Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?

Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years.  They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase.  That is open to discussion.

There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least.  Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment.  If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly.  To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.

Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned.  Instead, they are elected to public office.  If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander.  Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.

Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.

Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed.  It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.

For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled.  Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.

The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around."  But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case.  They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day.  Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior.  Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration  were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language.  They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech."  Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."

Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence.  An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.

That is what America is living with today.  If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions.  Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.

What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it.  Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters,  Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy. 

Almost half of the voters in  2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.

Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster.  If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.

Multi-National Companies are never "Patriotic"

Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject.  But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it.  The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer.  Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.

Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.

At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.

At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders;  their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism.  In the last 70 years that has changed.  And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.

The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet.  They have no allegiance to any particular country.  Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued.  Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue.  Each company is concerned ONLY with profits.  Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy.  That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value.  Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best.  Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.

Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen?  Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"

Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States.  But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American").  Not anymore.  Follow the money.  Follow the power.  And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant.  Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law?  Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America.  And other countries are having the same experiences.

As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages.  That is to be expected.  But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom.  Why?

It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things.  Hogwash!  Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets?  This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries.  Why?

One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.

So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.

Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy;  that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.

Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority.  Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?

America is on the brink of becoming a "3rd world country"

My definition (and my suggested reason for the existence) of a "3rd world country" is the absence of the rule of law.  The status has nothing to do with the form of government.  Even a dictatorship can be responsive to the needs of a majority of its people.  Chaos, violence, denial of respect of "others," and a desire to eliminate or render powerless and inconsequential all those who would disagree or challenge a "different" point of view are the characteristics most prevalent.

With the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States, the above characteristics have become predominant...even in those elected to public office.  Prior to his election, once an election was concluded and votes counted, those who considered themselves on the losing side would grouse, whine and moan...often loudly for a bit, promising the collapse of civilization as they knew it...but then retreat to wait for the next election;  there was a respect for the election process and the rule of law.

One can argue that the election of President Trump was a legal revolt by the voters.  Clearly a majority felt that those elected to public office were no longer honoring their oath of office to represent the citizenry, but were actively pursuing  self-aggrandizement, accumulation of personal wealth and of power.  Those possessing the perquisites of elected office find the presence of Mr. Trump in the White House to be a threat to their "elite" status and power, so they...in some cases quietly, in other openly and loudly...do all they can to render him powerless.

Unfortunately, these efforts have not been confined to sanctioned legal political maneuvering.  Elected holders of office and even the press have openly challenged the right of President Trump to hold office, regardless of the fact that the election has been legally certified.  For the first time, elected office holders are urging the portion of the public that disagreed with Mr. Trump's electioneering promises to disregard and disrespect the election and the rule of law, with the intent of disrupting and eliminating any discussion on policy and action in favor of emotional mob rule.  Some have even spoken of their desire that Mr. Trump be "eliminated" only to later disingenuously argue that they only meant removal from office...even as their acolytes and supporters  violently demonstrate, injuring persons and destroying property as they go.

These people behave as if laws are "optional"...only to be obeyed if they happen to agree with them.  Civility and respect for others is now almost universally absent in America, except for small, almost secretive enclaves where people still value disagreeing with others without acting disagreeably.  Friendships and marriages are failing and disappearing because of this encouragement of mob rule as a replacement for the rule of law.

It could be argued that this path started decades ago when the secularists in America began convincing a majority the the rules of behavior handed down in the Bible should be considered the Ten "Suggestions", open to both interpretation and human approval.  Predictably, that now is extending to our secular laws of behavior, as those who chose to ignore and act contrary to law insist that they should not be required to suffer "consequences" for their transgressions.

With the ongoing combination of polarization, disrespect for those who do not agree with us, and the encouragement to disrespect not only the law but also those who enforce the law, it is certain that increased violence will result, as those so inclined will feel encouraged to kill and otherwise eliminate all who do not agree with them.  And that, my friends, is exactly what happens in 3rd world countries.  Take the time to breath deeply, set emotions aside, quietly calm yourself and consider if this is what you want for your country, much less the world around you.

Mob rule in this country was violent.  And the day after, most of the members were quietly embarrassed and ashamed of their actions.  Unfortunately, today's Media encourages and excuses the excesses, even labeling them as justified and proper, not particularly surprising as it if financially and ideologically rewarding for the media to do so.  One wonders if the framers of the Constitution had that in mind when they gave the Press the freedom to libel and slander as they wish under the guise of "freedom" of the press.  The result is that one Mob rule moves on and pops up somewhere else, sometimes under a different name or "cause."  It makes me consider seeing them as the mob equivalent to the renown "Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York" first described in "Guys & Dolls."

It would be reassuring to think that America will wake up at some point in the cold, harsh light of reason and reverse course.

That isn't going to happen.

The "Establishment" Politicians on both sides still don't "get" it!

Perhaps it is because they see any success by President Trump as "Armageddon" to their elite political existence.  I find it hard to imagine that with the myriad professional politicians with elite educational credentials are unable to see the true reason for the election of a businessman with considerable baggage, personally and in business,  to the highest office in the land in preference to a life-long political operative who had so much in common (with, of course, ideological differences) with those on both sides of the aisle.Can they all hold the conviction that Secretary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate and had at least as much baggage as Mr. Trump?

