.  Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?

And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?

What do you think? 

What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?

President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him.  It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him.  In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment.  The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions).  What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?

Is it his performance in office?  Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely.  And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama.  So his performance cannot be the added element.

Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background.  That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection.  We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.

How about getting along with people?  Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause?  Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day).  But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.

Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us?  Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump  and that of President Obama.  Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office.  So...why?  Why indeed!

Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology?  With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view?  A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.

Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery.  All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.

What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different?  I suggest two (2) primary factors.

President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years.  Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served.  President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become.  He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years.  He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.

That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened.  And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve.  And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!

The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected.  Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.

For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.

Beware of "haters,"  they have something at risk and something to hide.

The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office.  They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right.  So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning.  The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government.  President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.

So surprise turned to fear, then to hate.  President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate.  And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate.  And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate.  All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."

Disagree?  Tell me why...give specifics.

Are the "Hate Crime" statutes attempts to by-pass the Constitutional guarantee of free Speech?

For three quarters of a century I have been angered by many events that centered around the exercise of free speech as guaranteed by the American Constitution.  Most were personal events that occurred after I had gotten to voting age and had to endure what I considered bad language that not only was often physically impossible but also un-civil.  These offended my perception of what communication should be in any civilized society.

Then there were general public exercises of offensive behavior and speech that seemed to violate existing social norms.  Included in this list, was the burning of the American Flag and the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, at the funerals of fallen servicemen.

I admit to a visceral anger at such behavior, and the wish for the power to put such activities to an end.

On reflection, while there was great danger in any preemptive prohibition on speech and/or action that did not encourage actual physical harm to others, it seemed that in cases where a case could clearly be made for damage being inflicted on innocents or others those who were injured should have the right to restitution.

Logic suggests that the courts, SCOTUS included, have wrongly and carelessly expanded the definition of "free" in free speech to include freedom from consequences of that exercise.  A careful consideration of the concept of free speech seems to clearly mean that the founding fathers wished to prevent the preemptive prohibition of any person from stating a case on any subject that they found compelling.

There is no action in this world that does not have consequences for those committing actions...or speaking words.  ONLY in America are people allowed to insult others, call them vile names and, in the case of politics, actually lie about accusations and behavior.

In any moral sense, this is wrong.  Certainly any person can comment or accuse, but isn't it just common sense that there needs to be truthfulness in the comment or accusation?  Absent truthfulness, shouldn't any person...rich, famous, poor, unknown...be able to call any such commenter or accuser to make the victim whole?  What social, moral or governmental purpose is served by allowing reprehensible language.

Note that I see such action as being in civil courts, and never as being based on statutory laws.  This should never be in the criminal realm.  Why?  Because then the government is given control of determining what is acceptable or not.

I abhor the passing of "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" legislation.  The activities specified are already against the law and the courts have jurisdiction and those engaging in such actions can be punished for their actions.  Frankly, the motivation for abhorrent behavior is not of importance and certainly should not the subject of governmental definition and intuition.  As far as speech is concerned, the Constitution is clear on it being allowed.  I certainly would allow action to recover provable injury from such speech...as long as it was in civil court and the judgment made by a jury.

Hate Speech statutes seem only to be a means for the Federal Government to "pile on" for largely political purposes when some crimes are committed.  That is not reason to create more power and put it in the hands of the level of government most removed from the people.

Tracking "differences" prevents operation of America's "Melting Pot" heritage

Our Government, at every level, has stopped America from continuing to operate as what we used to refer to as "the great melting pot."  When our country was "discovered" by the Italians, the Scandinavians and the Irish, among many others, as holding out the opportunity for attaining success, they ran into opposition.  Much of it was oriented around Race and discrimination.  But over time, that passed and today they and their offspring are seen as "American" as anyone else.

Today, we have arguments about "racism" all to often, regarding Color of Skin, and Religion...and there seems little hope that it will be resolved anytime soon.

Why did the first groups go beyond it in relatively short order while others cannot seem to get beyond the perceived challenge?

I hear comments that America has a problem with "white" privilege, that a significant portion of our residents are racist and act punitively against anyone who is not considered "white."  Others posit that skin color never fades and is always a sign that is interpreted as being "different."  And the argument regarding religious practices and beliefs adds fuel to the flame of perceived negativity.  All of these positions are offered as reasons (or excuses) for the failure of groups being assimilated into American Life.

These reasons (or "excuses") don't hold up to close scrutiny.

