One thing that is disturbing me the most about our electoral process over the past several years is the fact that fewer and fewer citizens are truly trying to understand the issues, to consider various options to resolve those issues, and then doing some real research to find out which candidates represent their position on how the issues should be resolved. This is a letter I have submitted to many local papers to try to open up the eyes of the voters before the election. Nothing written in stone here, but I did want to make my opinions heard.
Letter to the editor October 3, 2008
Make Democracy Work
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately, considering both old and new approaches to our current political situation, and I think that it is now time for all of us to set aside the partisan mud-slinging campaigning that has occurred this year on both the liberal and the conservative sides. I was recently reading some history about the evolution of the representative democratic form of government that we have in this country. The ideal that has allowed this form of government to successfully survive for over 200 years is the concept of discussion, and, most importantly, two-way communication. Our current dependence on the mass media as our source of information has resulted in a one-way street that has made discussion of the issues by the everyday citizens of the country impossible. We have come to accept that our legislators will take care of everything if we just leave them alone. Well, one thing is certain. They won’t represent us unless we tell them what we want them to do, and how we want them to vote on various issues. These negative ads thrown back and forth right now (by both sides) are, or can be completely misleading. I think the first thing we should do is to make clear our dissatisfaction with this type of campaigning, and demand that candidates focus on what THEY plan to do, and how they plan to pay for it. And until that occurs, we need to do whatever we can to verify what the candidates have done in the past.
I would also point out that we should not limit this communication to election time. We need to make sure that our representatives are kept aware of our interests and our concerns at all times., not just during the elections and not just at the federal level, but the local level as well. Remember that those who fail to make their needs and their concerns known to their elected representatives have no right to complain if those concerns are not addressed by those representatives.
Further, we have the responsibility to educate ourselves more about the issues, themselves, and about how they affect the country. I personally have always held a liberal perspective, but now I have studied more about capitalism and the free market economy, and I can see that there are positive aspects. Free Market = new business = higher employment = competition = lower prices = more income for the working person = more economic growth. But when mega-corporations, outsourcing jobs and greed come into play, the benefits are significantly reduced. Likewise, socialism has its positive points. Simply put, in a pure socialism everyone performs at the kind of work that they do best, and do the best work that they can. The economic benefits are then shared equally by all, and no one has to do without the basic necessities of everyday life. The problem here is that in such a society, a person may choose to look for the easiest job, or choose not to share their abilities fully to the group as a whole, knowing that at least their most basic needs will be met.
Both sides have their positive and negative aspects, and it behooves each of us, no matter what our leanings may be, to consider all sides of the question, and then to make our candidates and our sitting legislators aware of what we want. Let’s open up a two-way conversation between the citizens of this country and their elected representatives. Lets not automatically presume that they are the be-all and end-all of all knowledge about what this country needs. An election – any election – is our opportunity to make our voices heard. Let’s make sure that we keep up our end of the conversation and demand the same from our elected officials.
Barbara Crumb
Branchport NY 14418
315-595-2557
(Please do not publish address or phone number)
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Election 2008
I just finished watching both conventions and to see first hand a comparison of the "politics of fear" compared to the "politics of hope". I chose C-SPAN, rather than network to reduce the possibility of any commentator's bias.
The politics of fear has played a huge role throughout the history of mankind. It is nearly always a tool of the group "in power" at the time. It is a strategy that has clear roots back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch Hunts throughout Europe. This was a time in the history of mankind when the Church of Rome was attempting to consolidate their power, both secular and spiritual, under the control of the Church. The common people of that time were undergoing extremely hard times, with the control of the wealth and the land primarily in the hands of a few favored families of aristocrats. The Church also wanted to expand its power and control over the masses. However their attempts at an effort to convert the masses was hindered by the fact that many were not eager or willing to give up the "old ways" that had been brought down through their ancestors. How better, then, than to build their own power base by blaming all the hardships of the common people to these "witches" who consorted with the devil and brought drought to the land and disease to the livestock? Bad weather? Blame it on the witches. Unfaithful or cruel spouse? Blame it on the witches Drought? Flooding rain? Blame it on the witches, and let the power of the power of the Church overcome these creatures of the devil. And the suffering common people did just that. In fear, they brought anyone that they thought might be trying to harm them or do them evil before the magistrates of the Church, and the Church protected them from these "evil doers".