While it is clear that all professional politicians motives, even as they each deny them, include self-aggrandizement, accumulation of power, money and a sense of an elite status, not one of them seems to have the ability to sense, much less analyze and conclude, that the American voter is fed up with the lying and failure to actually care about the things that the voters who put them in office truly care about.

Some of them seem to think that because they were re-elected even as Mr. Trump won in last November's election they were not seen by the voter the same way that hindsight seemed to indicate those same voters saw Mrs. Clinton.  One wonders if they have any inkling that if in their own races there had been 3 or more choices (including a brash, non-politician) that they might have suffered the same fate as Mrs. Clinton.  Because with very few exceptions, it is clear that such would have been not only possible but likely.

Those of the political establishment have for years...decades, actually...gotten away with making promises that were clearly abandoned as soon as the election results were tabulated.  In some cases it is clear that those promises at the time they were made were clearly lies.

Now that President Trump has held office for almost a year, it has been clear to every citizen capable of voting that every other person elected to the Congress of the United States of America acts to prevent any significant accomplishment by the new President...every one, even those who ran on a Republican ticket.

For eight years, Republicans claimed they had a better way of providing Healthcare in America and were prevented from providing relief for the American people because of the veto threat from a Democrat President...FOR EIGHT WHOLE YEARS!  But once President Trump took office, having promised that when the Republican controlled Congress presented the bill to him, he would sign it...that Republican-controlled Congress failed to pass the promised legislation. That is too egregious to be an oversight, a mistake, or something slipping through the cracks!  They lied.

Meanwhile, the Democrats for the previous eight years had proven over and over again that they also were lying to the American people.  They also were moving further and further to the Left, as they took the side of demonstrators who took to the streets hurting people and destroying property and even attacking, hurting and murdering police.  They claimed such violence was only "sporadic" and that it was all part of "free speech."  Somehow they missed the concept of the guarantee being for the right to avoid prior censorship, but not consequences for what was said.

It is unfathomable that professional politicians do not recognize that the majority of the country see them as the equivalent of an invading, occupying force that holds office through subterfuge and fraud while exercising their power to obliterate individual freedom(s) and control both speech and action.

Clearly, the citizens of this country do see that as the truth, hence the election of President Trump.

Instead of colluding with each other to try to take Mr. Trump down...instead of investigating the election, obstructing real partnership to get reasonable legislation passed...and colluding with a clearly "Leftist" media for the same purpose, they should recognize, admit, and act to prove they are prepared to abandon their lust for money, power, and status by actually listening to and acting on the wishes of their constituents.

If they do not, the next election cycle will see a lot of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle facing challenges from candidates that will make President Trump look like an agreeable teddy bear.  And those candidates will win.

Reverse Evolution surrounds us

I recently had occasion to read some microfiche of newspaper articles from before and after the Civil War.  All but forgotten was the personal nature of attacks on politicians running for office and their families.  My High School classes (when High School actually taught you something instead of confining its activity to that of a badly run Day Care Center) had covered the lack of civility and the crass accusations that took over the newspapers of the day during the election season...and they were an embarrassment even to a bunch of cynical highschoolers.  More than 60 years ago we commented to ourselves and our teachers that such no longer happened and we were far more civilized now.  How presumptive were our assertions.

Today's electioneering and candidates actions and statements  make those ugly days of the past seem both civilized and moral by comparison.  Today's fellow citizens leave me embarrassed.  Why?

Somewhere in our inner selves...in  our minds, our souls and our very being...we know that attacks on family are just wrong.  At some basic level, we know that liars are not good leaders; we know that policy is fair game for comment and attack, but that personal attributes (other than truthfulness and moral behavior) mean nothing.  A handsome face does not guarantee anything but a good picture.  A less than handsome visage, with or without hair, or with a wig (good or bad), doesn't make a person a bad leader.

There was a time when bad language, baseless attacks, personal attacks, derogatory comments about family members, a reputation for falsehoods would render any person unqualified for public office.  There was a time when a person's policies would be demanded and then evaluated for effectiveness and sound financial base.  There was a time when the citizens of the United States of America wanted to vote for a person and policies, not against them; we wanted to be for something, not chose the lesser of two bad choices.

Apparently a majority of our citizens have replaced judgement with greed and narcissism; the impossible promise of "free" stuff is now sufficient to cause voters to forego an examination of whether a promise is possible to fulfill, whether a candidate is a liar, whether a candidate is the kind of person that we will be proud to say stands in our stead to the rest of the world.  How disgustingly and offensively cretin-like.  Our collective acceptance of , and dependence on, such behavior should leave us all ashamed.  But we clearly are not ashamed.

We make excuses for ourselves and for our candidates.  We say things like: "All politicians lie, so you have to put up with it."  You hear, "I wouldn't say it that way but what can you do?"  We nod when we hear, "Its about time someone running for office stopped 'pussyfooting' around and called it like it is!"  And yes, we do get angry with the failure of our leaders to keep their promises, and to solve problems.  Yet we also know that solving those problems will cost us money and now a majority of us don't want to hear that truth or contribute to the cost.  The result: we not only allow the lies...we condone them by electing those who lie to us.  And then complain about it...such hypocrisy!

