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. 



 

Atlas Shrugged?

This presidential campaign has focused a great deal of attention on entitlement programs and parasites who expect big government to meet all their needs. First, it's interesting that both Social Security and Medicare are referred to as entitlement programs. I don't know about you, but when I started working, I was told that the deduction for Social Security was to pay for my retirement. In fact, the deduction was for FICA, which stands for Federal Insurance Corporation of America (note the word Insurance). Also, FICA benefits come out of everyone's wages, and everyone who has a recent work history is entitled to collect these benefits upon retirement whether they had average annual income of $35,000 or $350,000. And as far as Medicare is concerned, Medicare Part A for inpatient care only is given to everyone who gets Social Security. If they elect Part B coverage for outpatient care, they pay a monthly premium, and for part D coverage that they are required to buy into, that premium is also deducted. Somehow, I fail to understand how if paying into Social Security premiums while you're working and then collecting benefits after retirement (or disability) means you qualify as a person receiving entitlements, but if you put that same money into an IRA or 401k account while you are working, you are considered a responsible person planning for your own retirement. And if you use the money that you pay out of every paycheck for your Part B and Part D Medicare premiums to set up a medical care account or purchase private insurance, you are considered a responsible planner, while if that some money goes toward your Medicare premiums, you are receiving benefits through an entitlement program. Remember, these options are identical for the working rich as well as the working poor. This all reminds me of Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged". For those of you who have not read the book, it is the story of the few men and women who are the true makers and shakers of society - those who create huge manufacturing empires, or are responsible for creating and maintaining huge transportation and industrial complexes. They become overwhelmed by the demands put upon them by government to provide for those who do not have these talents, but who feel they are entitles to all the some benefits, and are willing to have those benefits provided, so they basically drop out of society, and focus their attentions an doing the kinds of things that really satisfy them, and as a result, industry, transportation, and ultimately pretty much the entire infrastructure of the country breaks down. The first, and maybe the second or third time I read this book, I was very sympathetic, because no matter what these movers and shakers did, more and more demands were put on them and more and more people claimed more and more in benefits. I knew that this kind of society was not my concept of ideal, but I was having trouble finding the fallacy in the positions that the author was taking It wasn't until the last reading that I finally got it. In some scenes, especially when everything was pretty much going down the tubes one of those movers and shakers was on her way to the train for what would be its lost intercontinental trip. She stopped on the way to talk to a couple of average people just doing their job and hoping for the best, and it hit me that the author had totally overlooked the great majority of people who are not the most talented. As I remember, one of the people teh heroine spoke to ran a news/magazine shop such as you see in the malls, or on many city streets, and the other was a mechanic who was going over the train with an oilcan in hand, checking to see that all mechanical and safety requirements possible were checked and attended to even though he no longer had access to the correct materials to do the job properly. I realized that by polarizing society as we are, especially during this political campaign, many candidates are trying to focus the voter's attention only on the well-to-do and the people that they are labeling as parasites. They totally overlook those that will never be able to enter that truly well-to-do class, but who work on to the best of their ability to keep things oiled and operating properly in our country. I guess it's going to be up to us at the voting booth.

Here's the link

I think this is the link you need to get in. bethsidhe@blogspot.com Please let me know if it works.