Now, just jump ahead a few centuries, and find yourself in Germany, just after World War I. Your nation has been defeated and decimated. Both food and shelter and food, along with other necessities are extremely scarce. Inflation is rising so fast that even should you find something, you can't afford it. Then comes along an individual who wants to take control of this country for himself, and a chosen few that he has chosen. He, along with a small group of like-hearted individuals find it very easy to find a scapegoat for all of this misery - the Jews. Thus, he provides an outlet for all the frustrations of the German people suffering from the war's outcomes by blaming the Jews (as well as the Communists and the Homosexual - ANYONE who could be defined as "different") for all of their hardships. And once he has brought them under his control by capitalizing on this fear he is able to use them in his grand scheme of gaining control over all of Europe, and eventually the world.
Jump ahead again to our present day and time. On 9/11/01, this country was attacked by terrorists. The Nation was stunned. How could such a thing have happened right here in our own country. Of course, even before the terror died down at all, this country started to look for those responsible for the attack. The blame was taken and accepted by a group known as the Taliban, under Ossama Bin Laden and our forces were mobilized to neutralize this force and to take Bin Laden into custody. However, the administration saw the opportunity to take advantage of our fear to proceed was ith other plans that they had been developing to ensure our access to foreign oil. Thus, the country's immediate fear of terrorist acts was used to justify a pre-emptive strike against a middle eastern country. That invasion was based on evidence which later proved to have been completely false, and was based on the administration's claim that Iraq was inextricably linked to the terrorist organization that had attacked us.
It was interesting, and somewhat frightening to see how the Republicans continued to try to manipulate the American electorate with their "Politics of Fear". Today, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center is a most appropriate time to examine how it has been used to foster fear among the American people. Ossama Bin Laden admitted to being the mastermind of the attack. He was known to be in Afghanistan, with the core of the Taliban forces. The United States went into Afghanistan , and went a long way to breaking up those forces. They declared that country to be under control, and moved on to Iraq. There was no known link to the Taliban in Iraq at that time, and, in fact, it would have been highly unlikely, given that Saddam Hussain was a toyalitarian dictator, and not likely to share his power. However, the President opened a campaign of fear by creating a threat of WMD as well as chemical and biological weapons to justify an attack on Iraq for the stated purpose of protecting the United States from further terrorist attacks. Further, and in the long run far more dangerous, was the enactment of the Patriot Act, under which any person, citizen or not, could be wiretapped and have their financial records, as well as all other personal records investigated on the presumptive basis of possible activity which could be defined as potentially aiding or abetting possible future terrorist attacks. A warning system was established so that if the possibility of an attack was predicted, the country would be warned by a red alert. Lower probabilities might warrant a reduction to an orange alert. I do not recall any situations where the warnings were reduced from red to orange, or from orange. Red alerts, when announced went on perpetually, and were updated every time it appeared that the citizens were losing the edge of fear that was being placed on them. This edge of fear permitted the executive branch to hide under a cloak of secrecy "for the good of the country". Further, it permitted more and more erosion of the basic rights of all citizens guaranteed to them under the Bill of Rights.
The politics of fear has played a huge role throughout the history of mankind. It is nearly always a tool of the group "in power" at the time. It is a strategy that has clear roots back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch Hunts throughout Europe. This was a time in the history of mankind when the Church of Rome was attempting to consolidate their power, both secular and spiritual, under the control of the Church. The common people of that time were undergoing extremely hard times, with the control of the wealth and the land primarily in the hands of a few favored families of aristocrats. The Church also wanted to expand its power and control over the masses. However their attempts at an effort to convert the masses was hindered by the fact that many were not eager or willing to give up the "old ways" that had been brought down through their ancestors. How better, then, than to build their own power base by blaming all the hardships of the common people to these "witches" who consorted with the devil and brought drought to the land and disease to the livestock? Bad weather? Blame it on the witches. Unfaithful or cruel spouse? Blame it on the witches Drought? Flooding rain? Blame it on the witches, and let the power of the power of the Church overcome these creatures of the devil. And the suffering common people did just that. In fear, they brought anyone that they thought might be trying to harm them or do them evil before the magistrates of the Church, and the Church protected them from these "evil doers".