So now we look to have three possible candidates, one of whom will be elected President of the United States: a liar, a vulgarian and a Socialist Septuagenarian with policies proven over the centuries not to work after the money of the rich has been spent.  Boy, do we know how to pick 'em!

I would not give any one of these people my power of attorney, yet our political system is about to give one of them far more power over each of us that would be granted by such a power-of-attorney.  We seem intent on proving to the world our collective stupidity and lack of caring for our country's and our own well-being.

America chooses Barabbas!

Occasionally I wonder at how the United States of America has survived almost Two Hundred and Forty Years.  For the most part we now seem to be a stupid, self-centered people lacking the ability to think objectively about anything long-term...and from time to time even having trouble concentrating on anything for more that twenty-four seconds unless it is ourselves.

While this seems quite clear in general, it is in the political arena where the proof seems written in neon, bold face, italics and underlined within quotes.  Reason has apparently left the building and we are left with mob rule governed by the lowest common denominator.

Need proof?

First, the American Public is angry.  It is angry at our politicians, particularly at the national level, for not getting things done, being "unable to play well with others" and just generally being dismissive of the wishes of the electorate.  The "public" is turning on those that are of the establishment, both on the political Left and Right.

On the political Left, we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  One is an avowed Socialist (recently self-amending his description to Democratic Socialist), promising "free stuff" to all, to be paid for by taking money from the rich and redistributing it to virtually everyone not categorized as "rich."   Recently he has had to admit that he will have to take "some" money from the Middle Class to cover the cost of his promised benefits.  He manages to ignore that even then, the funds that would theoretically be available would be inadequate...even if he took 100% of everyone's earnings.  Yet this candidate is actually winning primaries around the country.  His opponent is a previous First Lady who has served as Secretary of State for the United States of America.  She and her husband have been very successful in creating and obtaining funding for a Charitable Foundation they have formed.  Remarkable sums of money have been donated by all sorts of people around the world to both the foundation and as "speaking fees" to this ex-Secretary of State and her husband...including during her period of service as Sec/State.  Even her most stalwart supporters admit that the coincidence of such payment with requests granted do not look good, but they don't care.  Add to that the fact that during her term as Sec/State, our Ambassador to Lybia was killed and under oath she admitted that she told her daughter and others that the attack was a result of terrorism, but sent out State Department representatives to claim that the attack was the result of a movie trailer critical of Islam. The families of those killed indicate she made the same false claim to them when greeting them when  the bodies of the fallen arrived in the U.S.

Even now, there is a continuing investigation of her choice to set up a non-governmental, non-government sanctioned, email server for herself and her inner circle during her sojourn as Sec/State. The investigation holds the possibility that she will be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act.  At the very least, she has shown a total lack of concern for protecting the secrets of the United States of America.

These are the best and brightest that the political Left can put forth as potential Presidents of the United States of America.

Ah...but let us not neglect the political Right!  The American Public that defines themselves as the political Right have declared that the "professional" politicians and the establishment that serves and represents them have consistently lied to the public for the purposes of gaining office and, once having won an election gone, on to act in only their own personal interests and ignoring the wishes of the people.  So the people of the Right want an outsider; one they perceive as being more likely to actually act on behalf of the people.

The Establishment and the professionals did not, at first, take this sentiment seriously.  After all, in the past such anger dissipated sufficiently by election time to allow the continuation of business as usual.  Apparently they were wrong.

Out of more than a dozen initial candidates, the political Right is, as of now,  down to four. There had been three candidates who had not held public office previously; now there is just one...and he is winning delegates.  The professionals and the establishment is panicking!  They could end up losing their "insider" status along with their inside influence...and in government power and influence is far more important than money.

There is no doubt that politicians on both sides of the political aisle deserve the anger of the populace. They have worked long and hard for it and now they are suffering the consequences.

But...mobs are not good judges of character, ability, right or wrong.  They actually are not good judges of anything...and that is being proven in this election season.  Think about who remains in the running?  We have an experienced administrator currently serving as a Governor of an important state.  He has  a  track record of getting his state government to function effectively.  Yet he has the fewest delegates.  There are two first term Senators,  one with a strong Conservative record garnered at the expense of "not getting along" with other Republican Senators and the other seen as young and too easy on illegal immigration.  But these two are second and third in the struggle for delegates.  So...who is the current leader?  A successful businessman who has grown his fathers substantial stake into a truly impressive fortune of business interests and who has a track record of making deals and getting things done in the business world.  Largely ignored, however, is that his background of political donations and political thought has been largely to the left.  Additionally,  he has switched positions on many fronts often, to the point that, if elected, any action taken or attempted would be in line with one of his promises or positions during the campaign.  A proven vulgarian, he also exhibits certain megalomaniac tendencies and a temper...not entirely unlike the current Office holder.  But...many are supporting him just to punish the establishment types.

Not a pleasant situation to ponder, regardless of who "wins."  It is very likely that regardless of the outcome, the American Public will lose.

