"Lame Duck Congress"-how lame.

Since the elections a little over a month ago, the term Lame Duck Congress has been used a lot lately. For those who don't know, it's simply a metaphor used to describe a Congress that is seeing a large turnover in membership, making the exiting members not exactly interested in doing their job properly, and more inclined to be a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution(s). Lame Duck Congresses generally get little, if anything, done and more often than not, they do harm but delaying sometimes much needed and important legislation on their way out...

This term, and the way, and reasoning behind, how these Congress's act bothers me greatly-as it should all Americans. How do you think you would look if, you were given a 60 day notice of termination of your job, and you decided that, since you were getting fired anyway, you weren't going to even try to do your job for that last 2 months? Worse yet-what if you decided you were going to deliberately get in the way of others trying to do their jobs? Not only would you most likely be fired out right, and immediately, but you would (and should) have a snowballs chance in hell of finding employment relatively soon after. I mean, who wants to hire an employee that is going to bail on them as soon as the proverbial chips are down, and make the situation worse by doing your best to make everyone still working there, have as much difficulty as possible? But this is exactly how our elected officials act, and think, when in the situation of not being reelected to another term in office-they simply don't care, and, instead of being adults about it, they go a step further and deliberately try to impede, or kill, all legislation which they are working on in the last 2 to 3 months of their last term. Not only is it bad, and childish, politics, but it sends a message to the nation as a whole which gives the general population the sense of entitlement that they can act the same way when in similar situations-instead of trying, and persevering, they just give up because "politicians are allowed to do it, why can't I?".
To me, this is the not only the reason, but the substance, behind how the entitlement class grew to the proportions it has over the last 40 years.
Members of a "Lame Duck" Congress need to grow the hell up. They need to do their freaking jobs to the bitter end, and do them well, and justly-as the people who originally elected them to office expect. If they don't, then they deserve every bit of anger and loath the citizens of our country (and especially those who first voted for them) can dish out on them.
And the excuse of "since I'm leaving, my say doesn't really matter anymore-especially since whatever I approve of now can all be changed by those coming in" never has, and never will, fly with me. That is a cowards, and poor mans, way of thinking; and it can be directly attributed to the current state of our nations culture and economic situation...

I digress...The whole thought disgusts me to no end. In my opinion, the only thing lame about a "Lame Duck" Congress are the actions of those exiting members who, by their actions, show just how pathetically lame they are.

The "Tea Party effect"

(The combination of a busy month, along with some writers fatigue (not to be confused with writers block), lead me to take a month away from posting on my politics/philosophy blog)...

Was anyone really surprised by the election results earlier this month? I know I wasn't, and all of my friends who I had warned that this would happen, came around to apologize to me afterwards for thinking I was off my rocker that the Tea Party could have the impact which they had.
I make secret about my differences with the Tea Party: I side with their general position on the Constitution, and their economic ideologies, but I take great issue with their insistence on bringing religion-specifically Christianity-into every one of their positions, and as the basis for many of their arguments. But, like the Tea Party or not, you have to respect them for the much needed change which they are bringing to the political climate here in America. Whether it is a change that will be beneficial to our country is yet to be seen, but it is a change which we needed decades ago-that of the people dictating to Congress, and not the other way around...

The truth of the matter is that state and nationally elected leaders had grown corrupt, complacent and entitled to their positions. Many had become what the founding fathers of our Constitution warned us against-Aristocrats. They ran on their name recognition alone, and nothing more. They presented no real ideas for fixing the plethora of problems our nation faces, while lining their pockets with special interest dollars. In sum, they were the problem.
This months elections proved that the Tea Party had struck a cord-particularly among registered independents; and even though Democrats managed to get most of their entitlement class out to vote, they were not match for the masses of Independent voters who agreed with the Tea Party in that the problem with national politics was the career politicians who obviously had no ones interests at heart, except their own. Fortunately, for all of us, the effect of the Tea Party carried only so far as to cause wholesale changes in the House of Representatives-where we saw the greatest turn over in representation since the Great Depression. It is in the House where most of the problems with our national politics reside, and it was in the House where the Independent voters had the greatest impact-knocking out nearly every incumbent seeking reelection (too bad Nancy Pelosi couldn't have been sent packing, but you can't win them all). Had the Tea Party effect carried into the Senate, I would have some serious reasons to be just as concerned about the direction our country was heading into, as I do now about the direction is it already heading down. Luckily, the Independent voters got it right, and, for the most part, only made wholesale changes to that branch of our national legislature which is meant to represent us-the people...

My only hope is that the Tea Party doesn't let this success go to their heads.
I hope they keep their grass roots status and pay homage to those which they owe their recent electoral success too-the Independents. I hope that they stick to their guns, so to speak (no pun intended), and stay on those whom they helped elect to stay true to their campaign words of adhering to the will of the people.
I also hope that they are willing to drop their religious positions in their politics. If they are willing to do these 3 things, then the Tea Party is, in my opinion, exactly the force of will and passion our nation needs right now to turn our country around.

A letter to Americans

As we prepare to vote in the coming week all across our nation, I would like all Americans to consider what it is that makes us all "American": It is not bipartisanship. It is not Democrats vs. Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservates. It not entitlements or governmental control and influence in every part of our lives.
It is individuality and peronsal liberty from governmental involvement in every aspect of our lives; the strength of the human spirit to persevere; and the desire to earn a modest to luxurious living through hard work, and the dedication and determination it takes to succeed. These are the qualities which define America, and they are the qualities we should all look for, when possible, as we choose this next wave of people to represent us all in Congress...

It is time for us to take our country back-back from the corruption in corporate America, and, especially, back from the corruption and ignorance that plague our national and state governments.
For too many decades, too many of us have sat idly by, choosing not to participate in society other than by simply getting up and working every day: these people haven't voted, they haven't taken an active role in the raising of their kids, they haven't even taken an active role in their own lives except to survive until the next day-caring not one bit about what the day will look like so long as their own self destructive needs are met. It is too these people-the ones who believe that they can have no effect on "politics" and society in America.
It is to you, this "silent majority", who I am reaching out too.
Vote.
Express your opinion.
Let our current Congress people, and the newly elected ones, know that you will no longer stand idly by. That you will be heard. That you will be respected. And that you will no longer be trodden on and/or ignored because a select group of special interest groups, lobbyists and corporate interests are subverting your liberty via their influence over our elected leaders.
This is not a call for rebellion or separation, it is a call for you to take your respect and your liberty back as Individuals and members of our national and local societies by your choice.
It is time you are heard. Your country, and your fellow citizens, need you to speak, or else there may not be anything left for us to stand up, and speak for.
RR