Now, just jump ahead a few centuries, and find yourself in Germany, just after World War I. Your nation has been defeated and decimated. Both food and shelter and food, along with other necessities are extremely scarce. Inflation is rising so fast that even should you find something, you can't afford it. Then comes along an individual who wants to take control of this country for himself, and a chosen few that he has chosen. He, along with a small group of like-hearted individuals find it very easy to find a scapegoat for all of this misery - the Jews. Thus, he provides an outlet for all the frustrations of the German people suffering from the war's outcomes by blaming the Jews (as well as the Communists and the Homosexual - ANYONE who could be defined as "different") for all of their hardships. And once he has brought them under his control by capitalizing on this fear he is able to use them in his grand scheme of gaining control over all of Europe, and eventually the world.
Jump ahead again to our present day and time. On 9/11/01, this country was attacked by terrorists. The Nation was stunned. How could such a thing have happened right here in our own country. Of course, even before the terror died down at all, this country started to look for those responsible for the attack. The blame was taken and accepted by a group known as the Taliban, under Ossama Bin Laden and our forces were mobilized to neutralize this force and to take Bin Laden into custody. However, the administration saw the opportunity to take advantage of our fear to proceed was ith other plans that they had been developing to ensure our access to foreign oil. Thus, the country's immediate fear of terrorist acts was used to justify a pre-emptive strike against a middle eastern country. That invasion was based on evidence which later proved to have been completely false, and was based on the administration's claim that Iraq was inextricably linked to the terrorist organization that had attacked us.
It was interesting, and somewhat frightening to see how the Republicans continued to try to manipulate the American electorate with their "Politics of Fear". Today, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center is a most appropriate time to examine how it has been used to foster fear among the American people. Ossama Bin Laden admitted to being the mastermind of the attack. He was known to be in Afghanistan, with the core of the Taliban forces. The United States went into Afghanistan , and went a long way to breaking up those forces. They declared that country to be under control, and moved on to Iraq. There was no known link to the Taliban in Iraq at that time, and, in fact, it would have been highly unlikely, given that Saddam Hussain was a toyalitarian dictator, and not likely to share his power. However, the President opened a campaign of fear by creating a threat of WMD as well as chemical and biological weapons to justify an attack on Iraq for the stated purpose of protecting the United States from further terrorist attacks. Further, and in the long run far more dangerous, was the enactment of the Patriot Act, under which any person, citizen or not, could be wiretapped and have their financial records, as well as all other personal records investigated on the presumptive basis of possible activity which could be defined as potentially aiding or abetting possible future terrorist attacks. A warning system was established so that if the possibility of an attack was predicted, the country would be warned by a red alert. Lower probabilities might warrant a reduction to an orange alert. I do not recall any situations where the warnings were reduced from red to orange, or from orange. Red alerts, when announced went on perpetually, and were updated every time it appeared that the citizens were losing the edge of fear that was being placed on them. This edge of fear permitted the executive branch to hide under a cloak of secrecy "for the good of the country". Further, it permitted more and more erosion of the basic rights of all citizens guaranteed to them under the Bill of Rights.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Question before the election
I recently sent a letter to the editors of our local papers trying to remind people of their responsibilities as voters, and I would like to share that with you. I also composed a letter to be sent to my senators with questions that I would like to have clarified to become a more informed voter. I wanted to share them with you for your consideration.
Sorry, I didn't properly cut and paste. I will correct and resend
A Plea to All Voters
Now that we have begun our quadrennial responsibility to choose who will be our next President, I address this to all voters – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, no party affiliation. At this time of year we see all leading candidates spending their time either maligning their opponents, or making grandiose promises in such general phrases that we are never sure what they are saying.
I urge each and every one of you to take a few minutes, and write, or e-mail all of the major candidates asking for their specific ideas and plans for the issues that are most important to you, whether that be the economy, our role in Iraq and Afghanistan, our position toward Iran, national educational policies, federal deregulation of big business, the rising costs of gas and oil, or our trade policies with Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. Ask specific questions with as much detail as possible.
It appears that we, as a country, are becoming more polarized than ever before in our nation’s history and that as we become more polarized we become more susceptible to negative campaigns, and pie-in-the-sky promises. Remember especially that if a candidate is blamed on taking the opposing view to you on any issue, it may have been made based on information that was incorrect or incomplete at that time, or it may have been attached as an amendment to another bill that was of vital importance to the nation.