But for me, the icing on the cake is that the American Public had said they wanted someone who: 1) was truthful; 2)was intelligent; 3)had proven character; 4)was not "full of himself;" 5)was not "tainted" by public service; 6) humble enough to listen to and learn from others; 7) "played well with others" while holding onto authority; and 8) would hold the will of the people foremost in his or her mind.

They had such a candidate and rejected him: Dr. Benjamin Carson.  Dr. Carson is a man of proven intelligence, raised in a single parent household and rising to the top educationally and in a profession that mandates first that one "do no harm" and with a track record of honesty, accomplishment, administration and truthfulness.  As a neurosurgeon he has dealt with advancing the horizon of the known by studying and learning new things under pressure and under control, earning the respect and cooperation of those around him.  In other words, Dr. Carson was exactly what the mob said they wanted.  He did not insult others, he did not denigrate others, he offered his character and background to the American people...and the American People declined the offer.

Well...it is not the first time.  After all, the mob in Jerusalem chose Barabbas over Jesus!

Madoff for President!

Bernard Madoff is in jail.  He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors.  That is illegal in America...in the private sector.  Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else.  Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.

So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?

Both History and current events hold the answer!

For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people.  Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed.  All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status.  Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money.  Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack.  But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay.  As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.

We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches.  But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt.  Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars;  There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars.  Where is the rest of the money coming from?  FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.

Bernie Sanders is making these promises.  Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.

And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton.   And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.

When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application.  Why?

President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt.  The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars.  But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.

Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly.  That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.

But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.

IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF.  AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"

But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....

MADOFF for PRESIDENT.

Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!

Why a "President" Trump may be best for America

Until this morning I had favored the election of Mr. Trump as President as a means of punishing professional politicians for their narcissistic, inbred consistent ignoring of their constituents wishes, requests and needs, choosing instead to form their badly disguised cross-aisle cooperation to protect each other at the taxpayers' expense.  They all needed to rediscover and suffer consequences. I reasoned that an outsider would accomplish that, and although Mr. Trump seems likely to be far more liberal than I would like, it was paramount to punish all those with such a longer track record of not listening that I ignored his liberal potential.

But this morning my thoughts suddenly turned in a much more positive direction.

One of the constant complaints heard is that our government is not only responsive, but that it just can't get things done.  We hear that our President had no interest in creating any working relationship with Congress in general, with the "other" side, and even is aloof from those office holders from his own party.  We note that even wanted actions by the executive branch don't help because upon an election of a President who thinks otherwise, those decrees can be reversed...so no business or individual can invest in any business because of that inherent risk.

Others point to the Congressional impasses that result in lots of words and votes, but either stall or end up being vetoed by the Chief Executive.

May I suggest that electing Donald Trump is extremely likely to solve all of these complaints, relegating them to the scrap heap.

Why?

What is Mr. Trump's broadest impact on the world?  No, not his Real Estate empire or accomplishments.  It is the book, "Art of the Deal."  It clearly demonstrates Mr. Trump's desire to "get things done"...preferably at a profit, but always as economically as possible.

To accomplish something that he deems essential, is he likely to walk away from anything because of ideology?  I don't think so.  He will want to have proof of what it will cost, where the money will come from (if from borrowing, he'll want to know how it will be paid back), and who and how will the costs be controlled and the results be guaranteed.  No  verbal assurances are likely to be acceptable to him...put it in the "voted for" document for everyone to see.

How or why is this good?

Because now...finally...there is supreme motivation for getting good people to run, and for getting people out to vote for Congressional and Senate elections!

It is very likely that a President Trump will work with whatever Congress the people elect...Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal.  And those elections will determine who will be "dealing" with President Trump.  It is entirely likely that the more conservative the Congress, the more conservative the deals that will be made.  But, conversely, if the "people" chose to elect those of the Liberal or Democratic viewpoints, Mr. Trump will work deals that would be more liberal.  None of us would be completely happy, but I strongly suggest that government would, again, work!  Remember that President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get things done.  So did President Clinton.  Good administrators will find a way to accomplish more things in ways that make the most people more content.

So...if more and more people come to the same conclusion, I think that a lot of Democrats will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump...if he is nominated...knowing that if they also achieve numerical superiority in Congress, their views and wants will be heard and respected.  And those of a more conservative bent will feel the same.  Everyone will then focus on those Senate and Congressional races, realizing that the President will honor those elections in the manner in which he negotiates government action with the Legislative branch.

And THAT would be a good thing for the entire country.

Adages

I was raised with adages echoing in my ears.  Today, I can go for months without hearing even one. What are adages, some of you ask?  Well, as some examples: "Birds of a feather flock together," "The early bird catches the worm," and how about "Call a spade a spade."  Now, an adage is not quite as declarative as a proverb...or even a maxim...but it has its roots in both tradition and observation.

When I was a youth, and I would have some trouble that came about because of things some of my friends were doing I would, of course, claim that I personally hadn't done anything wrong and didn't understand why I was being punished.  The response?  "Birds of a feather flock together."  "You are known by the friends you keep."  In other words, by choosing friends less than wisely, I would be tarnished by the same brush that recognized their miscreant behavior.