A Letter to Liberals

There was a time in my life when I considered myself one of you-a "liberal", but it didn't take me long to realize just how anti liberal modern liberals really are.
As I...matured...I grew to understand your particular ideology more, and realized that, as a whole, Liberals really have no clue what being a Liberal-by political definition-actually means. Personal liberty and responsibility, individuality, independence, small government, the freedom to keep what you earn, all these things mean nothing to you. Liberalism, to you, means nothing more than standing opposite of Conservatives...
Conservatives believe in the 2nd amendment, but you believe that guns, not people, kill people; therefore the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs replacement or a massive alteration...
Conservatives believe in less taxes, but you see all Conservatives as being the top 10% of all income earners in our country; therefore, you see cutting taxes as only being for those that would affect the "evil rich"...
Conservatives, due to their religion, do not believe that homosexuality should be treated equality by all laws; Liberals, believe it should be, but, instead of supporting the rights of each state to determine such things-as the Constitution designs-you would have the Federal Government force the nation to allow something which many people morally and ethically oppose...
Conservatives believe in earning financial equality through hard work, and creating an economic system which allows for that; Liberals believe that everyone is entitled to financial equality...
Conservatives believe that a greater, intangible, power known as "God" has ultimate control over everything; Liberals believe that the more tangible power of "Government" should control everything...
As a group, you propose no economic solutions to our nations problems that do not include the Federal Government as the primary solution; you propose no solutions to our cultural and societal problems which do not include Federal legislation; and you propose no solutions to our growing welfare and national debt problems, than to have the Fed print more money to throw at them...
Even worse, about your ideology today, is that the lack of National pride and cultural identity America has today can be directly attributed to you. Over the years you have demonized American culture and having pride in our nation by focusing on the flaws of our past and making Capitalism out to be a engine of greed which only a few are able to take advantage of, at the expense of others.
The only thing which can be loosely considered "liberal" about your ideological beliefs are the positions you take regarding issues like the environment, animal rights, and issues of equality in society-positions which most would support you on if you weren't so willing to toss logic aside and go to such idiotic extremes that you take unrealistic positions which you expect to hold everyone too expect your leaders.

You, just like Conservatives, fail to understand human nature at its core. You fail to understand that human nature is firstly the individual, and secondly the member of society. You see people as just the opposite: humans are firstly members of a society-one mandated and controlled by government; and secondly, that society allows us to be individuals-but only under terms which that society says are acceptable.
That time when I considered myself a member of your ideology is, of course, now long behind me-it is nothing of it used to be, and nothing of what I thought it would be-an ideology that would back and support my individuality; protect me from "big brother"; and support me in my pursuit of financial and personal liberty.
No, I see your ideology for what it truly is, which is little more than Socialism-an ideology which is a known destructor of, not just the individual, but societies as well.

A Letter to Conservatives

It may be arrogant of me to say the things I'm about too, but someone has too-someone has to be willing to point out your flaws...
You see, there are many people just like me who would support you, who would be on your side, but you just can't give up the religious rhetoric, can you? Why can't you state your positions without always having to bring "God" into the picture? Why, when you refer to America, and "American" ideals, does it always have to be "God and country", or the "Christian American" ideals? Are you even aware that such talk is completely hypocritical to the positions you hold regarding our economy and the Constitution? And that it parallels you in not so subtle ways to the theocratic dictatorships which dominate the political structures of the countries which are our sworn enemies?...

This is what I mean: you support the Constitution-as it is. This is a position which, easily, the vast majority of Americans would support if not for your apparent disregard for the 1st amendment. You know that amendment, don't you? You know, the one that guarantees a separation of church and state? This is important because, based on your religious rhetoric, you would have it otherwise. Based on the things your ideology says, and the basis for the moral positions you believe all Americans should have, if you had your way, Christianity, and its bible, would be the basis for all legislative policy at the national level. Not only is this contradictory to the Constitution, but it also contradictory to your position on the economy.
You believe in as few regulatory controls over our economy as possible-another position which the majority of Americans would support. The problem is that Capitalism is the greatest vehicle ever created, by which people can achieve the most personal liberty possible. This includes exercising personal choices, like lifestyles relating to sexual orientation and other religious belief systems-both of which you don't approve of because of your religious views.
Even worse, you don't stand out against the more radical of your believers, in most cases, you choose silence. You refuse to comment, or properly disassociate yourself from the religious fanatics of your belief system that would bomb abortion clinics, label gays and lesbians as something other than human beings, or would otherwise threaten physical force on those who aren't "in line" with your religious beliefs.

Don't you understand that, just as you believe that the federal government has no right to tell you how to live your life; has no right to dictate how much of your income you should have to give in taxes; has no right attempting to legislate every aspect of American society and culture; that you don't have the right to tell anyone what to believe or how to believe in what they do, just because you disagree?
What of the greatest things about America is that we actually have the right to agree to disagree. In fact, part of your ideology supports that position-except when it comes to your religious views, views which you, for some inhumane reason, believe should be the basis for all legislation in our nation.
In no way am I implying that you should not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs, but I will stand against you attempting to force those beliefs on those who would disagree, at the point of a political, and legislative, gun.
You claim to be for the Constitution, and to be supporters of Capitalism-2 aspects of American culture which promote individuality and independence, and yet your religious beliefs make you appear otherwise. Your religious beliefs cloud your judgment and breed their own form of individuality crushing collectivism. If you can only see that you must separate your personal beliefs, from the legislative guidelines proper for our Federal Government, just as the Constitution is built to do-limit the reach and power of our National Government-you would find many more Americans calling themselves "conservative", as opposed to standing by and shaking their heads at you in disbelief and disgust over your obvious hypocrisy...

You, just like Liberals, fail to understand human nature at its core. You fail to understand that human nature is firstly the individual, and secondly the member of society. You see people as just the opposite: humans are firstly members of your society-a society based on religious principles; and secondly, that society allows us to be individuals-but only under conditions that your society says is acceptable.
Stop dragging your religion and morality into every issue, and stop letting Liberals drag you down to their level of ignorance and they will be easily exposed, and you will have much greater support from Americans than you do now.

Nauseating campaign ads

Is it me, or are the campaign ads for those running for public office not just ridiculous and nauseating, but full of meaningless attacks on the person running against the person whose campaign paid for the ad?
At their core, all the ads are the same-they are personal attacks on an oppenent, based on actions they took in the past, or on ideological positions they hold-regardless of who the ad is targeting, there really isn't a difference; and all that these ads do is highlight the fact that has helped to create a silent majority within our country: that those who aspire to run for public office, or those already holding that public office, are, in some way, corrupt, corrupted or corruptable.
In the end all these ads do is turn off the majority of people from voting, and tell us nothing about the candidate who paid for the ad....

Wouldn't it be nice if one day, we all woke up to find that these ads disappeared, to be replaced by ads stating the positions the candidats held on the most important issues of the time?
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who ran for public office actually held the capacity to directly answer a question when in a debate?...