Remember that our founding fathers understood that a true democracy could only be achieved when all citizens understood the issues, and went into the voting booth as a part of a truly informed citizenry. I ask of you that you make every effort to make yourself a part of that informed citizenry.
Barbara Crumb
Dear Sen
I am writing to you because I am looking for some guidance as to where one can look to restore faith in the democratic process, especially after the last eight years. Bush invaded Iraq on pretenses that were later found to be totally untrue. There have been continuous indications that the primary purpose of the invasion was control of a major oil supplier. But now that our involvement in Iraq threatens to become a major campaign issue Bush is moving quickly to finalize a troop withdrawal timetable even after first quarter statistics show no significant change in the number of Americans killed or injured in Iraq. What had been nearly daily reports on violence in Iraq have virtually disappeared. It seems that all information on what is going on there is being deliberately withheld from the American public. Also, Bush had in one speech indicated that he was ready to negotiate a withdrawal that ensures that American interests are protected. This alone is enough to raise my concerns that his intent is to make sure American (and his own) oil interests are protected.
We know that Bush has employed questionable tactics from the beginning. For example, I believe that the legislature only approved funding for the troop “surge” into Iraq under the condition that it was to be a temporary surge, and that if the Iraqi government failed to meet the 11 goals, agreed upon by both governments within six months. I remember that at that time only 3 of the goals had been met, with some progress having been made on 2 others. Yet there was no move to return our troops, nor was there any kind of outcry about the fact that Bush had lied about his intent to stick to his agreement not only with the Iraqi government, but with our own legislature, as well.
Also, I do not understand why Bush was so concerned to continue with the provisions of the Patriot Act that appear to violate the rights that were guaranteed to all citizens by the provisions of the Bill of Rights. These provisions have been interpreted to permit the government to monitor e-mails, telephone conversations and to declare any form of peaceful demonstration against the war, or in opposition to policies put in place by the Executive Branch of our government as being an indication of suspected terrorist activity. Why is it that the government feels the need to put such checks on the average American citizen, but at the same time seems to have discounted any significant threat from the same Iraq that was touted as one of the major players in the September 11 tragedy? Why are our citizens required to purchase a passport in order to view a Broadway show on tour in Toronto or even to view the Falls from the Canadian side when a huge percentage of foreign cargo carriers potentially carrying members of terrorist organizations, supplies or communications move through our ports on a daily basis?
I understand that these provisions of secrecy and withholding of accurate and ongoing activities of our government have probably been going on for a number of years, but I feel never as blatantly as within this administration. I refer these questions to you at this time because I don’t know where else to turn. I realize that many of these questions may be unanswerable by your office, but I would appreciate if you could at least direct me to a source that will let me become the type of informed citizen that we need to make rational decisions in the voting booth and in our own political involvement. I apologize for the length of this letter, but the fact that I have not been able to find any reasonable information on these kinds of issues leads me to a fear that we seem to be moving toward a fascist form of governmental control and governmental secrecy.
Sorry, I didn't properly cut and paste. I will correct and resend
A Plea to All Voters
Now that we have begun our quadrennial responsibility to choose who will be our next President, I address this to all voters – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, no party affiliation. At this time of year we see all leading candidates spending their time either maligning their opponents, or making grandiose promises in such general phrases that we are never sure what they are saying.
I urge each and every one of you to take a few minutes, and write, or e-mail all of the major candidates asking for their specific ideas and plans for the issues that are most important to you, whether that be the economy, our role in Iraq and Afghanistan, our position toward Iran, national educational policies, federal deregulation of big business, the rising costs of gas and oil, or our trade policies with Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. Ask specific questions with as much detail as possible.
It appears that we, as a country, are becoming more polarized than ever before in our nation’s history and that as we become more polarized we become more susceptible to negative campaigns, and pie-in-the-sky promises. Remember especially that if a candidate is blamed on taking the opposing view to you on any issue, it may have been made based on information that was incorrect or incomplete at that time, or it may have been attached as an amendment to another bill that was of vital importance to the nation.
Remember that our founding fathers understood that a true democracy could only be achieved when all citizens understood the issues, and went into the voting booth as a part of a truly informed citizenry. I ask of you that you make every effort to make yourself a part of that informed citizenry.