Adages came to be recognized by me as non-religious rules to live by; instead of commandments or bible verses used to claim dictates of or by God, adages were based on long experience of many generations...proven to have value and permanence.  Over time and with consistent repetition I came to gain respect for adages...and proverbs and all the rest...as non-experiential ways of living a less dangerous life than I might have otherwise.

Now...there is absolutely no substitute for failure as a learning tool.  If you chose a dangerous path and fall and break a leg, you will never make that choice again...or at least not without taking the proper precautions.  If you invest on the promise of another and lose your investment, you will never take a person's word as sufficient again, requiring some additional form of surety.  Nonetheless, adages do have a very helpful influence and can guide all of us to an easier life, somewhat limiting the number of failures needed to grow and learn.

Where have the adages...and the proverbs, maxims, and axioms, etc.....gone?  When was the last time you heard one, except from a grandparent?

Big deal, you might say; what difference does it make?  Really?  Are you sure you want to go there?

We (the United States of America) currently suffer the presence of an administration and a President that clearly abhors truth, desires power beyond that granted by our Constitution, used words not to explain or clarify but to mislead, distort and subvert, has a work ethic based on sloth, and has surrounded himself with people who clearly want to totally change our governance.

Perhaps you ask, "how would adages and the like have helped?"  Consider my first example: Birds of a feather flock together.  Who raised Mr. Obama?  What was that person's political beliefs?  In whose church did Mr. Obama sit for years, never complaining or objecting?  What were (and are) that leader's feelings about the United States?  One of his associates was Bill Ayers, an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist.  If one had been comfortably cognizant of "Birds of a feather flock together" do you suppose public concern might have been loud and persistent?  I do.

And how about job background and performance as a focus.  "By their works shall you know them."  Simply thinking that out loud and then seeking answers regarding each of the seekers for public office...and particularly that of the Presidency...might have done us a tremendous service.  But that did not happen.  Instead, the constant plea of the con man of "trust me" carried the day.  Twice!

What is past is past.  But I would suggest that there is a lesson to be learned.  And that lesson is that a reflection upon adages, proverbs, maxims and, heaven forbid, Commandments might not be such a bad idea for the future...particularly when electing those who would have power over us.

Do Candidates for Public Office always have to resemble Piranhas?

Politics is ugly.  There is a lot of passive/aggressive behavior lying just beneath the surface too.  During the middle of the last century there was a veneer of civility that provided just a slight softening of the rhetoric.  You could sense the vitriol, but it wan't just thrown out there, but couched in nicer terms with a softer, more civil voice.

There is no question that earlier practice of politics in America was extremely crude and lacked any real interest in truth.  It seemed actually to thrive on emotional name-calling and broad insults designed to anger the foe and inspire smiles, cheering and clapping by those on your side.

I would suggest that there was a conscious effort to "refine" the political rhetoric as we reached into the middle part of the 20th Century.  I always felt that an effort was being put forth to come across to the public as "civilized" in both action and speech...even as the comments sent us all to the dictionaries to determine just how great an insult had just been brandished, albeit by inference or innuendo.

And even as the battles waged at periscope depth, there was what seemed to be genuine friendships among those on opposite sides.  As in the courts, folks could argue emotionally and feverishly one against another, yet sit down and share a drink and good conversation as dinner was served with your erstwhile foe.

Today, rare indeed is a friendship...or even acquaintanceship...that crosses ideological lines, even after the close of the work day.  Not only do people on opposite sides not understand each other...they don't want to understand each other.  At least that is how most of them act, even when saying words to the contrary.

Given that unfortunate state of political art, it nonetheless is confounding to me how people in the same general segment of political ideology can be as negative with each other when vying for a nomination as they are with those diametrically opposed to their point of view.  When viewed as the bigger picture, their differences are extremely minor and, while demonstrably important, don't seem to rise to the level that calls for a "take no prisoners" conflict.  Yet that is what happens in both major political parties...at least as I view it.

I remember Ronald Reagan's admonition to not speak ill of any fellow Republican.  I always like both the sound and the content of that statement.  Even as we now embark on the very beginning of a campaign that will result in a new President of these United States of America, we see this strange sense of cannibalism becoming more apparent.  There used to be an art to a candidate explaining the plus' of their positions that did not require an attack on anyone else; "I am better than 'xxxxx' because I would 'xxxx.' " caused a listener or reader to think about how that person's election would effect the body he was trying to join...and how it would serve our own community.  Those who simply explained why one shouldn't like someone else never used to be a reason to presume that the person deriding another would be a good office holder.  So...why does that seem to work now?  I doesn't with me, but there has got to a serious expectation of its efficacy since almost everyone seems to do it.

And the serious downside of such negative campaigning is that regardless of who wins, that survivor finds that the infighting has handed the real opponents much ammunition to use in the general election.  So...where is the advantage?  I just don't see it.  Short term, maybe there is a boost...but in the age of video tape and recording the long term result is usually disastrous.

Are politicians and political really so stupid as to continue this absurd practice?  I guess we will see in just a bit...

Is Government of, for, and by the People ever going to be possible again?