Those who came to this country voluntarily wanted to become Americans.  They had not found opportunity in the country of their birth and wanted the chance to attain more.  They knew there was no guarantee of success, or even of survival, but they appreciated that America provided opportunity to try to achieve something more than was afforded them in their birth country.  Many failed.  Significant numbers died.  But those who survived became full-fledged Americans thankful for the opportunity to succeed or fail on the basis of their own abilities, rather than a caste or other system in the country of their birth that denied them the chance to prove themselves.  They saw the obstacles, including the racial opinions of those already here and established, as challenges to be overcome.  There were no guarantees or gifts of success, but they accepted that as only fair.

African-Americans did not come by choice.  And until freed by the Emancipation Proclamation few had the chance to succeed on their own abilities and merits.  But freed they were, and declared to be citizens of the United States of America.  Did they have challenges due to lack of education?  Yes...but so did those who came from the Mediterranean and Asian countries.  Did they face organized resistance and fear from those already established?  Of course they did, just as did the other groups that had chosen to come here.  The big difference was not the color of their skin; those of Mediterranean and Asian Heritage had the same obstacles. Their big difference was choice!   What was the solution to that challenge?   They could have actively petitioned for funds to travel back to their home country.  Of course, history tends to ignore the fact that African-Americans were sold into slavery by their own countrymen for profit and to eliminate competition for power. Going back to those countries would allow them to look the same as others of their race, but they were unlikely to survive for long...and they had become used to living in America.  So the clear choice for the vast majority was to stay here and strive for a successful free life.

And that struggle was severe in the Southern States of America due to the ingrained attitude of non-African-Americans to see African-Americans as less than equal.  And the North, despite their self-serving claims, wasn't much better;  they simply hid their opinions a bit more effectively.  The Civil Rights Laws passed in the mid-twentieth century as well as the Supreme Court decisions of that ere were needed to provide legal protection for some semblance of equal treatment.  But equal treatment in America as well as throughout the world has always been an illusion rather than a reality.  It hasn't, doesn't and never will exist.  America tries harder than most, but it is an impossible goal because the human race is not equal at all.  We all have different abilities and traits and no one and no government can or should promise equality of anything.  All that can be promised is to allow each person the right to take a chance.  No guarantees of success or any level of result.  People don't grow up equally.  Someone born to well-educated and financially secure parents has a better shot at success than someone born in poverty to parents with no appreciable education.  That is the way of life.  But even a casual study of achievements reveal that a fair number of children born in poverty achieve greater success than those born into wealth and privilege.

The reason that a perception of racism remains so strong today is that our governments' decisions to trace and classify Americans today by Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and Religion tells us that such differences are important.  It says that even if you are a third generation American, the background of your great grandparents matters...officially.

It shouldn't.  Yes, the laws of this country can provide a legal remedy if one is discriminated against...and they do.  But that should be a private action by one citizen against another...not a basis for tracking by and the interest of the entire Federal Government.  Leaving the government out of tracking such differences would send the clear signal to all of us that such differences do not matter, that we are all Americans and we have that common identity.

Every immigrant group that has come to America has had to comply with the requirements of our immigration laws, has had to adjust to American Society.  In most cases, those coming here would gravitate to hold to themselves for emotional and financial security, even as they encouraged their children to learn English and become "American."  Later generations increasingly became assimilated with the enthusiastic encouragement of the first arrivals...the "melting pot" worked.

Currently there are only two groups where this hasn't taken place;  African-Americans, and those of the Islamic faith.

African-Americans that have failed to escape poverty can look to the Federal Government as the real cause.  By taking the attitude that there needs to be virtually eternal financial support in a variety of forms, the Federal Government has essentially declared that African-Americans cannot succeed on their own efforts and merit.  By so doing they invite and encourage all but the most dedicated and inspired member of that community to just take the offerings of the Federal Government and remain dependent thereon.  They take it...but they are not stupid and do recognize that they are being disrespected and ultimately resent it mightily...and quite correctly start to "cop and attitude."  Any human being would. Want to see a happy community? Provide limits to government support, but provide plenty of job training and guidance.

The other group that has not assimilated is that of the Islamic Faith.  They show no sign of wanting to assimilate.  Apparently, they want to re-create their country of origin here in America.  That includes Sharia Law and a way of living that is contrary to the inherent freedoms of American culture.  Such "separateness" should not be permitted...certainly not the legal attitude.  In America, American Law applies and no area of the United States should be allowed to apply any other standards.  If immigrants fail to follow our laws, they should be deported back to their country of origin.  If already a citizen, they need to be prosecuted and jailed.

But our Federal Government would go a long way to recognizing the equality of every American by applying the policy of benign neglect to any and all attempts to track any racial, gender, ethnic or religious elements of its citizens.  As the populace realizes that it isn't important to the government, they will cease to see it as important to them.

Do any of us really care anymore?