In physics, it can be mathematicaly proved that anything is possible...I can only hope that that includes politics and politicians, because then, maybe, we have some hope.

American political ideologies-Conclusion: finding common ground.

For the most of the last 20 years, ever since my passion for such things was born, I began silently keeping track of what the typical, average American wants in an elected official at the Federal level. I began doing this during the Bush/Clinton/Perot Presidential race in 1992 after reading a poll a few weeks before the election showing Bush as the leader. This poll made no sense to me given that the vast majority of people I knew-regardless of age-were going to vote for Perot. Granted, I only had a relatively small sample of people to go on, but it was a pretty diverse sample and amongst that sample 2/3 of the people were planning on voting for Perot. This disparity, between what the media said and the truth about the world around me, motivated me to find out for myself, at election times, who, and what, people really supported. Over the years, this has evolved into a general understanding of what it is that most Americans expect, and want, in their nationally elected leaders...

Given the convoluted, and diluted, political ideologies in America, where is the middle ground? Where are the things that all, or a clear majority, of Americans can agree on? Not too long ago, these questions had answers, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Commonalities as a culture and society must start in the home and our educational institutions, today both of these institutions are ethically bankrupt: the family unit has disintegrated due to a high divorce rate and the improper use of liberality in the home, and America's primary educational institutions have, over the decades, taken away the focus on what makes all Americans, Americans, and what it took to make our form of government the best the planet.
America's primary educational institutions are divided into so-called "public" and "private" schools. Public schools are union run, and, though it varies some by state, the union dictation of our educational system has lead to it being more about job protection, than educating our youth. The private school system in America is primarily theologically based and, on the surface, caters to what the general public considers "the elite class". Neither of these educational institutions have American history and culture as a core theme throughout their curriculum; true, they teach American history, but it is a diluted history of simple facts and focuses on the wars and military actions of our nation, as opposed to the cultural upheavals, technological advancements and great thinkers and inventors that made our country the greatest in the world for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The family unit issues in America are a topic to be addressed separately, but with so much distress and dysfunction in the home, how can we expect any reinforcement at home of the principles which make up the fabric of American culture, much less a solid, humanly based moral and ethical code?
The bottom line is that modern Americans lack any sense of national pride, we lack any attachment to our "roots", much less to each other through the cultural ties which bound us all during the formation and growth of our country. We have forgotten what it means to be American. Between modern liberals (socialists) interpreting the Constitution to fit their own needs, Conservatives (Theocrats) attempting to force their own theologically based morality on the country, and the majority of Americans sitting on the sidelines, unwilling to participate in their own future while complaining about it, is it any surprise that America is so divided that we cannot even unite long enough to find a solution to any problem facing us today?
As a nation, we have to get back to the basics of the Constitution-the Constitution, and the rights that it guarantees us, are the back bone of American culture and society, and we have gotten away from it.
We have to stop letting modern liberals and conservatives try to force their interpretations, of how things should be run in our country, on us. We must all remember, every election cycle, that they serve the people, not themselves, and that it is to us-the people who make up the United States of America-whom they are responsible too.
The middle ground for all Americans, hasn't been lost-it has simply been buried in the illogical bureaucracy created and supported by the extreme fringes of the ideological left and right, and the greed of a select few who consciously take advantage of Capitalism at the expense of our society because most of us fail to actively participate in it by simply voting every chance we get. That middle ground is in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in the free market principles that our particular form of Capitalism gives all Americans-principles which give all in America the opportunity to succeed through hard work, dedication and determination. All we have to do to bring that middle ground back into the forefront of our state and national legislative practices, is for Americans to get involved and care again: care about ourselves, our country and community, and the future that we are leaving for the generations after us...

Twenty years worth of research has lead me to these conclusions about the American people as it concerns the ideology they would like to see represented at the Federal level: adhering to the Constitution (though many don't fully understand it, they still support it) and the Bill of Rights as they are written; social liberality-meaning the Federal Government has no role in legislating issues of personal choice (i.e. homosexual marriage, right to die, drug laws, health care standards, religious and moral preferences, etc...); and simple common sense and simplicity in our laws. This, by asking 1000's of people throughout my life, is what I have learned that most Americans ideologically support, but this will never be reflected by those we elect so long as a majority of us continue to sit idly by, and not take an active role in the formation of the laws of our nation, by voting for those who are supposed to represent us when creating them.

Rubio, Christ and Meeks-let the war for the Florida Senate seat begin.

Citizens of Florida got to witness a debate tonight between the 3 candidates running to represent our state in the Senate, and as is the norm for such debates, we saw a lot of fluff and no substance-from any of the candidates.
What we witnessed in this debate was a battle of 3 entrenched politicians-one of which is supported by a group who is vociferously against the status quo politician in this country. To be fair to Mr. Rubio, he spoke a very good game and obviously did his homework, but all he could honestly do was partake in the game of one upmanship displayed by all 3 parties during this debate. From 2 of the 3, we constantly heard about how broken D.C. is and how it needs to be fixed but; and as usual, we heard not one solution-viable or otherwise-from either of them.
Of the 3, Meeks obviously stands for nothing but the status quo-between his ignorant support of "Obamacare" and his insistence the he stands for the "working man"-a person he seemed incapable of actually defining, it was obvious that his only real position is that of an"anti conservative" and basher of the elite...Of the 3, he is the most obvious "politician" of the 3, and, in my view, definitely represents most of what is wrong with politics in Washington today.
Rubio, the Tea Party poster boy, spoke well, but supports positions which are anti individual-positions which are blatantly hypocritical to his general position on the Constitution. He gets credit for understanding economic theory and why the current tax cuts placed into law by Bush work(ed), but he failed to do little else but place personal attacks on his main rival, Charlie Crist, throughout much of the debate. Rubio, in my opinion, failed to prove any of his positions beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to prove (to me) that he would do what was in the best interests of the state of Florida.
Crist, the "npa" candidate who left the Republican party due to ideological differences, was the only one, at any time, who provided any actual solutions to any question at all. It was only one time-when speaking about how to shore up Social Security-and I disagreed with his answer, but he at least provided something of an idea to one of the problems facing our society today. Placed between such extremes, all Crist really had to do to win this debate running away, was avoid falling into the typical bickering that happens during all such debates-something he either couldn't, or refused, to do...