It seems as if Politicians always lie.  Maybe not every single one, and maybe not absolutely every time they talk...but often enough to leave us with the feeling...and even the conviction...that they indeed are dedicated to something other than the truth.

Why is that so?

I suspect that they do this because they either know or strongly suspect that if they told us the truth, we would not elect (or, re-elect) them.  But...at some basic level we all actually know that they are lying...yet we allow them to get away with the lie.  And we do that not just once...but over and over and over.

But that isn't the whole problem.  Ask yourself..."Why is it that what they promise so convincingly a lie?"  Most of what they promise...well, except for the fact that they insist that it won't cost us anything...is good, is desirable and is worth at least trying.  So...why doesn't it happen.

Well, everybody has their own answer; conspiracy believers abound; folks of all ideologies have their pet talking points; and there are even some who deny that any lies are ever told.

But I have my own:  MONEY!

No, I don't have an argument with the Citizens United case.  And if all ideological arguments were represented by equal money there arguably wouldn't be anyone with an unequal advantage.  But that argument would be false.

The problem is that people running for office, and those who wish to be re-elected to office have to raise money for their campaigns or their election bids will fail.  And that means that you have to convince people to contribute.  They don't do that so that other people will get something...they do it because they are going to get something they want.  Remember the show and film, The Producers?
Every politician is making those promises to each and every contributor; every politician tries to write their plea for money in general way so they can claim that whatever they do, it fits into the promise you think they made to you.  Mr. Obama was the best at this: Hope and Change, right?  Well, he gave each of us that, didn't he.  That was at least one time when, technically, he did not lie to anyone.  Those words were brilliantly chosen to allow each and every one of us who wanted something to change in Washington to infer that he was talking about our definitions of those words.  But he is just the most recent practitioner of the art of parsing words and phrases.  Every politician on every side of any aisle that has ever existed has done the very same thing.  Let the buyer beware!

But where we, the electorate, really lose control is when you get very, very rich people getting together and meeting personally with a candidate or office holder and making huge donations that carry very specific conditions...conditions that are NOT made public, that are NOT transparent...although if we knew the people involved, we all could probably figure out just what was bought and paid for.  And we get angry...not because it is done, but largely because WE can't do the same thing...OUR wishes aren't going at the top of the list...it isn't votes, it is money, because the money buys the votes through tv, radio, internet and radio advertising; money buys staffs and re-election offices and the best minds to craft high sounding populist slogans that make people trust the untrustworthy.  THAT is where the problem resides.

So...what could be a solution?  Is there one?  One that doesn't offend the Constitution?  I don't know...truly!  But I do have an idea.

What if any politician running for any Federal Government Office did not need to buy advertising space, time or access?  What if any person running for such office did not have to pay for production costs for advertise, whether print or media?  What if pay for all re-election personnel were covered by a source other than contributions?

Supposing every candidate was guaranteed equal time and equal space and they need not do any fund-raising?  Consider that if we can keep the emphasis on the message each candidate is communicating, we all are better off than if the candidate even before the election (and whether he or she even knows it has happened) has sold out.

Is that worth a try?

Hey...there is no such thing as a free lunch.  It'll cost you...you, the electorate, ... you, the taxpayer.  But you just might once again have control of your so-called Representatives, your Senators, your President.  Shouldn't that be worth something to you?  If not, stop reading and go back to whatever you were doing before you tripped over this column.  Otherwise...let's see how we could actually do this...

First, where would the money come from?  That's easy...the Federal Government.  Where would they get it?  That is easy too...from us.  Not that little box we sometimes notice now on the IRS forms each April, but from use of General Fund moneys appropriated for the purpose.

Who would control this attempt?  Well, one possibility would be the creation of an independent organization outside the government run much as the current Congressional Budget Office which is non-partisan and simply applies numbers; for this it would track advertising space, placement, tv and radio time, internet efforts and insure that all candidates got equal time, equal space and equivalent time slots on a rotating basis.  Each outlet (paper, tv station, radio station, etc.) would indicate the total time that they were willing to alot, and that time would be distributed absolutely equally.  All production costs would likewise be covered by tax funds and those expenses would be controlled so that each candidate would have equal resources to produce their flyers, ads, commercial and the like.

The key here is that no candidate would have to sell his or her votes in the future to fund getting elected...they would have the opportunity and perhaps even the obligation to speak truth to the electorate.  This would cost billions...but we are wasting billions now on silly things.  Wouldn't it be better to buy ourselves honest elections?  Do you have something better that would provide more benefit to you and your family than that?  I have to say that as far as I am concerned, there is nothing of more lasting benefit, not just to me, but to my children and my grandchildren.

Why can't people try to find out how to make this...or something like it...work, rather than throw up their hands and simply write it off as not workable.  If you see something wrong with it, come with a way to fix it or make it better.  Because the way we are going is just encouraging our "representatives" to keep on lying to us and selling us down the river.

Perhaps Foreign Policy SHOULD be a factor this year....?