The curse of retirement has resulted in the time to read, study and ponder on many things, one of which unfortunately turns out to be government and politics.  A friend recently responded to one of my multiple paragraph musings with the observation that these matter have been the subject of thought by untold numbers of individuals over the ages and he stated that he would leave further exploration of the various matters to the "deep thinkers."  He is probably right.  Life was much easier when I knew less.  I could decide matters on what usually ended up being a "black" or "white" basis; grays were minimal and my attitudes tended toward the absolute.

The more I read and study, the less certain I am about the propriety of any action, or belief.  If unchecked, I can reach a state of decision-paralysis because of the now-apparent multiple repercussions of a particular action.

But...I have to discuss, write, and debate with others even though I am fully aware that none of these activities will actually solve, correct, or even answer any of the questions of the day...even the simple ones.  I will do all this because...and I admit to a level of narcissism here...it makes me feel better, more alive, more engaged with life.  At my age I am no longer able to sweat out my frustrations and stress, so I have to "think" and "express" them out.  Fortunately there are some of my friends and acquaintances who find this behavior on my part either entertaining or enabling (I am not sure which, and I don't much care since they put up with me...so far) so I am not yet an exile or a mountain-top hermit in a cave.  Perhaps that will come later.

Meanwhile I wonder if any of us really care anymore...and whether or not we should!

Today's America leaves me exhausted

I had to stop writing blogs for awhile.  Focusing on the idiocy of the political and the educational world in particular left me depressed and drained.  There are real problems.  None of them are incapable of being solved.  But no one wants to eliminate them unless they can garner some personal or ideological gain...and under no circumstances do they want to "fix" anything if it involves diminishing in any combination their power or wealth.

Today I read that the SAT scores hit a new low this past year.  And the first comment by the testers was that no one should worry because it was due to more "students" (whatever that means these days) were taking the test than ever before and to the increased "diversity" of the pool taking the test.  Huh?  Right...and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.

Our Government is to blame for this idiocy.  The entire Federal Government, including Congress, every President, and the Supreme Court.  Because it all goes back to an unwillingness (or inability) to accurately evaluate and then design a way to correct the results of racial prejudice.

Rather than recognize that the in-equality of the past needed to be corrected substantively, the Government forces determined instead to institute the appearance of equality, rather than make it a fact.

For the most part, life has consequences...at least it used to.  It was results that counted, not excuses.  If you failed a test, you flunked.  If you did that enough, you got "left back a grade" and some actually left school at the earliest permissible age because they just didn't want to study...or couldn't.  Schools were for learning.  So were Colleges and Universities.  Your performance got you entrance and progress and a degree.  The degree meant something...it vouched for your achievement.

But, instead of focusing on the opportunity for all to learn and thus achieve according to that achievement, the Government dictated that minorities were now to be granted entrance, and degrees because of their minority status rather than their competitive achievement.  The decision was to make the world look as if all was well and, in fact, guarantee that minorities would have the appearance of success whether it was earned...or not.

This has had enormous consequences to our nation...well, actually, no longer a nation but a country.  Because the damage is multifaceted.  First, minorities have not been helped by the program.  Everyone, including the minorities, knows that the "achievements" are bogus...or at the very least, are suspect...regardless of the piece of paper.  The same goes for hiring, due to Federal requirements that once again throw out achievement in favor of appearances.  If people want all to strive for knowledge and achievement, you must make the opportunity equal...but you must require the equal achievement of learning and ability on an equal basis as well.  To act as the Government has done is to subtly (well, maybe not so much) suggest that minorities actually cannot compete...at least not on an equal basis.  How totally insulting, demeaning...and stupid.

But that is only the start of the damage.  All who have grown up in this atmosphere of selective granting of artificial status see that it ISN'T achievement that is rewarded...and hard work and study is not the key to a better life.  They have watched as consequences of non-performance or under-performance have been either eliminated or lowered.  So...they demand the same.  And, in the prevailing sense of "equality" they have been granted the same "pass" to avoid being left back in school, or denied admission to college, or denied their diploma just because they didn't do the work.

Students today will, it appears, not have to learn how to write cursive because, I am told, they all use computers or "text" or some such.  I have no idea what they will do if the power fails, or someone sets of a neutron bomb that takes out all the cell towers and crashes the power grid.  I suppose it will inspire a whole new set of cave paintings.  And I refuse to even consider how they will sign their names to any legal documents...I suppose there wont be any need for them, as no one will be held to whatever "thought" was a binding agreement.