Personally, I saw nothing out of these 3 candidates, in this format, which gives me any hope that any of them could do the job of a Senator properly. But, if I had to grade the 3 on a pass/fail system, only one would pass-Crist.
Why? Because the position of Senator has nothing to do with the people of this country. The position of Senator has to do with the states, and states rights, in our country. 97 years ago, the 17th amendment went a long way to stripping the individual states of our country of their states rights-which is one of the primary reasons why our national political scene is in the mess it is today; and throughout this debate, the moderators continuously made the mistake of asking these men questions which had nothing to do with states rights. They continuously asked questions trying to pull at the heart strings of people and all 3 continuously fell into the trap-showing that they really have no clue what the position they are essentially applying for is supposed to represent...I digress; Crist wins because, of the 3, as a (soon to be former?) governor he is the only one truly capable of understanding what "states rights" really means-whether he was given a chance to show that in this debate or not...

Before this debate, I was certain of who I was going to vote for to represent Florida in the Senate, after this debacle, I'm not so sure anymore. I did, however, learn one thing from this debate that my more conservative friends won't like seeing me say: when you get down to it, Rubio really isn't any better than Meeks. The only difference between the 2 is that, too Meeks, the Federal Government is a God capable of solving all our nations problems; and to Rubio, God is an intangible entity defined by the religion of his choice, and should lead our government in the direction of solving all our nations problems. Both of these ideologies become anti individual when "push comes to shove", and therefore I cannot support either of them... 

American political ideologies part 5: the melting pot boiling over

Of all of the political and social ideologies in America today, the 2 we hear most about are Liberalism and Conservatism. Though these 2 ideologies, in their modern form, represent, at most, 30% of our populace, there is little question that they are responsible for the direction of all legislative policy at the Federal and state levels in our country. Worse, is that this 30% is comprised of the most wealthy of our country, and therefore stand the most to gain, or lose, within any legislation.
The direction that this segment of our society tends to lead us in is as extreme a direction-on either side of the political spectrum-as it is representative of our society: whether it be the utilization of our military for "police actions" in a distant foreign nation, or the financial bail out of corporations deemed "to big to fail", our Federal and state legislative bodies have increasing written, and passed, legislation within the last decade that is disagreed with by a majority of the general public-whether they are registered voters or not. This direction is a direct result of all the aforementioned political ideologies colluding together to create chaos within our society, and providing corporate entities and special interests the "perfect storm" through which they can dictate legislative policy at the Federal and state levels: With a majority of Americans sitting on the side lines of each election cycle and the majority of those who actually participate not being associated with any strong central leadership or ideology; and Liberals and Conservatives now in control of their respective political parties, Corporations and special interest groups, lead by their lobbying arms, have taken control of our Federal and state legislative bodies with nothing more than money and the threat of pulling their support of one candidate or another.


The result is something that is obvious to most social and political observers: the American body politic boiling over with anger at career politicians who are chipping away at personal freedoms and their wallets; who are catering to corporate demands; and who are embarrassing our nation internationally as they rapidly spend America into bankruptcy while making themselves rich at the expense of the general public.
It has taken 30 or so years, but this anger has finally manifested itself into at least one popular movement-the Tea Party.


The Tea Party is widely considered a Conservative movement due to it being created and based around Conservatives who had had enough of their fellow Republicans spending habits, support of big government, and coziness with corporate special interests in D.C. Despite their obvious theological undertones, it is unfair to call the movement "conservative"-given what they support.
Conservative, at least in part, would imply some sense of preserving the status quo, which would be maintaining the system as it is being used today-with massive corporate influence and corruption at the Federal and state level. This, however, is not what the Tea Party wants: they want change, and not the socialistic change that Barack Obama has brought to the White House, and Congress, since his election. The change they want is one back to the original Constitutional principles-principles which create a small Federal government beholden to the general public. They want career politicians out of the office; they spending at the Federal level curbed dramatically; and, unfortunately, they want their religion, that of Christianity, to be the lead of all social ideals-legislatively and ethically. These beliefs could be considered more radical (and theocratic) than they are conservative, given the distance that current Federal legislative policy has strayed from the Constitutional principles our nation is supposed to be based on.
Outside of the obvious theological flaw, the Tea Party suffers from one other weakness: competition. There is none.
Since their creation a little over 2 years ago, the Tea Party has gained, and been hurt by, a lack of any counter movement against them. People have tried to rally support for a counter movement to the Tea Party, but the reality is that, to the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is right on many points. The only thing preventing the Tea Party from being a run away train, capable of taking back national politics for all Americans, is their insistence on believing that they are right, not because of their logic, but because of their faith, as well as their desire to make their faith the basis for all domestic social policy in America. (This contradicts their general position on the Constitution-which promotes a distinct separation of church and state. This contradiction, or hypocrisy as some would say, is obvious to many and turns them off to the movement).



Despite the Tea Party's current popularity, the bulk of Americans remain restless and angry. Seeing no eminent change in legislative ideology on the horizon, and viewing the Tea Party as little more than a band of rich elitists trying to take control of the the Federal Government away from Liberals for their own interests, to them, their vote either "still doesn't count", or remains "the lesser of 2 evils". This anger is still building, and with no outlet, and the political establishment not willing to listen or change for the better, it is destined to implode our society: America, the once great "melting pot", is boiling over...

Parents insuring their kids till they are 26? A bad message to send.

Last week, the first aspects of Obamacare went into effect. Most of America, including myself, is dreading the day, a couple years from now, when the bulk of the bill actually goes into affect (assuming it passes the Constitutionality test it faces in the Supreme Court), but the "patients bill of rights", as it is called, aspect of the legislation, which is what went into effect last Thursday, is the only part of the legislation I actually liked-except for children being allowed to stay on their parents health insurance until the age of 26...

I am a Gen X'er, and, as I was taught, one of the early steps that I had to take in becoming an adult, was in getting a job which provided me with my own health insurance. It was at this point that "mommy and daddy" no longer had to "take care of me" and that I could not only provide money for myself, but was self sufficient enough that I could also provide for my own health when needed. What concerns me is the message we are sending to our future generations by saying they don't have to worry about health insurance until well into adulthood.
Becoming an adult is all about personal responsibility and achieving independence, and a big part of that is being able to provide for your own health. Human nature tends towards laziness (unless nurtured otherwise at an early age); by giving the option to not need health insurance until 26 years of age, we are nurturing that part of humanity that is detrimental to a healthy, vibrant and successful society; and, in a small way, we are telling children that adulthood can wait. This in turn could breed a much broader lack of responsibility regarding personal choices like drug use, sex, and money management.
It may also cause social conflict within children once they reach the age of 18-when law considers them an adult: we have seen for decades the conflict that 18-20 year olds have when they consider they are old enough to vote and die for our country in combat, but not old enough to enjoy a beer and burger with their friends and family. What are they to think about their place in life when all need to be independent at the "legal" age of being an adult is removed? Are we to expect them to be ready for the responsibility of raising a family, owning and taking care of a home, and managing a household and career, when all the little steps at being prepared for such things are removed or pushed later and later into adulthood?...