Stepping Back and Slowing Down

I decided that it was time to step back from the election craziness and take a day or two to bring my blood pressure down, and ground myself. I was thinking about how things seem to be moving faster and faster never taking time to stop and give ourselves time to experience the now before seeing how quickly we can move into whatever comes next our lives. I started thinking about this when a book I ordered from Kindle was not the one I was expecting. Yes, that is one example of everything speeding up - ordering books on-line instead of shopping for them in our local bookstore (when we can find one). In any case, I was expecting a very recently written biography of Charlotte Bronte, that went into their interpersonal relationships, and the possibility mental illness way have played a part,but instead got one written in the style of Charles Dickens or Nathanial Hawthorn. I started to read it ( I'm one of those people who pretty much read anything that pops up in front of my eyes). I thought that the author had an unusual way of starting - by dropping into this old style - and was eager to see how he how he would do it. As soon as I started, I began to feel different. I usually read very quickly - a book in a day or three - but I couldn't do it with this one. The language was more old fashioned, flowery, grammatically correct, and soon I was totally drawn totally into the scene into the old English countryside of the early 1800's. I knew I was not going to finish this book in a day, and suddenly it made me feel much calmer. I didn't feel so rushed to turn the next page. There was time to relax and enjoy and let myself be drawn into the story. I even starting reading part of it alouI'm d to slow down and give myself longer to enjoy the story - to enjoy the way the words flowed together. The world - everything - seems to be speeding up, to be confronting us on every side without ever letting us adjust to what we have just experienced. Therapists, personal growth leaders, motivational speakers, social workers - all advise us to learn to live in the "now", but is this possible with the speed at which changes assault us at every turn? Reading this book is reminding me of how much pleasure there is in reading when you allow yourself to be drawn into what is happening instead of hurrying to flip the next page. When you walk, walk slow. Stop and look around. and let yourself recognize that you are a part of it all. Notice a flower or a leaf or a butterfly, or even an interesting pattern in the cracks in the sidewalk. When you drive, stay off the Interstates. Take the "blue roads" and drive at 55, or, better yet, 40 so you can see towns, trees, fields and woods, and know that those people have their own lives and stories and that you are a part of them, as well. At least for me, this helps me to keep in the "now", and gives me practice in controlling the rate at which I react to the constant changes surrounding us all. One major way that things are speeding up now is with "new and improved: products. Electronic devices especially are modified and speeded up to the point that the device you are trying to master has been outmoded and updated at least twice. After you master the device, if it ever needs repair, it will be so outmoded that it will not be possible to repair, It will need to be replaced, and it will generally cost significantly more for new apps and greater speed that you neither want nor need, but will often have to learn and use. I don't know. Maybe it's just old age, maybe I'm just being nostalgic, and sad that there are so many people who will never be able to experience the joy of living in a time that doesn't push us as this one does. This one has been a little philosophical, maybe because I'm giving myself a break from speaking oat about my concerns about our political process. That'll be for another day.

Thought I Lost It

I knew I had started a blog, but I didn't think I had anything worth posting. But lately I have found that I can use this to share anything, and lately I have written some for some reason I just want to share. Poetry, essays, opinions and positions that I want people to think about. I have some things ready now, and many more in my mental "to do" list, so I expect you will be hearing from me soon.

Let's Broaden the Perspective

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction to my Slant on Life

OK, First, a little about me. I guess that for most of my life, I've been one of those people who seem to see relationships between areas that others either don't see, or fail to act on (for example, the relationship between the need to raise the minimum wage and the desire to get people off the "welfare rolls"). Also, I notice lessons that we seem to have failed to learn from history, and so are repeating. I started this blog to share thoughts that come to me at odd moments. Somehow, it feels as if these thoughts need to be expressed in some format. Now that I am retired, I have the freedom to persue these thoughts to wherever they might lead me and this is the format that I have selected to share thems. Here is one of them that has been bouncing around for quite a while that I would like to share.