Young people coming out of school at any level today already can't add or subtract without a calculator or some sort.  If a scanner breakes in a store, the clerks cannot tell you what to pay if you are buying more than two items...and if the scanner malfunctions, have no concept from the illogic of the inaccurate total that it is, in fact, inaccurate.  No wonder people find it hard to get jobs...they think their piece of paper means something while they are functionally both illiterate and untrainable except for the most mundane of tasks.  Yet they insist on benefits, pay, and treatment as "entitled."

So of course the SAT scores are down.  Why bother to work to learn all those things that get you higher scores; they don't matter.  These poor disillusioned souls have been led, trained and indoctrinated to expect that achievement not only doesn't matter...it isn't even to be considered.

The Government, the Educational (so-called) community, and all forms of authority have determined that thou shall not say "no" to anyone...even parents are prevented from requiring and enforcing their own children's upbringing.

No wonder the United States is populated in this century by narcissists.  It is how they have been raised.

My Kingdom for a (real) Candidate...

Call me disillusioned.  Call me disappointed.  And...probably, call me an idiot for wishing for the impossible.

The elapse of time reveals "stuff" that books and articles almost never share. One of those is that both what are called "Left" and "Right" ideologies started out very close together at the beginning of the last century and have been moving farther to the left with every passing year. It was, among other motivations, the recognition of this that was behind Bill Buckley's efforts to enable the formation of a real Conservative movement in this country.

Unfortunately, that movement (as do all political parties) sees the solution in how government is run, and ignores (or discounts) the inherent dangers of government itself to the individual freedom. In a sense, all current political ideologies are "Progressive" in nature because they see the government as the "proper" vehicle for solving problems of a country's citizens. The only difference is that those to the far left see the government as the solution to ALL problems, seeking to eliminate personal consequences for any acts, while those less left (I shudder to suggest that they are really "right") see some problems as still being the personal responsibility of citizens.It would be nice to see even one candidate who said that he (or she) recognized the government as being the enemy of personal freedom and responsibility and was running, not to IMPROVE government but, to be a place holder to prevent further incursion of personal liberty by government and, if at all possible, to make it less able and less efficient at controlling individual initiative; that the only reason for government at all was twofold: to keep other countries from filling the void, and to enable an effective national defense (arguably, that would include securing all of our border...including the one with Mexico). Won't happen...but if it did, I would move if necessary to be able to vote for that person.

None of the governmentalists (as I call them) recognize, value or make of the highest priority the protection of the freedom of the individual, coupled with the resulting self-reliance and responsibility (which actually includes  enduring the consequences of bad decisions as well as the rewards of good ones) and the corresponding requirement of Government to stick to the one reasonable activity of protecting our borders.

Ronald Reagan was the only President in my lifetime that seemed to recognize the danger of Government...yet he was unable to accomplish more than slow the tide of growth and power, while attempting to protect individual freedom, initiative and responsibility, of the Federal Government. It will take more than just finding the right President...it will require finding a new Congress. Sadly...that will probably never happen.

Ideology: The Yellow Brick Road...to nowhere

ALL proponents of government in any form are voluntarily deluding themselves. Each suggests that their ideology "serves the people' best. Nonsense. Once formed, government serves itself only. At a superficial level, there is no doubt in my mind that Conservative governing principles serve the individual best, but only at an unacceptable price.

Individual Freedom alone is responsible for individual success. Absent a personal benefit, of what purpose is taking what one person earns to care for another that has NOT earned enough? It is one thing to chose to do that, but another to be MADE to do that...by anyone.

When you take from "doers" to give to "non-doers" you begin the process of destroying incentive for anyone to do anything...because it is inherently unfair and unjust. Leftists, by whatever name they use to fly under the radar today, believe that some should contribute to those who do not produce. They cowardly wish to accomplish their idea of good deeds with other people's money. Those on the Right chose to act to protect individual rights (so they say) but they charge their own form of vigorish to protect that. In both cases, government serves it's own end: the accumulation and preservation of power over others.

The Founding Fathers recognized this in the Preamble. And it is becoming time to take those words to heart again and recognize that our own government has become exactly what the English Government was at the time of our first Revolution.

Stop fighting over what form of governmental plantation you want to preserve, and recognize that we need to re-establish the concept of individual personal freedom and self-reliance that government, by it's very nature, steals and destroys.

Sacrifice and Greed

I read comments from Politicians about the "need for common sacrifice" to get through our economic challenge.  There would be no problem with a request for common sacrifice if it were 1) equally shared by all, and 2) followed an elimination of the causes that led to the need for sacrifice. However, that is not true here. It is the government itself that has caused our problems, and it has not corrected it's policies or actions. Our "representatives" (boy, is that a joke. Certainly it is a one word oxymoron) are still serving their own, instead of the country's, well-being. And the sacrifice is defined by this President as continuing to spend money we DO NOT HAVE.