We can hope that this legislation, 20 years from now, will not lead to such social and personal strife and inevitable economic stresses; then again, we were told in the mid 20th century that Welfare wouldn't produce an entire segment of society dependent on government hand outs for their existence.

American political ideologies Part 4: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

Today, the core ideologies which were once the basis for the Democrat and Republican parties, have been high jacked by Liberalism and Conservatism, respectively. This high jacking of ideologies which nearly all Americans could identify with, has lead them to be forced into taking back seats to Liberalism and Conservatism. They still exist, but only as shadows of their former selves....

It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...

The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...

Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...

American political ideologies part 3: Independents, Moderates, and the Silent Majority

Independents, Moderates and the (so called) Silent Majority all share a similar attitude towards politics, and politicians, in general: all view the political establishment as being corrupt and not to be trusted. All 3 also share many of the same basic ideologies, relative to the legislation that the Federal and State levels of government should be involved in. Their primary differences lie in their actions, and not in their beliefs...

When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.

Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.

For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...

The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.

By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".

The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...

American political ideologies part 2: Conservativism and the Tea Party

As with modern Liberalism, Conservatism in America also suffers from an identity crisis of sorts. In short, to conserve something means to preserve what exists or what used to exist. Certain aspects of American Conservatism fit this simple definition, others, however, do not, and can be said to be just as radical-if not more so-than those of modern liberalism...


As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.

However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.

Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...


Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...

Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.

American political ideologies part 1: Liberalism

There is little question that the dominate political ideology in American politics today is what is called Liberalism-it has taken over the Democratic party, and proponents of it currently hold the highest political seats in our country: President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are all Democrats, and all claim to be Liberals. On it's face, being "liberal" is a good thing-originally it stood for a persons sovereign right to their liberty against authortative governments-or any government, or other, institution which tried, through law or other means, to limit a person's liberty. The problem with modern Liberalism is that it has nothing to do with what Liberalism actually stands for...


To be specific, American Liberalism is based on the work On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Throughout the work, Mill struggles with his belief that a person has a right to their liberty from the authority of governments, against his belief of utilitarianism-which is liberty's exact opposite, and 19th century's American version of socialism. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about an individual's right, and the responsibility of excercizing that right, in society, of their soveriegn liberty from government. True, governments are necessary, but they are a necessary "evil", truly only needed to protect the citizens who agree to be ruled by them, for protection from themselves and outside forces, and for the providing of those services which private enterprise and individuals prove to not be able to provide better for themselves. A close examination of today's Liberals-those who claim to be followers of Liberalism-shows just how far from Liberalism today's followers are, and how they are more Socialists, or Utilitarianists, than followers of Liberalism.


When studying the works of Mill, and particularly On Liberty, it is obvious that the founder of what could, today, be called Liberalism, would cringe at what it has become. One need look no further than what followers of Liberalism today support: government involvement nearly every aspect of an individuals life.

"Every function superadded to those already excersized by the government,
causes its influence over hopes and fears to be more widely diffused, and
converts, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into
hangers-on of the government, or of some party which aims at becoming the
government."

These are the words of Mill as it relates directly to allowing government-of any level-to have more and more say, over more and more aspects, of our society; and todays Liberals in America are doing exactly what he warns against by supporting things like government mandated, and provided for, health care; goverment bail outs of companies deemed "to big to fail"; the printing off and buying up of currency to support programs and spending sprees by our Federal Government on programs and agencies we as a nation have no true need for; further "benefits" for the those said to be living below the poverty level; the Supreme Court broadly interrupting the Constituion so as to allow for broader and broader legislative policy from Congress. Even worse is that all of these things are leading American society and culture down a path that is decidedly based on Socialism.

There are many opinions and theories about what truly constitutes Socialism, but all of them are based around-to some extent-government ownership, and control, of all private industry; and society based loosely around a 2 class structure: the "haves" and "have nots".

Our Constitution places very strict guidelines on how much influence the Federal Government can (is supposed too) have over our economy and society, limiting it to 18 or 19 very specific things and, despite an improper ruling by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, our Federal Government actually does not have the authority to pass any law that it wants. Thanks in large part to that ruling, Congress, with the support of modern Liberalism, has all the support it has ever needed over the last 2 centuries to attack the Constitution, weakening its built in protections the people once had against Government, while at the same time expanding their power over us all.


On top of its political influences, Liberalism has also had a striking effect on the culture of American society. At the core of modern Liberalism (it must be specified as such because it now resembles very little of what it was originally based on) is a mentality based on avoiding conflict, harm and the desire to make life "easy" for every one-particularly our children. Originally born out of the great depression/World War II generation, this last ideal-that of "making life easier for the next generation"-had good intentions: that generation, perhaps, saw the greatest hardships of any other generation of Americans-besides those who first settled our land in the 16th-17th centuries. Originally meant as a rallying cry to prevent things like another depression and world war from happening through hard work, family values and education, "making life easier"-in the world of Modern Liberalism-has become an entitlement and pacifists mentality. Things such "Obamacare" and the welfare state represent the entitlement aspect of this mentality, while the abolishment of traditional school yard activities like dodge ball, stripping a parent from their right to properly discipline their children while at the same time allowing kids to avoid anything they think is "hard"; as well as allowing basic educational institutions to grade on "bell curves" or tossing out grading scales completely in favor of a simple pass/fail system. The result of the implementation of these ideals on such broad levels has helped to produce 30 years worth of Americans who have no concept of what it means to achieve through hard work; have little to no concept of what can be learned from losing to a close rival; or having the effort it takes to "excel" at anything (except, perhaps, in sports).

A secondary effect of this is that excellence and achievement have also become vilified: those at young ages who strive to stand out are seen as being "weird" or "abnormal", and are placed in so called "advanced" classes, which label them as social outcasts in their school and neighborhood. This segragation also prevents them from having any positive influence over their fellow classmates.
These social and culture ideals are also socialistic: in Socialism, everyone is to be treated as an equal. In cultures based on Socialism, there are 2 classes of people: the ruling class, and every one else. To secure this separation, societies which have historically been based on Socialism, have built their culture and institutions around many of the same ideals that modern Liberals today, in America, support...


Inherently, there is nothing wrong with traditional Liberalism-that which was defined and supported by Mill in 1859. In fact, traditional Liberalism is largely a good thing for people, societies, and cultures to embrace. As it was when Mill first defined it in political and social terms, it became the backbone of the ideals that made America great. That Liberalism would have supported a persons right to choose-concerning everything-without sacrificing human natures natural desire to better itself through effort, hard work, and failure and success through trial and error. That form of Liberalism, traditional Liberalism, was at the heart of our individual spirit, our entrepreneuralship and the responsibility we all once held over our own successes and failures and it would have supported giving people hand ups, not hand outs, from the government. Today, however, Modern Liberalism is little more than Socialism attempting to disguise itself by a word with a better image, and meaning, than that which those using the word today really believe in.