As we get into the mentally dangerous election season, we focus quite correctly on our domestic lack of jobs as well as our unwillingness to be financially accountable. In so doing, we logically reflect our most immediate concerns about personal and familial well-being; we (apparently unlike the Federal Government) need to balance our budgets while providing subsidence and pleasure (in that order) for our families. The result of this targeting of concern, of course, leads to the quite unsupported conclusion that foreign policy is either “fine” or “not important.” And that is, quite frankly, not only wrong...it is disastrous, particularly long term.

Consider the acts and attitudes that this administration has taken and expressed:

The missile shield for easter Europe was scrapped for what was claimed to be an equally effective (but later shown to fall short) mobile system;

Support has been shown for regime change in courtries where the result was either unknown, or guaranteed to put Islamic militants in power;

Support has been denied to uprisings in Iran where the result would be guaranteed to put less theology-based rule in effect;

The U.N. Has received both financial and vocal support for plans to place control of small arms under treaty-based International Control under the aegis of the U.N., thus abrogating the United States Constitutional protections of such ownership within the United States;

Support continues to be expressed for Agenda 21, which would decimate the rights of personal property ownership, and remove state and local control of land and natural resources;

And the one democratic country in the Middle East, Israel, has found that the official administration support for its safety and well-bing is illusory at best, and non-existent at worst.

Some of you might argue to the contrary, quoting the statement of Mr. Obama while still a U.S. Senator in 2008, to AIPAC on June 6^th, “That is the change we need in our foreign policy.  Change that restores American power and influence.  Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security."

Sounds great, right"  No doubt what he said or the plain meaning of his words...

However, might I suggest we look at his, and his administration's, words and actions since then to see if those wonderfully clear words translated into consistent action?  Or did they prove an easily voiced dis-ingenuousness on the part of Mr. Obama during an election season?

Consider the following:

!. Without any "heads up" to Israeli leaders, he calls for Israel to unilaterally return to 1967 borders as a precondition to starting negotiations with the self-proclaimed "Palestinians";

2. Mr. Obama makes a speech in Cairo in 2009 in which he equates Israeli and "Palestinian rights;

3. The President then compounds the insult by failing to include a visit to Israel and it's leaders as a continuation of that same trip;

4. Mr. Obama reveals his true feelings about Israeli leadership in a conversation with French President Sarkozy when he respond to a complaint from Mr. Sarkozy with the infamous reply, "You're Fed up, but I have to deal with him every day" as reported on November 8th, by CBS News (and how painful must that have been for them!);

5.  And in December, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was quoted as telling the Israelis, regarding peace talks, "Just get to the damned table."

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered merely a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship with Israel.  The administration has claimed just that, and the media has accepted them as such, looking at each of these occurrences in isolation and as a minor glitch.  But...when looked at as a whole they show not only a constant degradation of the importance placed by this Administration on the American/Israeli connection but rather a disregard that is diametrically opposite of Mr. Obama's words back in 2008.

Now, any one of these acts and/or words would be considered a "hiccup", a stumble if you wish, in our relationship.  But when taken together they reveal a pattern of both disregard and greatly reduced (and, perhaps, even the absence of) concern for the well-being of Israel;  there is, instead, evidence of a greater concern with ameliorating and placating those who oppose the well-being and welfare of the United States in the world, encouraging Islamic-themed theocracies in the Middle East, and reducing the stature and power of the The United States of America throughout the world even as he personally acts in a manner designed to further his own self-aggrandizement.

So, while all of the elements noted above can and have been written off as relatively insignificant and/or meaningless indicators of diplomatic direction if viewed individually, when viewed as a whole they reveal a disquieting pattern...one that surprisingly has failed to garner the attention of either the public or the media.  The United States is likely to pay dearly for this lack of interest.

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.

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.  

I woke up in a sweat last night...

not because of a cold, or a malfunction in the heating system.  No, it was what started out as a ghostly appearance of understanding that, as I moved toward consciousness, grew larger and more disturbing with each moment.

As an individual who started life as a Rockefeller Republican and has slid to the right ever since...to the point where John Birchers look liberal and chaos theory makes sense as a political policy guide...what I suddenly was considering seemed like a threat to my very core beliefs.  And I believe, as I describe it to you, it threatens the very core beliefs of those on ALL sides of the Political Spectrum.

First, consider the reason for the Democrats recent loss of a majority in the House of Representatives.  They listened to those in opposition, then trivialized and marginalized those opposing points of view and finally treated them with a mocking, denigrating disdain.  And when they lost the election, claim confusion about why they lost.

They had applied Alinsky's Rules with dedication and precision.  What they did not realize is that if your defined enemy suddenly becomes more numerous than you, you have a problem...a very big problem.

The Republicans, in turn, have done the very same thing.  Granted, they treat those ideas with which they disagree with dismissal, rather than outright action.  They ignore, rather that voicing their disregard, but that is a matter of style, not substance.

Both sides practice this approach.  Many in the world also have done it.  The problem lies in choosing an opposition that ultimately can outnumber you.  When that happens, the best propaganda machine in the world loses to the numbers.

Only once in my lifetime has this approach ever worked.  And it worked because the practitioner realized that  an enemy had to be selected that could NEVER become the majority.  The National Socialists in Germany under Hitler selected the Jews as the enemy.  This ensured that application of the forerunners to Alinsky's Rules could never be trumped by numbers.  And the application had singular success.

