Thoughts on giving

I kind of let myself get a little off-track yesterday - seeing relationships between things when maybe there is no such relationship.  What I really wanted to express is what I see as a move away from the "me first" attitude that's been overpowering the country for too long.  I see and hear more and more about people responding to disasters with aid in money, in time and in work.  I hear more about people stepping up to help those in need.  I think  - no, I know that steps like these, small as they may seem, can set us on a course of greater human understanding.  I guess maybe that giving to those in need is an excellent first step.  It is heart warming to know that people are willing to share what they have with others in need, and we seem to see more of this everyday.  But beyond this, I would love to see us embrace generosity for its own wake.  We're starting to see this when people place items out in front of their home with a sign saying that they are all free.  (Matter of fact, we just got a nice pair of lawn chairs for our little porch that way.)  But beyond that, if you want to surprise people, go to a local coffee shop and buy coupons for, say, ten cups of coffee, then go walking up and down the streets giving them to people and if they ask questions, just say that it's free, no strings attached, then look at the surprise on their face.  Or walk down  the streets putting quarters in parking meters that have expired.  Hopefully, the message will get out, and maybe someday we'll be able to do this without getting the suspicious or startled stare.  Just another kind of paying it forward.  I, for one, will continue to make charitable gifts, but my New Year's resolution is to add more acts of pure generosity.  Believe me, I am not rich.  But changing my own attitude and behavior is making me richer in my being.  Please share this with others.

A positive New Year

Well, the election is over, and we're on our way to a New Year.  Luckily, we must have misinterpreted the Mayen calendar, 'cause we're all still here.  I'm still going to be pushing for encouraging people to think for themselves, and check their facts, but I want to share what seem to me to be some really positive things coming into 2013.  People seem to be starting to move away from self-centeredness, and more towards other-centeredness.  I heard about a couple who had lost a young child to cancer.  His father was with him when he died and posted his last words on a social networking site.  Shortly thereafter, someone in a fast food restaurant paid for his meal, and said that he did it in memory of the child who had died.  Almost immediately people all over the world started performing random acts of kindness to others - some in memory of the child, but many others just to do something for a stranger a la the movie "Pay it Forward".  For this of you who didn't see it, a child did something nice for a stranger "just because" and that person turned around and did something nice for someone else.  Soon these random acts had spread out all over the city.  It seems that every time someone performed one of these random acts of kindness to someone else, that person would turn around and do something for someone else, and the generosity and the giving spreads further and further.  It can be something as simple as looking directly at people you meet on the street or in the mall, smiling at them and saying "Hello".  It's so much fun to see the surprise on their face and see them smile.
And on a broader level, it looks like we may see some changes in the way our government operates.  Our rescue from the fiscal cliff included reducing tax breaks for the super rich - a position supported by over two thirds of us.  Representatives coming in to the new Congress say that they intend to be more responsive to the voice of the common citizens instead of special interest groups, and focusing on resolving those issues.  It's interesting that 1/5 of our Senators are now women who are intent on achieving consensus rather than confrontation as the way to deal with issues.  And if they achieve that consensus based on what their constituents want, we will be well on our way to returning to a more representative form of government.  
These both seem to be positive indications of a new movement toward concern for others rather than always looking out for number one.  It indicates an intention to move forward in ways that benefit each of us individually rather than special interest groups representing the benefit of only a few.

Fiscal Cliff - a Moderate View

OK  Only a couple of days to the cliff, and here's my idea - bound to upset both hard core Republicans and hard core Democrats.  Everybody's still stuck in that black and white, either - or, raise taxes or cut spending frame of mind.  Let's think about what an average American family in a tight spot financially would do.  First, they'd look at their expenses and cut where they could without leaving their family completely destitute, then if more belt-tightening were needed, someone would be out there looking far a second job, and ultimately, the family's financial position would be resolved in the best manner for all concerned.  Instead of a choice between taxes and further cuts - an us or them approach -, lets compromise (dirty word?) and use a combination of both taxes and cuts in spending to start to bring the country a little bit closer together?  A moderate approach?  A step back from polarizing?  As always, I only ask you all to think about this

A Little Further Clarification

While thinking about my last post, I realized it might have been a little misleading.  I realize that the post may have been seen by Conservatives as a slap in the face.  That was not my intent.  I wanted to focus on the ideals of a truly representative government.  Since our current crises is related to the impending fiscal cliff, the Conservative minority in the Senate seems to be causing the holdup.  However, the problem is not with the Conservatives.  My position would be unchanged any time a group representing a minority opinion obstructed open debate on any issue regardless of whether they represented communists or fasciests  or socialists or anarchists.  Representative government needs to allow all positions to be argued, and, ultimately the negotiated position brought to a vote to be determined by a majority opinion.  Ultimately, the will of the people should determine the position of the country.