Barbara Crumb
Dear Sen
I am writing to you because I am looking for some guidance as to where one can look to restore faith in the democratic process, especially after the last eight years. Bush invaded Iraq on pretenses that were later found to be totally untrue. There have been continuous indications that the primary purpose of the invasion was control of a major oil supplier. But now that our involvement in Iraq threatens to become a major campaign issue Bush is moving quickly to finalize a troop withdrawal timetable even after first quarter statistics show no significant change in the number of Americans killed or injured in Iraq. What had been nearly daily reports on violence in Iraq have virtually disappeared. It seems that all information on what is going on there is being deliberately withheld from the American public. Also, Bush had in one speech indicated that he was ready to negotiate a withdrawal that ensures that American interests are protected. This alone is enough to raise my concerns that his intent is to make sure American (and his own) oil interests are protected.
We know that Bush has employed questionable tactics from the beginning. For example, I believe that the legislature only approved funding for the troop “surge” into Iraq under the condition that it was to be a temporary surge, and that if the Iraqi government failed to meet the 11 goals, agreed upon by both governments within six months. I remember that at that time only 3 of the goals had been met, with some progress having been made on 2 others. Yet there was no move to return our troops, nor was there any kind of outcry about the fact that Bush had lied about his intent to stick to his agreement not only with the Iraqi government, but with our own legislature, as well.
Also, I do not understand why Bush was so concerned to continue with the provisions of the Patriot Act that appear to violate the rights that were guaranteed to all citizens by the provisions of the Bill of Rights. These provisions have been interpreted to permit the government to monitor e-mails, telephone conversations and to declare any form of peaceful demonstration against the war, or in opposition to policies put in place by the Executive Branch of our government as being an indication of suspected terrorist activity. Why is it that the government feels the need to put such checks on the average American citizen, but at the same time seems to have discounted any significant threat from the same Iraq that was touted as one of the major players in the September 11 tragedy? Why are our citizens required to purchase a passport in order to view a Broadway show on tour in Toronto or even to view the Falls from the Canadian side when a huge percentage of foreign cargo carriers potentially carrying members of terrorist organizations, supplies or communications move through our ports on a daily basis?
I understand that these provisions of secrecy and withholding of accurate and ongoing activities of our government have probably been going on for a number of years, but I feel never as blatantly as within this administration. I refer these questions to you at this time because I don’t know where else to turn. I realize that many of these questions may be unanswerable by your office, but I would appreciate if you could at least direct me to a source that will let me become the type of informed citizen that we need to make rational decisions in the voting booth and in our own political involvement. I apologize for the length of this letter, but the fact that I have not been able to find any reasonable information on these kinds of issues leads me to a fear that we seem to be moving toward a fascist form of governmental control and governmental secrecy.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Has Democracy changed??
We, the people of this country, seem to have strayed far from what our founding fathers conceived when they first set out to devise a Constitution to define the democratic process in America. They devised this form of government to ensure that the freedoms of citizens in this environment were protected. Individual freedoms had not, historically, been made available under European monarchies, so those freedoms that were deemed to be so essential were protected under the Bill of Rights. They were concerned that this government not be a government of fear. People who are motivated by fear are too often willing to give up those hared-earned freedoms to some agency who will give them a promise of protection. The authors of our democratic process depended on the fact that a well-informed citizenry would be able to step beyond the hysteria of fear to elect a government that would safeguard those freedoms that were so hard-won. They trusted that allowing everyone to express an informed choice would protect against rash decisions made in the heat of the moment. It was thought that opening the decision-making process to all citizens would ensure that no one group could use the government to achieve its own aims at the expense of the general populace. The intent was that decisions would be made solely for their benefit and not for any type of special interest group.
Al Gore, in his book "An Assault of Reason" discusses the fact that during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was forced to make certain concessions to businesses, in his case, munitions manufacturers and the transportation industry, to ensure the victory of the North in the Civil War. At the end of the war, Lincoln indicated his concern when he stated "We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end . . . But I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
In our own time, the corporations that have been enthroned as a part of our government by their monetary power are focusing their efforts not only on prejudices, but on fear. The terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 gave them a golden opportunity to advance the interests of certain large corporations by fanning the fears of the citizens of this country. The threat of terrorism became the justification for permitting the government to tap phones and to monitor e-mail of any person suspected of supporting terrorists, and this government has interpreted the definition of "suspected terrorism" to include anyone who voices their objection to any activity that the administration undertakes in their "war of terrorism". The weapons of mass destruction and the development of a nuclear weapons program were disproved very early on, and no proof of a link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden or the Taliban was ever presented. Let we
We see today in our very own country the effect of fear mongering. The bombing of the World Trade Center created a wide-open window of opportunity for one small group within our society to seize far more power than had been granted to them by the provisions of our Constitution.