This political application was shear genius.  Hitler's, and Germany's, demise was a result of bad war strategy, not political failures.

But my shock upon awakening was not caused by the fact of this application...it was that its continued practice here in America and in the world prevents us from taking care of our public existence properly.  The political spectrum is not really about political ideology as much as it is about acquiring power over others.  Most are subconsciously aware of this, but ignore it because of the very public discussions and arguments about the "ways" of acquiring it, as if the particular political point of view validates seizing the power to tell others what to do.

Disagree?  Consider:  I may have any number of political views which I think would make the country (any country) a better place to live for me, my children and my community...but I don't go out and demand that others live under that particular set of rules.  Who does?  Dictators.  Conquerors. Despots.

Anybody else?  Well, those who secretly would love to be a Dictator but sense the personal danger in acquiring and keeping the position as well as a desire to be seen as a more benevolent but superior person form a group acquire power.  In some cases this is an army.  In many others, it is a political party.  But I cannot see how anyone can argue that at its center is the desire for power over others that starts the trouble.

In the South Pacific Islands they had a practice (I do not know if it continues) of selecting as King that person who least wanted to be King.  And, if he grew to like the position, they would kill him, eat him, and select again.  Not many failed to appreciate that it was NOT good to want to be King.

I like that practice.  It serves to put power over others in perspective and surely helps minimize it.  Wish we could do it here.

Elections: looking for "my" candidate

Lying in bed the other night, unable to get to sleep, the question suddenly came to mind, “What would or should I want in a President?” Following shortly thereafter was the edited thought, “Well, what would or should I want in anyone that holds any public office?”

After a brief flurry of the time-tested adages...you know...things like honesty, ability, enthusiasm, and the eternal “wants what I want him to want” I decided to clear the slate and try (and I emphasize, “try”) to come at this subject from a different direction. So...here is the result....

The first major concept that I found comfort in was “He or she never looses touch with the electorate.” Someone really smart once said that a good leader knows to stay far enough ahead of his voters so if they wish him ill, they cannot catch him...but close enough so he can sense when they are about to take a hard turn and take it ahead of them, preserving the illusion of  leadership. The concept is not only true, but requires a truly dedicated, aware, intelligent person. A stupid person cannot do this. A narcissist cannot do this. Any office holder needs to have people who he will listen to that can give him accurate feedback on the attitudes and moods of “his” people...and the politician has to “want” to listen.  And he has to be continually looking for new people to do this, to avoid the insular stagnation of being separated from direct voter input.

But that is not enough. Sure, you can swerve with the crowd and appear to lead...but swerve too often and the voters will be forced to see the truth, that you are not leading but following from the front. They do NOT want that. So...what do we, the voters, want? I think we also want a teacher, a professor. NOT a dictator that talks down to us, but a person who is not only willing, but both able and anxious to explain the path that they would like to take, what its benefit to the voters will be, how it will work, how to tell if the idea works or not. AND, if he is unable to convince the voters of the wisdom of what he thinks should be done, then...and only then...change his focus and approach so as to represent his voters wants and desires, not continue blindly and run over his constituents.

And I want this person to be able to promise me that he or she understands all of this, is committed to it as the only proper way to govern and to promise to quietly and thoughtfully listen to voters if they feel that he or she has gotten away from this way of doing serving the constituency. Ideally, he would identify during his campaign 3, or 5 or ten, people that he trusts who he would listen to if they sensed that he was getting away from this promised method of representation and, if he could not correct his course or could not be convinced that he had gotten off track, promise to resign his office.

This kind of representative is someone I could respect even if his plan and concept of government was different from mine because his election would be the result of voters' decisions, not just mine, and elections have consequences. But if he or she does his or her job: reads the bills, discusses details with constituents, listens and reasons on behalf of his voters, and responds to and protects the concerns of his voters, his heart and mind are in the right place and he has earned respect.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found such a person. Perhaps none exists. But...I can hope, can't I.

Would a loss of Congress lead to 4 more years for Obama?

I sometimes hate it when a mental light bulb goes on late at night, especially late when I am trying to get to sleep. Last night was just such an occasion, and I really didn't like what I saw as it went on.

Consider this. The economy is in the tank and people feel threatened by the deficit and the now beginning-to-be-visible costs of Obama Care. The Democrats could very well loose the House of Representatives in November and their majority in the Senate. Sounds good for traditional thinkers, right?

Well, maybe not so much.

A Republican Congress would prevent the continuation of the big government, anti-business changes and threats of changes that have stifled any real business growth that would take us out of this morass and bring unemployment down. And Republicans would possibly be able to get some pro-business legislation or at least some relief for small business enterprises. This would lead to a real positive change in the economy.

Do you believe for one second that Obama would not claim credit for an obfuscate the real causes of any economic improvement? With his snake-oil-salesman's ability, he would go around telling all how he saved them all. In other words, it might just lead to his re-election in 2012. If, and it is a big if, the Dems lose Congress, the Republicans had better be on their toes to document their part in any improvement in the economy, or they will have won the battle but lost the war.