Everything we do as a country today is done on BORROWED funds. Is Libya important enough to us that we should borrow the money from China to do what we are doing? Because that is exactly what we are doing. Is the Department of Education doing enough for you, your country and your children that you are breaking your kids' piggybanks to get the money to fund them? Because, figuratively and perhaps realistically, that is what you are doing when you allow our government to continue to spend more and more money on departments and programs that have not accomplished demonstrable success for years and always whine that they just need MORE money...yet never produce results.

Greed? The Government, Politicians, and public sector unions set the standard. If they could hold themselves to the same level of behavior as the much-denigrated "rich" there would be an improvement.

As I was growing up, my father told me one day that when deciding on whether to try to do something, or invest in something, most people ask the wrong question: they ask "what can I make?" He told me that the question is fine, but it has to be prefaced with two other questions first: 1) "What can I lose?", and 2) "Can I afford to lose it?" Only, said he, if you can define the answer to the first question and say "yes" to the second, should you even bother to ask the last question.

Why does it appear that these simple rules are never followed by our Politicians and our government...on ANYTHING? And why do we not demand that they do so? Do we all have a Death Wish? I am starting to think so. After all, we do not have any money. We borrow it all. We do not have the money to pay all that we owe today if our creditors were to ask for their money.

Is Libya important enough to us that we borrow the money for the no-fly zone from China? Really? Because that is what we are doing. How about the same question with regard to our membership in the U.N.? Foreign Aid? Payments to the Afghan and Pakistani governments? Troops in Europe? The President's trip to South America (really, hasn't he ever heard of tele-conferencing?)?

It would be questionable enough if we actually HAD the money...but we DON'T.

I can't do this sort of thing as an individual or as a business without having concrete answers to these questions FIRST. Why does the government get a free ride?

Japan...would WE be prepared?

No.  Not a hard answer, is it?  But most people I speak to talk about the government being broke,...or stretched too thin.  This all may be true, but the primary reason we are not, and never again will be, prepared is that we have lost the sense of self-reliance and self-preparedness that our parents (well, at least MY parents) had. They never stopped drilling into me the idea that no one else's lifestyle mattered...you needed to afford your own. Keep up with the Jones'? They didn't understand the term and when I explained it, they just laughed and labeled it insanity. You lived within your own budget; you put aside money for "rainy" days; you make decisions and then lived with the consequences...no "blame someone else" mentality was allowed. I remember once I got into trouble...not for doing anything wrong, but because I was hanging around with some "friends" who, indeed, had done something wrong. I got a suspension out of it and complained. My father said it was my fault..."you are known by the company you keep and if you want to be highly thought of, don't hang around with them...there are consequences for bad choices, so don't complain to me" 

Today, Americans are wrapped up in "blaming someone else" and expecting the government (or "someone") to bail them out of trouble. They don't even TRY to prepare for "rainy" days...they are too busy keeping up with the Jones'. Smoke and mirrors and the illusion that there are no consequences. Stupidity is the norm for the day throughout America.

Why allow the deficit?

Words, words, words...that is all you hear from politicians.  I guess I should be pleased that at least they are mouthing ones that say what I consider to be the right thing...but is there, or will there be, actions that back those words up?  These are politicians, after all...


As I child I was taught, and my life has confirmed, that there is a big difference between desirable expenses and essential expenses; that when money is short, desireable expenses go first and then, when things get really tight you have to prioritize the essentials, because some of those are going to have to be cut or eliminated too. Our government apparently never learned that lesson. And what is worse is that the American people have forgotten it.

There is not one family or one thinking individual that believes that you can ignore spending more than you take in and not have consequences...bad, very bad consequences to both you as an individual and to your family. Yet, we allow our government to perpetrate the myth that somehow the federal government can do it and there is no problem. Hello? Anyone waking up? Anyone in GOVERNMENT waking up? Words won't solve the overspending, we need to see our representatives ACT by NOT SPENDING.

For those under 50, set 70 as the age for maximum SS payments. For Medicare and Medicaid make citizenship a requirement for benefits. Go after the fraud in the medical industry. Eliminate the useless Department of Education: for every tax dollar only 32 cents comes back as a benefit, so without the taxes the local communities would have three times the money to use AS THEY SEE FIT. Cut defense spending...pull our troops back from Pakistan (they don't want us) and Afghanistan (they don't want us, and we can't smash Al Queda anyway) and promise if they act to effect the US we will vaporize them...let them decide if they want a future or not. Put our troops on our border with orders to kill drug smugglers...and let them do their job of protecting the U.S., not foreign countries...stop funding troops in Germany, South Korea and other places.