Al Gore, in his book "An Assault of Reason" discusses the fact that during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was forced to make certain concessions to businesses, in his case, munitions manufacturers and the transportation industry, to ensure the victory of the North in the Civil War. At the end of the war, Lincoln indicated his concern when he stated "We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end . . . But I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
In our own time, the corporations that have been enthroned as a part of our government by their monetary power are focusing their efforts not only on prejudices, but on fear. The terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 gave them a golden opportunity to advance the interests of certain large corporations by fanning the fears of the citizens of this country. The threat of terrorism became the justification for permitting the government to tap phones and to monitor e-mail of any person suspected of supporting terrorists, and this government has interpreted the definition of "suspected terrorism" to include anyone who voices their objection to any activity that the administration undertakes in their "war of terrorism". The weapons of mass destruction and the development of a nuclear weapons program were disproved very early on, and no proof of a link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden or the Taliban was ever presented. Let we
We see today in our very own country the effect of fear mongering. The bombing of the World Trade Center created a wide-open window of opportunity for one small group within our society to seize far more power than had been granted to them by the provisions of our Constitution.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Government of the People
This is one of those days when I feel I have to get something out to make a statement. The next national election is drawing near, and I find myself vacillating between fear and hopelessness. I have always been under the possibly mistaken impression that candidates are seeking the right to represent the voters to see that our views and our concerns are reflected in our government's actions. And yet, in defiance of the concerns of 2/3 of the nation's population who feel we should be out of Iraq and the concerns over 70% or the nation's population who feel that our federal government is moving in the wrong direction, we continue to move in that direction.
We are regularly told lies to justify the actions that our government intends to implement anyway. A recent example would be the President's plan to create a "troop surge" to stabilize the Iraq situation. There was a lot of reluctance on the part of Congress to throw more troops into the fray, so the surge was linked to a demand that the duly elected Iraqi government to meet 11 benchmark requirements before a specific date. When that date had come and gone, the Iraqi government had substantially reached three of the requirements and made some progress in two others. Yet despite virtually no progress in meeting over half of the demands, the executive office waited for the word of the the commanding officer in the field, General Petreous, and based on his statement that the situation was improving with the presence of our troops, without any substantial effort on the part of the Iraqi government to meet their part of the deal, our "surge troops" remain with only a token number withdrawn. Is this representative of the desires of the people who elected them? I think not.
A secondary result of our government's failures in dealing with the Iraqi issue is in the changes in the armed forces recruiting policies. I remember as a child and young adult during the period of the active draft that draftees were generally felt to be drawn from those groups in society where there was little chance for self-improvement. High school dropout were readily accepted, and more that one young man arrested for a crime was given the option of going to jail or joining the army. At that time, anyone living in those cities near to a military installation often felt themselves to be living in a crime zone. After the draft was eliminated, the recruiting standards of the armed forces were raised, it became a source of pride to become a part of the armed forces. Unfortunately, as a result of the current disaffection with the war, and the continued need to expand our military presence in the Middle East, the army has had to significantly reduce the standards of quality and conduct that we demand from our troops. Persons with a felony criminal record are now entering the ranks. Persons who had joined the National Guard to assist with natural disasters and similar issues here at home AS WELL AS provide backup to our active troops while retaining their position in the civilian world are regularly being deployed overseas, and their terms of overseas duties are being extended, placing additional burdens on their families, as well as their civilian employers and other civilian responsibilities.
The failure of the American government (I hesitate to refer to it as MY government) to be a representative government, as intended by the Founding Fathers of this country becomes more and more apparent the more closely we examine the actions of government. Recently the CEO's of several of the giant oil conglomerates were called before Congress to justify their huge profit margins in light of the explosive increase in the cost of gas and oil in this country. This investigation appeared just once in the nighttime network news and then disappeared. I don't even know who to contact to find out the result of those hearings. Likewise, I have been unable to confirm whether the provision of the Executive Order signed July 19th by the president that defined any form of war protest as a crime has actually been made low by the provisions of the amended Patriot Act.