LET GO OF FEAR, CHANGE THE WORLD

Let go of fear and change the world – that is the thought that came to me today in my meditation. I was letting my mind float around the idea of creating some kind of Magick to end the ever-growing struggle among those with differences, regardless of the type of difference. It doesn’t matter whether it’s sex, color, race, religion, intelligence, wealth – whatever it might be. It seems that more and more, those in positions of power throughout the world understand the natural progression of events. First, there is fear and panic. Once these are well established, hate soon follows. Then, as time goes on, if fears are not fanned, they will eventually die down, and the hate, although it is still there, will become quiescent. However, if those fears are cultivated, fertilized, and in every way, encouraged to grow to their maximum potential, they will eventually develop into the kind of blind rage that can be easily manipulated by those in power to achieve total domination over the subjects of that rage. We see this around us everyday. Iraq and Al-Quida fear America will destroy their centuries-old culture by forcing a democratic process on them. Americans fear terrorist attacks on their homeland (although the real cause of this conflict at the highest levels is probably more closely related to the control of oil production). Israel fears the loss of the only homeland they have had in the past thousand years. Palestinians fear that they will be placed under the control of the Israelis and will be forced to give up their own traditions. These fears have been transformed to hate by those who may be pursuing their own special interests.
This situation is perfectly mirrored in our current situation with the Middle East. In America, the fear of potential terrorist attacks is being fanned in order justify the government’s position that for our protection, some of the basic freedoms granted us under the Bill of Rights need to be set aside “for our own protection.” Americans are shown newsclips of terrorist leaders calling for death to all Americans infidels, and of kidnapped civilians blindfolded and even executed on camera. They are advised of various alleged terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the actions of our government. And once the color alert system was put into place after 9/11, I don’t believe the terror alert has ever been lowered beyond red (extreme) or yellow (high). Editorial cartoons fill our papers displaying Middle Eastern leaders as imposing their way of life onto the American people.
On the other hand, although we not know what is being communicated to the citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and others, it is safe to assume that they are being shown newsclips of the treatment of prisoners by American soldiers in Iraqi prisons or of civilians killed and maimed in American attacks on suspected terrorist strongholds as evidence of an American intention to destroy their way of life. We have seen samples of editorial cartoons being circulated to their citizens showing American soldiers committing atrocities against helpless civilians. Each of the sects within the Muslim religion in Iraq preach a brand of hate against the others, due to their trying to impose the beliefs of their own sect on other groups of Muslims. Based on the fear thus cultivated among the Iraqis, their young men, often barely into their teens, are taking up arms or are engaging in suicide bombings to destroy the “American Infidel” or to subdue members of other sects that they perceive as trying to destroy their way of life.
And once the hate is established, it is fed and nourished through a continuous round of actions aimed at fanning the flames of fear. The fear thus engendered can and is then manipulated in a number of ways. First, the attention of the citizens of all involved countries is distracted from domestic issues to the perceived foreign threat. Problems with the economy, employment, education, the health care crisis, deterioration of the infrastructure, escalating national debt, violence in the streets, and poverty are either moved to the back burner, or are blamed on the enemy that has been defined by the fears that have been fanned. Secondly, the fear is used to convince the citizens of the need to give up their own safety in order to make their way of life more secure.
What many people do not seem to realize is that once these freedoms are lost, it will be very difficult to get them back. For example, we forget that the technology to target wiretaps and computer taps only to a specific group, such as “suspected terrorists”, can also be used to target any other group. The technology can be turned on Jews, Mexican, Christians, Muslims, any or all groups of recent immigrants, all American Indians, or even all residents of the city of Birmingham, Alabama. The Iraqi forget that the administration of their country can turn these same tactics on them if they are “turned in” as being secretly affiliated with another sect. They give up the rebuilding of their infrastructure and their freedom to walk the streets in order to free up the resources necessary to destroy the “enemy”, no matter who they are or where they may be.
So where do we go from here? I think that people worldwide need to first be aware of history. As far back as the Crusades, the Holy Roman
Empire created the myth that Middle Eastern Muslims were bent on looting and destroying and desecrating the city of Jerusalem and killing any Christians they found. They used that fear to instigate the great Crusades to protect the sanctity of the homeland of Jesus, and remove the “Infidel” that had occupied that land. From our perspective today, we know that the primary intent of the Empire was to return the wealth of the city of Jerusalem, and most especially, the treasures of the temple of Solomon to the Church of Rome.