American political ideologies: Introduction

For over 20 years I have been an observer and student of the relationship between government and society. Though I have no formal education in the subjects of politics, philosophy, economics, social economic theory and the American Constitution and Constitutional theory, I have studied all of these as hobbies since my teens. Studying these subjects as I have, has, I believe, provided me with one serious advantage over those who are formally educated in them: I approach all of my studies without the bias of a 3rd party influence. Many may not take my opinions seriously-which is their right; but I have had my self education validated by those who are are formally educated in these topics. Do I still have much to learn regarding these topics? Absolutely, and I continue to do so, but that does not take away what I have learned up too now concerning these topics....
Over the coming weeks I am going to lay out what I believe are the 4 primary political and social ideologies which dominate America today in a 5 or 6 part series (as of this introduction I am undecided as to how many parts I want), how they interact with each other, and how they have helped to lead our country to the precipice of social, economic, and political collapse we are at today.
I hope those who come back to read them all do so with as open a mind as possible: America's greatest strengths have always been our unity and individuality-traits based on freedoms we are granted by our Constitution. These traits are what lead to the many great inventions and our being able to overcome all the many obstacles our nation and society faced through the end of WWII. These strengths have left our society, economy and culture over the last 40 years, and hopefully, in writing the following series, I will do my small part to remind all who read them, to help bring them back as the back bone of what America is all about.
RR

The Detroit fires: a dicotomy of governmental failure.

Early this past week, a shocking event that many local Detroiters referred too as a "natural disaster" occurred. It was an event that I believe underscores the many failures that the various levels of our government are blamable for today...
What started as severe thunderstorms, quickly turned into a raging fire storm, as downed power lines fell throughout the city, igniting as many as 10 individual fires in different parts of the city, which then spread, and burned 85 structures-many to the ground-in a 4 hour period.
The blame for which something like this could be allowed to happen, is easily spread around, but it all falls squarely on the hands of one governmental agency or another.
The first to be blamed is DTE-the semi private utility company which supplies energy to the city of Detroit and many surrounding areas. (I call it "semi" private, because all energy companies are very reliant on government regulations). DTE's blame lies with the thousands of power lines which fell down that day-many of those lines were reported by residents as being potential fire hazards because they were already hanging so low, but DTE is cash strapped due to their inability (due to governmental controls and regulations) to raise rates, to raise the funds, to make the improvements to their electrical grid that are so desperately needed.
Its been almost 10 years since I lived in metropolitan Detroit-sagging power lines due to age was a problem then, and it will continue to be a problem until DTE is allowed to raise rates so that they can afford to fix and upgrade a system built, and based, on technology developed in the first half of the 20th century.
Second on the list of blame is the city of Detroit itself.
Like most cities these days, Detroit is facing serious budget short falls. As a result, all services were cut-including the fire department. On top of laying off firemen, the city also also "deactivates" between 8 and 12 fire companies daily due to budgets constraints. The result of these cut backs was that what initially started out as 10 individual small fires, turned into blocks of burning buildings because response times were as long as 2 to 3 hours.
Another failure on the list was the 9-1-1 service in Detroit.
Many complained that when they called in, they were treated rudely and with disrespect. Frustrated 911 operators, overwhelmed by the events and other emergencies happening around the city due to under staffing-also related to budget issues-were unable to handle the situation they were presented with.
Defenders of government would say that this is just a sad reality of today's economy, but I disagree.
One of the standing theories about government's role in society is that they are to do things which private citizens and corporations have proved unable to do for themselves. To uphold this role, governments should be prepared for economic downturns. Many corporations do this (see Ford and why they didn't need a government bailout 2 years ago), why can't governments? Why is it that governments have only 2 options when our economy takes its inevitable downturns: raise taxes and/or cut services? (I actually have an idea to solve this problem, but people won't listen to me when I speak of it).


Add it all up and you get a perfect picture of why and how governmental bodies can and will fail: This, perhaps, could have happened to any government, run by any ideology, but it has to be pointed out that Detroit has long been a bastion of Democratic and Socialistic ideals, and has been control by Democratic politicians for the last 100 years, and in that time just about every socialistic program you can think of has been tried there, and they have all failed. The cumulative result of these failures has lead the city to where it is today: financially bankrupt; unable to provide its citizens with basic services, and such rampant corruption that many of its past, and present, democratic leaders are already in jail for corruption; facing prosecution for corruption; or mired in controversy due to suspected corrupt activities.
I point all this out because the same sort of people who have politically controlled Detroit over the last 100 years are now in power in our Federal Government-people like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Mrs Clinton. People who believe in 'sharing the wealth', giving to the "poor" without getting anything in return. People who believe in punishing the successful because they make a certain amount of money. These people over step their constitutional and legislative bounds on a daily basis and they, on the heels of the Bush administration (which covertly upheld the same socialistic ideals), will do the same to our nation as their counterparts in Detroit have done to that once great and proud city-lead it down the inevitable path of collapse and destruction.

The media's influence on American politics and society.

Being a freelance writer and broadcaster, I take a great risk when I speak out against the current practices and influence of print, television and radio media outlets in America. In fact, I am quite certain that my doing so has cost me both work and respect in the local market which I do most of my work in; but I am nothing if I do not voice my opinions: in my opinion, the influence of media on the general public is far beyond being out of control, and someone within the "industry" must be willing to speak out against it to put it back in its rightful place in society. If that person must be me, a small time freelance sports writer in a top 75 American market, so be it; but it should be someone who has an inside knowledge of how and why the industry operates the way it does...

The founding fathers of our nation believed that a "free press" was the surest way that a body politic would keep its elected leaders in check and to be informed of their goings on. In sum, they believed that a free press was essential to keeping any government from attempting tyrannical control over its people.

For almost 150 years, the media in our country generally served this role-as a check on government: making sure that our state and federal governments weren't over stepping their bounds relative to the Constitution. Some time in the early half of the 20th century this all changed. Whether it was the advent of radio and television, which in turn lead to the creation of the FCC to monitor and regulate the "content" of our airwaves, I don't know; but in and around this time the whole purpose of our media changed from being primarily a source of information, to being a source of opinion formation-and by extension, legislative policy making. All of a sudden the general public started caring more about what a writer or broadcaster-usually a person with no more practical knowledge of legislative policy than themselves-thought, than getting the information themselves and forming their own opinion, and media outlets were quick to feed the public what they wanted.