We aren't the world's Santa Claus and we AREN'T making friends around the world with our money...stop giving it to them.

Our Government and our President seems to have a God complex. They're wrong. Just take care of America and the American people and let the world be...they aren't stupid and they can take care of themselves.

It really was the Government's fault...

Our current recession could not have begun without the bad policies, blindly and foolishly implemented, of the Federal Government.  President Clinton and Democrat Leaders pushed, beginning in 1993, for more low income and minority home ownership.  They passed the Community Reinvestment Act and gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the mission to facilitate low income and minority home ownership by requiring them to purchase what we refer to now as sub-prime loans.

Under Clinton Administration pressure, regulators had to come up with new lending rules, under which banks had to show that they had made a required number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and that they had come up with innovative or flexible ways to accomplish this.  HUD pressed for new mortgage lending policies under the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy developed at Clinton's request.  Among other things, it called for financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home and to make the payments.

First result:  Homeownership during the Clinton Administration went up 5%( as a comparison, home ownership during the Bush Presidency went up 1%);
Second result:  Sub-prime loans made to borrowers with bad credit records rose from 7.2% to nearly 19%.
Standards for other loans fell as well.  Freddie and Fannie eagerly, as instructed by the Federal Government, bought all these loans.

Yes, of course the investment banks and wall street come up with a way of making these obviously bad investments look good by creating the device know as derivatives.  Yes, they were both foolish and greedy.  Yes, they acted like gamblers instead of bankers...but that is merely a matter of degree of risk, not really much more than admitting what has been true all along.

But here is the key...absent Barney Frank's committee and resulting House action coupled by action in the Senate honcho'd by Dodd, the opportunity for bad credit risks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Investment Banks and Wall Street to act badly would NOT have occurred.  End of story.

 Dodd is gone...Frank remains.

Do National Politicians have the capacity to learn?...Anything?

There are few differences between the governing of King Louis XVI of France and of todays Federal administration in Washington, D.C., in the United States.

Both acted with little concern for public wishes. Both acted to benefit their own interests. Both ignored the fact that they were acting disrespectful toward the majority in their country. And both had fair warning about the possible consequences of continued unresponsiveness: in France there was the convening of the Estates-General followed by members of the Third Estates proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath; here in the United States we have had the spontaneous rise of the various (and numerous) Tea Parties, followed by an election that clearly sent a cautionary message to the United States General Government.

Will history show that the parallel continued? I do not know. But, the actions of the current Administration to date show the same degree of disregard that was shown by Louis XVI. Perhaps someone in the White House and in Congress would be well served by going to their windows and recognizing the fast-vanishing patience and already aroused anger of the populace...their survival might depend on it.

Wonder what kind of odds a British Bookmaker might give me?

Obamacare and the Courts: an Opportunity

Obamacare is, of course, on its way to being guest of honor of the Supreme Court of the United States.  While some see this as just one more case, I believe it has the possibility of being a moment of renewal,in our country's history; there is the possibility of a regeneration of, and re-dedication to the Constitutional restrictions on Federal Power, particularly when in opposition to States Rights.

Prior to Roosevelt ascending to the throne, the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional all attempts by the President and/or Congress to extend Federal control over States Rights. Much was made, albeit briefly, of Roosevelt's defeated attempt to pack the court by increasing the number of Justices. But generally ignored is the fact that over the course of his presidency, he nominated all 9 justices serving at the time of his death in office.

The result of his long tenure was that he nominated Justices that were in favor of his Federal extension of power and over-riding States Rights. That is how, after a number of defeats, the New Deal Legislation that started down the path of over-reaching Federal Power over all Americans, including the diminution of States Rights, succeeded.

That change was in defiance of "stare decisis" and much approved by a Democrat Congress (and President).

Why would there be any problem if, as they consider the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court of the United States were to recognize the departure of the Roosevelt Supreme Court from stare decisis and correct that departure by correcting the course of Constitutional Law back to that originally set by the Founding Fathers?

Indeed, such may be exactly what saves our country from continuing down the path of rejoining the europe that was abandoned in 1776 by Americans, only this time rejoining the democratic socialism that is the European Union of today.

Is Anarchy the only answer?

The term "good" government is fallacious; there is no such animal.  Government in any form is just the process of a few elites acquiring and exercising the power to control the "public"...the "others."  And minkind's unalienable and undeniable instinct to control others prevents any government from being "limited."

"If" government could be limited to providing for the common defense of our borders, to building and maintaining roads, power and water along with a Supreme Court to provide ultimate redress from local injustices, we could see some benefit.  But such is never the case.  It is like being a little bit pregnant...and each step of acquiring more power is presented as just a small, inconsequential step in such a reasonable manner that we sheep simply "baa" in acquiescence and later wonder where our freedom went.