Fiscal Cliff and Representative Government

bethsiddhe@gmail.com

Another experiment.  I'm trying to link this blog to my facebook account.  Will someone tell me if it works?
Anyway, this post is about a striking example of how dysfunctional our government has become, and how far we have strayed from the ideals of our forefathers - the authors of our Constitution.
-     First, it was understood that our citizens had the right and the responsibility to be well-informed on what Congress does. For that reason, there is a Congressional Record of everything that is said when Congress is in session, and it was in this forum that our representatives debated on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation.  Positions would be debated and amendments proposed to arrive at a decision that was mutually acceptable.  The purpose of this was to ensure that our citizens could hear the arguments made both in favor and opposed to each bill and that their representative would be held accountable for their position and the people that they represent would be able to see how well their positions were being represented.
-     Next, in the event that the debate process was not enough to arrive at an acceptable compromise, the party representing the minority opinion would be able to "filibuster".  In order to do so, they would take the floor to continue to argue for their position, and wold not yield it to allow for a vote until an acceptable compromise was reached.  By doing so, they would be able to delay a vote for as long as they were willing to continue to hold the floor in order to resolve the impasse.  Again, all of this was recorded so that people would be able to follow what their representatives were doing.
-     Over the past several years, all of this has changed.  Proposed bills are discussed behind closed doors. This ensures that comments, opinions, promises, etc are kept off the public record provided by the Congressional Record, and makes sure that no bill reaches the floor without a predetermined outcome.  That hasn't always been the case.  I remember when a controversial bill was being presented, the discussion and debate would already have been made on the floor of Congress, and the entire country could listen in on that debate and on the final roll call while the outcome was not already determined behind closed doors.  I believe the Senate rules have been amended so that if a minority opinion chose to filibuster, they would have to do it by taking the floor of the senate, and keep up on debating until everyone was agreed to let it come to a vote.  I don't know if the Senate Rules have been changed or not, but apparently today, all a group of senators has to do is to threaten to filibuster any bill they don't totally support, and the bill will not pass without a "super majority' of 61 votes, rather than a simple majority.
-      How does this affect the situation of the fiscal crises?  Well, the major sticking point holding up any resolution of the issue is the question of allowing  the special tax reductions granted to the upper 2% or so of the country's most wealthy to expire at the end of the year.  The senate version of a means of avoiding the cliff includes allowing the temporary tax breaks that were given to the ultra-rich to expire, while cutting spending in other ways in both military and domestic spending.  Recent independent surveys are indicating that a majority of Americans - 60% and rising as of a week or so ago - support allowing those tax breaks for the super wealthy to expire.
-    So how are the dreams of our forefathers being met?  We do not have access to the secret negotiations being completed behind closed doors - only the sound bites that are released by the party leaders so we are denied the right to hear from our representatives are representing our opinions of how the crisis should be resolved.  A threat to filibuster from ~40%  of the senators in Washington are refusing to accept the desire of over 60% of the population to avoid the fiscal cliff.  We, as a nation, need to demand changes to the operation of our legislature so that once again represents the view of people who have had the opportunity to hear all arguments in favor of or opposed to proposed legislation.  Let's return this country the kind of representative government envisioned by our forefathers.   