Step forward a few hundred years and look at the Inquisition. At this period of time, as in the Crusades, the government and the Church were virtually interchangeable in continental Europe. Again, the Church feared a diminution of their power and authority by failing to punish those who refused to accept the Church/government’s authority over them. They found a convenient scapegoat in the Pagan wise women and sages. They created a fable of evil spells cast by these “witches” against those were “true believers”. The fear of those “True Believers” was fanned to target any individuals who refused to conform to the authority of the Church/government, and subjected anyone thus accused of being a “witch” to the Inquisition. Of course, few, if any, of those accused were able to satisfactorily prove their innocence. And, of course, it didn’t hurt that the wealth and properties of those found guilty reverted to the Church.
Step forward another few hundred years into Germany in the 1930’s – to a country whose rampant economic problems had pushed a huge majority of its citizens into abject poverty. It was time to find a new scapegoat. Suddenly the Jews, aided and abetted by other non-Aryan peoples, were accused of hoarding all the wealth, and causing the impoverishment of the German people. The fears of the general population, who were led to consider themselves as the Aryan race, against those who would push them deeper and deeper into the pit of most abject poverty were encouraged in every conceivable way. These fears were then formed into a hate that led to persecution and domination of those groups responsible for their impoverished state. Suddenly the Aryan race was transformed into a superior race whose domination was threatened by not only the Jews and Communists but also by citizens of other countries who were not members of this “super race”. All of these groups were portrayed as threats to the pre-ordained world domination of the Aryan people. Their attempt to establish domination over Europe, and, possibly, the rest of the world required the combined forces of several nations, most notably for our purposes, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Of course, once the Aryan “super race” was subjugated, it could almost have been predicted that the two strongest powers would begin to eye each other suspiciously. The ink on the signatures of the German surrender on May 8, 1945 had barely dried when tension began to grow between the two superpowers. They each recognized that the only real threat posed to each of them was by the other. Here in America, we were taught to fear the possibility of being overcome by Communists, and forced to give up our own democratic form of government. By the same token, citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic were taught that the intent of the west was to take away their right to be ruled “by the people”, and return them to the same Imperialism that they had suffered under the Tsars before the Bolshevik Revolution. By fanning the fear of domination by a foreign power, the authority of the ruling party was virtually guaranteed, since a simple accusation of involvement in the ideology of the other power was sufficient to dispose of any perceived threats to the status quo.
By 1950, the Communist witch-hunt was on in the United States, and the “Cold War” was in full bloom, and although no actual “battles” were fought, in either country a suspected link to the other could lead to anything from being ostracized, to imprisonment for an unspecified period, to execution. In both countries, the party in power needed a method to consolidate their power and continue their authority. Fear again proved to be a quick and easy method to ensure this desired outcome. This fear continued to be fanned for years. In the United States, we had bomb drills in schools just as we had fire drills. We had an array of civilians who voluntarily watched our skies, reporting every plane that they saw to a central location to ensure that no foreign planes carrying bombs could subject us to a surprise attack. During this time, the Iron Curtain separating East from West effectively made it so that we do not know what fears were being engendered among the Communist countries. And this stalemate continued until the 1990’s when the Communists began to lose power in their own lands, and the Union, itself finally disintegrated, leaving the United States as the single Super Power.
From history, then, we can learn to look to our government to determine the reality of the “clear and present danger” that they present to us. It would be naïve, at best, to consider ourselves to be totally safe – to be invulnerable to the real dangers that exist in our world, but are these fears real, or are they being used by our government, and governments all over the world, to engender a hate that will drive us to war to destroy those whom we have been taught to fear? In other words, are we being driven to war to make the world a safer place, or to further the ulterior motives of those in power – to subjugate another race or another nationality – to conquer more land – to take possession and control of any of a number of valuable natural resources? If there is a real threat, of course we must take whatever actions are necessary to protect ourselves and our nation. But if the fear is derived from an attempt on the part of our government, or any other government, to foster fear and hatred among us, let us walk away from that fear. Let us step back and see how we can work together so that everyone’s needs are recognized and addressed.
If we truly want to make this world a safer place for ourselves and for those who will follow us, we need to stop allowing our governments to do our thinking for us. We need to recognize and understand the hidden motives that may be influencing their desire to fan the fire of fear. We need to let go of that fear that is allowing us to be played like pawns in someone else’s game, and start to make choices and changes for ourselves. When we are able to put aside the fear, we will find a whole new vista opening before us – one in which we work together in partnership with peoples of all races, religions and beliefs to make the world a better and safer place for all. We will find that we CAN change the world.

My Outlet

I'm looking for a place to think out loud about my philosophy of the world and live. I have things I want to say, but no one to hear them.