And no ideology changes that.  On the one hand, providing we can keep them from bringing the country down with them, the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-elites will fail when they run out of other people's money.  On the other hand, the Conservative-Republican-elites cannot, once in power, resist the temptation to claim more power and create larger government even as the claim otherwise.

All forms of government and all ideologies end up denying individual freedoms and being punitive to all who would preserve liberty for all.  Perhaps peaceful anarchists have it right. Perhaps Chaos Theory should be a political ideology as well as a scientific one.

I'll miss Ed Rendell

Every once in a while you find yourself surprised by your own reaction to something or someone.  And it almost always, if I find the time to mull on my surprise, leads to a self-teaching moment.  I saw an article a few days ago about the fact that Ed Rendell, the outgoing Governor of Pennsylvania, is about to be out of public office for the first time in quite awhile.  Now, I do not agree with much of what Rendell's writings and comments say that he believes...not at all.  But I found myself feeling a loss at his departure...and that was a real surprise.

Like Bill Bradley, Rendell was on the other side of the political table and I did not like their policies. So I leaned back and thought about it for a bit...and discovered that I thought they were both "Good Guys."

Let me define who I consider to be "Good Guys."

To me, a good guy in politics is a candidate and office holder who believes in the United States of America as a just and dependable entity...a country they think of as did the founding fathers: an imperfect experiment in trying to protect individual freedom (to succeed, to fail, to suffer, to conquer) by protecting that freedom from danger from both other countries and saboteurs within.

Sure, Rendell and Bradley wanted to encourage helping the disadvantaged; they felt some people need more help than others to succeed and believed that the government should provide that help.  In that sense, they had less confidence in the American people than I do, but their heart was in the right place.  They wanted to help the deserving, not support the ne'er-do-wells that would live off of the public teat for as long as it would be allowed.

But they believed in the essence of America, of the United States of America, of an assimilated group of citizens that believed as one even as they argued and fought over the details...Good Guys.  They, and others like them didn't believe in ignoring our borders, throwing citizens to the wolves of illegal invaders, foregoing their constitutional duty to protect us.  They listened to their constituents most of the time...and when the didn't, and the elections proved it, they didn't deny the lesson of those elections...Good Guys.

Wish there were more "Good Guys" out there today.  I miss them.  And I'll miss my imaginary arguments with Ed Rendell, too.

Have Politicians REALLY Changed?

Suddenly (in the past couple of years, or so) we have started hating and disrespecting our politicians.  Oh, we have always hated and disrespected politicians in general, but now we are including our own politicians.  Why?

Have any of them really changed?  After all, those among us who consider these things long ago realized that no person runs for public office for the money...at least not the salary.  It isn't high enough to pay for the trouble, aggravation and responsibilities thrust upon one by the job.  And some of us recognize that "pay" is split into two kinds: monetary (salary, pension, etc.), and psychic (I like doing it, people are helped by what I can do, I get a car and driver, I get 5 weeks vacation, I get to tell others what to do, my commute is short, etc.).  This is all pay, and explains why some people stay at jobs that we know pays less than they could get elsewhere; the psychic income makes up for the monetary shortfall.

One of the elements that is psychic and always applies to a political office is one of these two attitudes: "I know better than anyone else how to take care of this."; or "No one else that knows what their doing is stepping up to the plate so I have to."

So, since this applies to all politicians...and has always applied to all politicians...why are we just now starting to get really, really unhappy with even our own representatives at each and every level of government?

I suggest that it is because all politicians are becoming more truthful.  Stop gasping...I mean it.  Now, don't get me wrong...not in everything, but just a small and perhaps inadvertent way in dealing with we, the voters.

Given that each and every one of them believes that they are superior to everyone else, at least in their district or state or whatever area they represent, and that has not changed...why do we feel differently now?

Well, think about how you have felt in the past.  For me, it was always that "every guy in office is crooked, taking money under the table and ignoring the public except for mine."  See, when he or she came back to their local office or was running for office or hosted a Town Hall Meeting, they acted as if they were listening, they behaved toward us with respect, telling us with their expressions, their words and their posture that they cared about what we wanted and wanted our guidance so they could accurately represent our interests.  Think about it...really...that what they used to do.  All of them...every time they went "home."  Of course, for Federal office holders, home was always in D.C....they never, ever wanted to have to come back to their roots,  but that is for a later discussion.

What started happening during the debate about changing healthcare was that politicians became tired of pretending to value their constituents' views, of pretending to care what they thought, of pretending to treat them as equals.