Televisions shows like 60 minutes and 20/20 sprung up over night; entire radio stations were dedicated to news gathering and giving of opinion; editorials in newspapers were moved from the back pages to the prominent "top half" of the first page. At first, all these new mediums did their best to base their opinions on the facts at hand, but they rapidly learned that the public really doesn't care about the facts. The more over the top, and "far out there" the opinions and positions were, the more people listened or read; and the more that people listened or read, the more money "journalistic" institutions made. The more money they made, the more political influence they would wield...

There was a time when all media outlets were bound, in some cases by law, but in all cases by "journalistic integrity", to go out of their way to not overly attempt to influence people, but the profession has given up that ideology en masse. Today, the "news" and media outlets would rather impress their views upon people, than to simply present the facts, and the people don't seem to care.
To be fair, the news media are businesses, and as such they are only responding to market trends-that being the desire of consumers for "opinionated" programing; but the media, just like any business which serves the public at large, has a duty to the public to at least provide some balance to the opinions they put out for public consumption, but they do not. In fact, nearly all outlets are deliberately slanted towards one ideology, which, in general, is "liberal". Compounding the issue is that nowadays, media outlets no longer take any pains to hide who they support for state and national offices, thereby providing the public a false representation of which candidates are most "popular".

There is no real solution to the pathetic nature of our media today.
So long as the masses prefer ignorance over fact. So long as the masses prefer entertainment value over substance. So long as the masses "dont care", the media in our country will continue to be a contributor to our nations political and social woes, as opposed to a leader in finding solutions to our problems.

Another Obama speech full of lies

Today in Ohio, President Obama spoke on the economy with the purpose of improving our economy-an economy that he, his administration, and his political party, have failed miserably at helping despite literally printing money and throwing it at it hoping against all hope it would stick. And, like all good politicians, Mr. Obama got up in front of (what looked like) hundreds of people and told well spun tale of lies and almost truths, without actually giving any real, tangible solutions to our nations economic woes. No, instead, our president took the opportunity to point the finger of blame, and chastise the other party for all their mistakes-essentially, he did the same thing that he and his party accuse the other of doing right now. All the while he did this, he told a series of glaring lies, among them were that the Republicans, "who are responsible" for the economic mess we are in now, were "in power for 8 years" (they were in power for 6 under Bush, Dems had it the last 2), that he believes in a "small, efficient federal government", and that he believes that its the "entrepreneurs who are the backbone our economy". He told others among his string of well spoken political rhetoric, but these 3 stood out most too me.
Why? Because they are so obviously lies to anyone with a half a brain in their head.
Only the the ignorant, bottom feeding, kool aid drinking, easy to manipulate masses who lap up everything Obama says like thirsty dogs at the trough, believing what this man says is gospel everytime. Yes, it is mean to call so many people, such ridiculous names; but look at the proof of what this president has done since he has been in office: he has supported health care legislation that, by some estimates, will put hundreds of thousands out of work; force a rationing of health care for the elderly and definitely increase the size of the Federal bureaucracy by at least 10%; and he supports tax increases that are detrimental to business creation.
Despite all this and the obvious hypocrisy between what he says and what he does, millions of people are still willing to support him just because he speaks well at a podium.

Mr. Obama spoke at length, in this speech, about how believes we need to stop allowing jobs to be shipped over seas; about how we should be buying products made in America, by Americans, with our money-instead of products made over seas, but out of the same side of his mouth he says he stands against corporate tax breaks, which is where Obama shows his ignorance. Mr. Obama claims that he wants to create jobs in America, and that he wants companies to start producing and distributing the products we buy, then he must learn that the easist way to do that is-like it or not-through corporate tax breaks.
Mr. Obama claims to be for entreprenuralship, but seems to fail to realize that that means people have to go into business for themselves; which means that if he wants entreprenuralship to returen in mass to America, the best way is-cut taxes.
Mr. Obama claims to be worried about the size of our national deficit, and yet every bill he passes adds to it...

I will digress...My dislike for the our Presidents fiscal ideologies is well known to all those who know me, but there was one thing that Obama said that I did agree with: that it is the job of the government to do for people and business, what they can't do better for themselves.
There is just one problem with that statement though: in the almost 225 years we have been governed under the Constitution, governmental agencies have yet to prove that they can do anything better than private enterprise-except spend money.

"Burning the Quran day"-a bad example of 1st amendment rights

One of the many great aspects of living in America is that we have freedom of speech and expression. At the same time that this is a great freedom, it is also one of the most abused freedoms we have. Of course, you will never hear me say that our 1st amendments should be changed in any way what so ever, but unfortunately for America, we will always get idiots like a Christian minister in Gainsville, Florida:
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Church has decided that he wants September 11th to be known as "Quran burning day" because of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the insistance of Muslims to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City. In sum, Paster Jones believes that it is time that we "stand up against Muslims", and this his way of wanting to stand up against that culture and their religious beliefs.
There are, of course, better ways of "standing up" to a cultures belief system which you believe is a danger to the world-like proving that your belief system, through actions based on their teachings, is better....
Pastor Jones' intentions may be good, but they certainly are not refective of the moral character and virtue the religion he preaches attempts to teach, nor are they logical given the attitude that radical Muslims have against "western" civilization in general. All Pastor Jones actions will do is anger that society of people further-giving them more reasons to hate America, and her political and economic allies; it also gives a black eye to a religion that has yet to fully distance itself from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked its sister religion, Catholicism.

There is a line that people have to learn to draw when utilizing their 1st amendments rights in America-a line that Liberals have taught society to blur more and more as each generation passes. With the freedoms that American's have, comes great responsibility-the responsibility to utilize them properly and at the right times, and using an anniversary representative of one of the saddest days of American history is not the time, or place, for such a thing as making a statement against another religion.
Fortunately, it is obvious that Pastor Jones' actions will back fire horribly on him as many of America's leaders are speaking out against his desire to go through with making September 11th "burning the Quran day". Sure, he may have 8000 or so supporters on Face Book, but they are a vast minority of Americans. Fortunately we have the right speak out against Pastor Jones' idea. Fortunately, many of us can let the world know that, despite having no love for the radical Muslimic beliefs that lead to the 9/11 attacks on our country, there are many more of us who dont support this person's actions, and that we believe there are better, more appropriate and responsible ways, to express our anger towards radical Islam....
The best way, I think, to fight idea's and people like Pastor Jones is by ignoring them-by not giving them the time of day, by not recognizing them, by simply looking past them. By recognizing Pastor Jones and his idea, and giving it all this attention, all we are doing is giving it an importance that these sort of ideas do not deserve; we make it out to be worthy our first amendment rights, when it really isn't. In the end, all we do by giving ideas like these the time of day, is to give freedom of speech a black eye.