This year's election has gotten me thinking.  As I said before, this year candidates have been referencing getting back to the principles encoded in our nation's Constitution, so I pulled out my little pocket version, and started reading it for myself.  I'm also fascinated with history, and have done some research on what was going on in the country at the time of the Constitution.  There was no real common ground among the men entrusted with creating this document.  Some favored a strong central government providing a strong single unified position for the country and to the world at large.  Others felt that the role of Federal government should be minimal, and that states should be able to implement policies based on their own unique needs and priorities.  Those following the big  government concept, led by Jefferson, were known as Federalists. They operated on the idea that the common man was too uneducated to be trusted with major governmental decisions.  Jackson headed those that felt that for the government to be responsive to the entire population, the common man would have to have a say in its operation.  They were known as Republicans.  Still others felt that the idea of a government based on the principles of a democratic republic was such a new concept that whatever they decided, no one could really predict the outcome.  The resulting document represented a compromise that took into account everyone' s concerns to the extent possible.
(Sorry, I got thinking so much I forgot to come back, and then I wanted to wait for a while for the election hysteria to die down.).  To continue, one leader (I believe i,t was Jackson) is supposed to have made a statement that the responsibility for the success of such a government was completely dependent on having a fully informed citizenry.  Thus, candidates who wanted to run for office would campaign to present their ideas on what issues were most important,, how the government should approach such issues, and what other issues should be considered by the infant nation.  Campaigns were determined by the individual candidates in keeping with the overall principles of their party.  They were focused wholly, or nearly so, by what the candidate intended to do, not on what the other candidates had not done, or were not expected to do. Voters were not bombarded with negative sound bites.  The positions of  the candidates  were not forced upon them by any national organization. Thus, those who were elected were only responsible for representing the positions of the people that had elected them.
Compare that to to the past election in which many candidates were totally, or in large part, focused on negative references to shat the other party had or had not done, and promises of more negative result if that party's candidates were elected or reelected.  Little or no mention was made of what the candidates intended to do, specifically to make this country a better place to live.  We, as voters, were placed in a position that we were forced to choose the lesser of two evils.  The concepts of our forefathers  of the necessity of a well-informed voting public to support a truly representative republican democracy seem to have totally disappeared.  I think both Jefferson and Jackson are rolling over in their graves at this travesty of the real democratic process.

Religion in America

Over the past few years, there has been a strong movement in this country to return it to Christian values. They claim that this was the intent of our to establish a country governed by Christian values, generally as interpreted by their candidates. They argue that their position is clearly supported by their interpretation of the United States Constitution. It would appear that they have never read through the Constitution carefully. We all know that Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yes, I carry a small copy of the Constitution and all the Amendments with me at all times. I've never been one to accept what someone tells me as the absolute truth, especially if I have the ability to check it. so when someone tells me that this or that is according to the Constitution, I can ask them to show me.  They can't because generally, they are only repeat what someone told them.   

Nowhere in the First Amendment is the Christian faith even mentioned, and they made their position quite clear:
      - 1797 - The United States Senate unanimously approved a treaty containing the following declaration: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than if is a Jewish or Mohammedan Nation", and that treaty was signed by our second President, John  Adams.
      - Our fourth President, James Madison, strongly confirmed this position.  He maintained that even if a religious sect becomes a political faction in one part of a nation, " the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it (Congress) must secure the national councils against any danger from that source".
      - In the mid 1940's, Justice Robert Jackson wrote "If there is arony big star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."
     - Al Gore, in his book  "An Assault on Reason" he states that our Founding Fathers understood that love of power can be so intoxication that it overcomes reason.  He continues, saying that this distrust is what led our forefathers to separate organized religion from the exercise of governmental authority.
     - The words "under God" did not appear in our Pledge of Allegiance until  1954.   The change was originally pursued b;y the Catholic religion, and other established Christian religions soon follows.  I  remember having to re-learn the pledge in grade school. 

These fears  that were expressed by our forefathers and continue to be expressed today seem to well-founded.  Since the 2008 political campaign, candidates have been raising fears among their constituents that our country is becoming a "godless" nation, and that it's time to return to the value system that is embraced by many fundamentalist religions.  They are arguing that their value system is to be embraced by the entire country.  Prayer in school?  Are you praying to the Christian god?  Suppose my child prays to Allah - or to the Jehovah of the Jewish religion . Suppose my children practice Buddhism or the Hindu religion?  Suppose they practice an earth-based religion, or even no religion at all?  Are you going to make them lie by praying to a God other than their own?  I know my moral code considers any lie to be a negative act,   Will their school teach evolution or creationism?  What about the right to marry the person that you love?  (By the way, nothing in our Constitution or its amendments defines who can and cannot marry.)  What about each person's right to decide what is or is not done to their body?    I think we need to stop and consider the fact that Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from religion, which means you have the right to live by the moral code of your religion, but you cannot impose that code on me.  You have the right to honor your religious beliefs, but not the right to denigrate the beliefs of others by burning their holy books, or making malicious fun about their holy people.  I am hoping for a time when all peoples can respect the ways of others.