Sure, we always knew, deep down, that we were being conned.  But they worked so hard at it, and avoided rubbing their presumption of superiority in our faces so well, that we allowed it, reassuring ourselves that at some point they did understand that we (collectively) could throw them out on their posteriors at any time...and that their posturing was an acknowledgment on their part that they understood.

But for some reason, last summer they didn't bother to put on the mask.  They stopped playing the game.  Or perhaps they decided that it really was a game and didn't need to be played anymore; the "children" were now to be told "BECAUSE" instead of being taught, to be told to go sit in the corner, instead of reasoned with, to be treated as the lesser beings that they were and continue to be.  In other words, our representatives assumed the authority of Divine Right, if not of Kings, then of superior, elite holders of public office.

And then they acted, and continue to act, surprised that we do not hold them and their judgments in the high esteem that they themselves assume.  

Is today's Turkey tomorrow's America?

George Friedman has been writing a fascinating series of articles recently sharing his view and travels that he entitles, a "Geopolitical Journey."  Each article stands on its own but does cause you to want to read each of the others, as it places the current political climate of a number of of the eastern European and border states in context with each other, the world and, of course, individually.  I highly recommend taking the time to slowly read and assimilate the thoughts in each article...they are fascinating.  And the thoughtfulness put into the presentation by Friedman is to be both appreciated and savored.

Anyway, I digress...to my point...

Friedman's description of the current state of civil, political and religious life in Turkey is enough for a semester course in any University of note.  He cuts through so much pre-existing world views of what and who Turkey really is that you continually find yourself having, as I call them, "Ah-hah!" moments.  Enough light bulbs go off in the course of reading that you almost keep looking up for the camera's with the old-style flash-bulbs.

Turkey today is being challenged by a population that is an Islamic majority, with a government that is hugely populated by secularists that have the support of a strong military that also favors secular rule.  The current political party in power speaks earnestly of the value of and it's interest in preserving a secular government, while acknowledging the Islamic demand for more input in governance.  The Islamic drive for political power is a given in Turkey...the background of the Ottoman Empire is still a genetic part of the population that is in various phases of conflict with a secular government designed by Atatürk following the First World War to pull Turkey into the modern era.  It is this history of secular governing that causes most of us in the West with only cursory knowledge of the country to have until recently seen Turkey as a western Allie on our side against the other-aligned Arab states.

But here is the most interesting element...with a secular Government that excludes any active involvement of religion, Islamic or otherwise, Turkey is now suffering from unease as Muslims are now demanding that accommodation be made for their faith by the government. These are not extremists, these are your regular, normal practicing Muslims that follow the Qur'an and the Prophet's teaching which include striving for political power.

There is unease particularly among young secular Turks, who do not want to be governed by religious tenets with which they do not agree.  And the current government, while elected with Islamic votes, has continually striven to re-assure the population that the government will not become Islamic and that Turkey will always remain a secularist modern society with all the individual freedoms that that promises.

Those in America who refer glowingly toe Islam as "the Religion of Peace," would do themselves a service by reading Mr. Friedman's article on today's Turkey with an eye to recognizing that the tensions in Turkey right now are likely to reappear in America in the future, as the Muslim population grows more and more rapidly and with it the demand for more and more accommodation for Islam in this country.

At some point there must be extensive, quiet discussion among reasonable people recognizing that there is conflict between Islam and secular government.  We in America will have to decide just what we can, should and will do about it.

Should the Tea Parties just "go away?"

The more open the government is, the more difficult it becomes to govern;  the more involved the populace wishes to be in governmental affairs, the greater the obstacles to those "great minds" and "great thinkers" who "know how the country should be run."  I can understand fully the desire of many for the Tea Party to just go away, for the people to quiet back down and allow those who "know better" to get back to work establishing  live the way it should be.  I truly understand.

There are many examples in history of associations and individuals of such great minds dealing with such difficulties:  King George on England, of course, comes to mind first; then there are Robespierre, the Czars of Russia, King Louis XVI of France and others who have "tisk, tisked" their distaste at the audacity of the common people to question "their betters."

And today, the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite mimic their forebears' reaction to popular unhappiness with disdain, both personal and ideological, as well as personal insults, with "they just don't understand" visages, and "we just haven't learned how to communicate effectively with them" comments to their Press Relations people (you know, those professional reporters from ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) who nod sagely, admiring their sagacity.

When history repeats itself, as it surely will, their surprise will be absolute.  We, the poor, the uneducated, the unwashed, the "stupid" PEOPLE will not go away. I apologize for that...well, maybe not so much.  After all you will have earned everything that will be coming to you.