Perspectives and politics part 2

With our leaders' positions so illogically based, and those we elect focused more on what they can do for the themselves, or for special interests, and not on specifically doing what is proper for the nation as a whole, it is no wonder that America's Federal Government has become incompetent and unable to pass even the most basic of all legislation without finding the need to write that legislation to include ridiculous add on's and riders which have nothing to do with the actual legislation that the premise of the bill was written for.
No other proof needs to be offered of the ineptitude of our Nations leadership than the statements of Harry Reid in the summer of 2009. Senator Reid (D) was asked about the health care legislation (known as Obamacare) that was before Congress at that time. Specifically, he was asked about the monstrous length of the bill-some 2000 plus pages-and if he had bothered to read every page. Mr. Reid's reply: that he believed that most of Congress does not read "most" of the legislation they adopt, nor did he believe that "80%" of Congress could even "understand" legislative language.
Why is this important as it relates to perspectives? Because perspectives are the basis for all our decision making: if even supporters of Obamacare didn't bother read the bill, or couldn't understand it, then how could they have even had a perspective from which to decide on whether to vote yes or no in passing the legislation?
What could possibly be the perspective of Congress, in regards to the American people-the people they are hired by us to serve-when they pass such monstrous and incoherent legislation such as Obamacare, and most of those who vote for it aren't even able to understand it?
Health care legislation aside, what about the other 2 large issues facing America today?
There are those in Congress, and Mr. Obama himself, who stand against the Arizona law to help fight the illegal immigration problem in their state. Why? From what perspective are they basing their opinions concerning the matter? It certainly isn't from a Constitutionally legal perspective (the U.S. Constitution is very clear that States have the right to enforce laws that the Federal Government to be incapable of enforcing, and in the case of the securing our border with Mexico it has proven unable to do so), and they refuse to explain why except to say something to the effect that we should welcome "all who seek the freedoms America offers".
How about our economy? On what economic basis are the opinions of Congress regarding current job and economic growth, as idea after idea they have to turn our economy around and create job growth fails miserably, and is only making the situation worse down the road?

This is why perspectives become important: a perspective with a basis in poor logic, leads to an opinion based on poor logic, which can lead to a bad idea being passionately supported by those who don't fully comprehend it because it is too illogical to understand rationally-but it "sounds" like a good idea.
I believe solving the problem is easy: we, the people, must be diligent when it comes to who we elect to public office-of all levels.
The surest way is to never stop asking them "why" and "how" they believe what they believe will work: "why" will their idea for fixing things work better than another idea; "how" will they implement it; etc...
I've watched many a debate, and many a question and answer session of politicians at all levels of government, and few reporters, journalists or people ever ask questions that start with "why" or "how". And on those few occasions that such questions are asked and the standard political double speak is given, you never hear a "what" question for further, and simple, explanation, and even why that question is asked, and the standard political double speak is given again, the reporter or person asking generally gives up-they stop pressing for a proper and adequate answer to their question.
We should never stop asking them.
We should never stop forcing them to answer.
We should never take double talk as an answer.
And we should never accept "no" and never stop asking until we are satisfied that whoever the politician is we are speaking too, has given as much of an answer as they are capable of giving.

The vast majority of "we" the people don't realize the power we wield over the politicians we elect to public office, but they do; and it is why they continue to hold power despite have no real perspective of what they are trying to do for us.

Perspectives and politics

Historically, most of what are considered the most influential philosophers of western civilization have skirted around the issue of how, and why, people percieve things the way they do. David Hume probably spends the most time talking about a persons perspectives in his book A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume, preferring to use the word "perception", never went so far as to discuss how a person forms their perceptions of the world around them. (To be clear, the words perception and perspective are synonomous: their difference in meaning is only in dialectic position-the former is third person, the later is first person. For the purpose of this essay I will stray between both words as determined by context). By and large, the rest of the greatest thinkers of western civilization either completely avoided the issue entirely, or creatively tried to ignore it in such a manner that their logic contained serious holes once it was realized what they were trying to avoid...

For as long as I can remember, I have always believed that one of the biggest things which differentiate, and separate, one person, and groups of people, from others is our "perspectives"-our personal "takes" on things; how we "see" things"; the side or positions we take on issues; our point of view; etc. In sum, it is our perspective on things which directly forms the opinions we all develop regarding all issues. The problem with this, in my opinion, is that people have no cognition for why they have the points of view on issues that they have: i.e. they can't explain themselves. When pressed, most people can't actually explain their opinions-regardless of where they are "coming from".
As we have progressed further into the Obama presidency, and America as a whole has become more and more polarized ideologically on all issues, this problem has become more apparent to me-particularly given the fact that the extreme fringes of our political spectrum are in control: Socialists, disguising themselves as Liberals, on the left; and Religious Collectivists, disguising themselves as Conservatives, on the right.

We are lucky in that we live in the greatest country on Earth. We have the right to hold and express any opinion, from any perspective, we wish. But what good are those opinions-our points of view-if you can't explain them? If you can't explain what makes yours more right than anothers?
Liberals, led by their President of "change" claim to be for the working man. They claim to be for helping out the poor; for the betterment of society; for social equality-yet they support programs that are destructive to all those ideals. And when pressed for explanations they fall back on claims of racism and conspiracy theories, and then go on to spin their own words over and over again, in a fruitless effort to confuse those listening.
Conservatives claim to be supportive of Free Market Capitalism and to support the Constitution as it was originally written-which means allowing people the freedom of choice that comes with being an American. But the minute that freedom of choice conflicts with their religious zealousy they forgot what they say; the minute that passing legislation which would bring financial equality to all means a lessening of their financial clout, they suddenly back pedal; the minute that their words means bringing those who they dont like, up to their level, they suddenly change their tune.
Due to the inabilities of both sides to communicate and express themselves logically on all issues, the masses-those vast majority of us in "the middle"-just tune out those in power, because neither makes sense:
How can Mr. Obama, and his political party, stand against immigration legislation in Arizona that does nothing but help enforce the laws regarding the issue found in the Constitution?
How can Republicans be for freedom of choice and personal responsibility, when they rail so hard against issues like abortion and religious freedoms?
How can Democrats be for lowering taxes on the "middle class", when their over all economic policies reduce incomes as a whole, while increasing the welfare state?
How can Republicans claim to be for peace when they are the first to offer our military for "support" for any one who asks for it?...

Using our perspectives to form our opinions is only natural-and fortunately we have a right to do so in America; but what good is doing so if those opinions are going to be illogically based and hypocritical? What good are the opinions of our leaders if even the most simplest of thinkers have no way to rationalize them?

A year of study

It has been almost a year since I last wrote on my blog. My year of absense was intentional and put to good use: in studying philosophy, politics, economics and socio economic theory. I was fortunate in that I had the time to devote to learning more about such 4 intense and complicated subjects so as to provide better content and educated opinions in my writings.
The time has also allowed my passion for expressing and sharing my personal views to come back...