Little by little the Civil Rights we fought for and died for have been taken from us in order to "protect" us from protesting or even questioning the actions of our own government both of which seem to have been redefined as terrorist acts. Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the public gallery of the United States Senate for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. she has held in jail overnight without charges. A group wanted to demonstrate in a peaceful public protest against the current administration during a political fund raising speech. They were directed to contain their protest in a blocked in area some distance from the actual location of the speech, an, in fact, one man was arrested for leaving the specified area to cross the street. Most recently, Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York based on information gathered by the Federal Government wiretap that has only been justified by the federal government to pursue possible terrorist leads. Spitzer was included only as a part of a large group who have been defined as potential terrorists due to banking activities involving large sums of money. It leads one to wonder what other paramenters have been set up to identify the targets of this quasi-legal wiretapping effort.
I thank all of you who read this for listening to me expressing my concerns and fears as a citizen of the United States.
We are regularly told lies to justify the actions that our government intends to implement anyway. A recent example would be the President's plan to create a "troop surge" to stabilize the Iraq situation. There was a lot of reluctance on the part of Congress to throw more troops into the fray, so the surge was linked to a demand that the duly elected Iraqi government to meet 11 benchmark requirements before a specific date. When that date had come and gone, the Iraqi government had substantially reached three of the requirements and made some progress in two others. Yet despite virtually no progress in meeting over half of the demands, the executive office waited for the word of the the commanding officer in the field, General Petreous, and based on his statement that the situation was improving with the presence of our troops, without any substantial effort on the part of the Iraqi government to meet their part of the deal, our "surge troops" remain with only a token number withdrawn. Is this representative of the desires of the people who elected them? I think not.
A secondary result of our government's failures in dealing with the Iraqi issue is in the changes in the armed forces recruiting policies. I remember as a child and young adult during the period of the active draft that draftees were generally felt to be drawn from those groups in society where there was little chance for self-improvement. High school dropout were readily accepted, and more that one young man arrested for a crime was given the option of going to jail or joining the army. At that time, anyone living in those cities near to a military installation often felt themselves to be living in a crime zone. After the draft was eliminated, the recruiting standards of the armed forces were raised, it became a source of pride to become a part of the armed forces. Unfortunately, as a result of the current disaffection with the war, and the continued need to expand our military presence in the Middle East, the army has had to significantly reduce the standards of quality and conduct that we demand from our troops. Persons with a felony criminal record are now entering the ranks. Persons who had joined the National Guard to assist with natural disasters and similar issues here at home AS WELL AS provide backup to our active troops while retaining their position in the civilian world are regularly being deployed overseas, and their terms of overseas duties are being extended, placing additional burdens on their families, as well as their civilian employers and other civilian responsibilities.
The failure of the American government (I hesitate to refer to it as MY government) to be a representative government, as intended by the Founding Fathers of this country becomes more and more apparent the more closely we examine the actions of government. Recently the CEO's of several of the giant oil conglomerates were called before Congress to justify their huge profit margins in light of the explosive increase in the cost of gas and oil in this country. This investigation appeared just once in the nighttime network news and then disappeared. I don't even know who to contact to find out the result of those hearings. Likewise, I have been unable to confirm whether the provision of the Executive Order signed July 19th by the president that defined any form of war protest as a crime has actually been made low by the provisions of the amended Patriot Act.
Little by little the Civil Rights we fought for and died for have been taken from us in order to "protect" us from protesting or even questioning the actions of our own government both of which seem to have been redefined as terrorist acts. Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the public gallery of the United States Senate for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. she has held in jail overnight without charges. A group wanted to demonstrate in a peaceful public protest against the current administration during a political fund raising speech. They were directed to contain their protest in a blocked in area some distance from the actual location of the speech, an, in fact, one man was arrested for leaving the specified area to cross the street. Most recently, Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York based on information gathered by the Federal Government wiretap that has only been justified by the federal government to pursue possible terrorist leads. Spitzer was included only as a part of a large group who have been defined as potential terrorists due to banking activities involving large sums of money. It leads one to wonder what other paramenters have been set up to identify the targets of this quasi-legal wiretapping effort.
I thank all of you who read this for listening to me expressing my concerns and fears as a citizen of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)