Idle Musings of the Active Mind

I may not be a political science expert or a historian of any repute, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at what the Republican Party is doing and wonder if they have any clue at all.

I’m not talking about their principled stand against progressivism, that’s old news. In fact, it’s over 100 years old, as news goes. (Here’s a decent link to explain the progressive era.) I’m talking about these “neo-republicans” that are hell-bent on completely and entirely driving their party into the ground.

I’ve never really considered myself a full Democrat or a full Republican, though I do lean toward the original Republican party ideal; that government should concern itself with world affairs and let states manage their own domestic affairs. If several states want to band together to form a coalition on specific social issues, that would be their prerogative. But keep the Federal government out of matters of domestic commerce.

It may be naive of me to think this approach would work, I’ll admit to that possible failing on my part. As I watch Obama grow the Federal government to new and untold heights, however, I have to admit that he scares me a little. Okay, maybe more than just a little. But the current Republican stance isn’t helping either. All the Republican party is being successful in doing is standing in the way. They aren’t getting out in front of the American public with a detailed plan that will deliver us from the economic storm we are in. Obama may not have the best plan, but so far no one is putting a better one on the table.

Simply put, I’m not a fan of big government. Never have been and never will be. I don’t believe we have enough altruistic actors in the political arena to make a big-government strategy work for the masses. In fact, the current Republican strategy seems only to be strengthening the position of the progressive Democrats that seem to be holding the reins of power right now. Their strategy seems to be to take the popular Republican faces, give them some haphazardly written sound bite and toss them in front of a news camera.

I don’t know who is calling the shots over at Republican Central Station, but who ever it is they are doing a crappy job right now. They’ve lost practically all of their credibility capital and mutilated their dwindling supply of integrity capital to such a degree that it would not surprise me in the least to see the Republican party split and cave in on itself. When they put their spokesmen in front of the cameras, they should confirm first that these people don’t have huge piles of money hiding in their closets–closets being fed by big business supporters. It does nothing for them except further alienate the middle and lower income voters.

The farther down the food chain you push the power, the closer you get to putting the power in the hands of the people affected by that power. Again, this isn’t rocket science; it’s just simple reasoning.

If I don’t like what my local city mayor and my councilmen are doing, I don’t vote for them. They know this, so they support their voters by instituting policies and spending our local funds on projects I (and those who share my positions on various matters) want. If people don’t like something that a given city has instituted, they can move to the next town and get away from it.

Think about it. When people decide to change jobs and they are scanning the market for work, one of the things they look at is the community where they will be living. If they have a family and school-aged children, they make sure the schools in the area will meet their criteria for what they consider an acceptable level of quality in education. They look at taxes and cost of living. When the find the right combination of job and community, they move.

I realize this won’t work for everyone, at least not in the middle of our current economic crisis. Too many people don’t have the funds or a good enough job to make a change. And even in times of prosperity, not everyone have the financial position to have that kind of free mobility…at least not without making other changes first. And if they don’t want to make those changes–more education, acquiring new skills, etc–then that, to me, says they also don’t mind where they live. If they really did mind, they’d make changes.

Central to the current set of issues is the idea that we need to create competition–or intensify it in someway–between insurance companies and healthcare providers. Maybe we do, but who’s job is it to create this intensification of need? Is it government’s job or is it ours? I think it was Arkansas (might have this point wrong, but one of the states anyway) had the greater percentage (over 80%?) of its residents getting their insurance through one insurance carrier. I was amazed at this statistic. I don’t know what perfect storm of greed and corruption contributed to this, but the fact remains that if the people didn’t like it, they should have either left the state or used the power of their vote to remove these greedy bastards from office! Why do we need to encourage the Obama administration and his progressive supporters in their assertion that the only way to fix that kind of problem is by growing the involvement of the Federal government in the affairs of domestic commerce? Isn’t that our job–the job of the voters?

Instead of spending the millions of dollars these politicians are spending on ways to educate us to how bad the situation is and to try to convince us that bigger government is the answer, why not spend it on education about how local voters can initiate their own reform by NOT VOTING FOR THE SAME GREEDY BASTARDS WHO PUT THEM IN THIS SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE??

Ok. If you haven’t seen or heard about this, then stop now and go watch the video. Here’s a link.

Kids Sing Obama’s Praises

Whether you are “for” or “against” Obama, this video should be closely scrutinized–or rather, the act of teaching it to children and having them sing it should be. Flat out, it’s malfeasance on the part of the teacher.

Why, you ask?

Because regardless which direction your political views run–left or right or simple squarely in the center of the road–it should be acknowledged that children this young have no concept of whether or not anyone in political office is doing a good job. Even adults can’t agree on this. So teaching a song that positively reinforces the actions of a particular politician is, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, a gross misuse of power.

For the record, the song could have been a cheeky version that pokes fun at Obama or one that outright calls him a good-for-nothing bastard and I’d be equally against teaching it to kids this age.

Some of those who would want to remind me that the context this song was being taught within was during a Black history and awareness event; that such an event makes celebrating Obama as president somehow less of a violation of these kids’ civil rights, less inappropriate and less irresponsible. And I might agree, if the song’s lyrics were focused on the issue of race and the office of the president. The lyrics were not, however, emphasizing and celebrating the attainment of the office of president by an African American; it celebrated Barack Hussein Obama. Period.

I have a firm conviction on this issue: children should not be taught things that carry a message of political rightness or wrongness. In the same way I would not want my pre-teen child taught that that it was, in some way, a good thing that Joseph Alois Ratzinger was elected as Pope Benedict XVI to serve as the Sovereign of the Vatican City State.

When it comes to matters related to politics, children need to be presented with facts, not opinions. They don’t have enough information or even the mental equipment at this young age to be able to think critically about such matters. Teaching them a song like this is tantamount to teaching them that Barack Obama is the best president to ever hold office. They will remember–perhaps only as democratic echoes in the years to come–that the best president a country can have is male, African American and a Democrat.

I don’t care about race. I don’t care about gender. I don’t care about party affiliation. I care whether or not the person doing the job is qualified and doing it in accordance with my wishes. But what I want is likely not the same as what everyone else wants…including these kids who, when they grow up, will make their own informed decisions about who they think would be the best person for the job.

I’m open minded enough to want kids to be presented with all the information they can be given–facts, mind you, not just some bullshit spewed by the talking heads on TV–and armed with that information be taught how to apply reasoning and critical thinking skills as part of their personal process for coming up with their own opinion. Kids, as we all know, are impressionable (and when I say “impressionable” I mean it literally!), particularly so at this age. Doubt this? Think about how completely COOL superhero X from Saturday morning cartoons is to an 8-year old.

So when it is discovered that someone is teaching our kids to sings songs praising a politician, I want that person to be held accountable.

Every day people do things without thinking about the consequences of their actions. I’m confident that this teacher had good intentions in mind; that she was simply caught up in the excitement of what it meant to finally see an African American be elected to the highest political office of our great country. I know I was excited about it. And though it is purely speculation, I can envision this teacher getting swept up by this excitement and wanting to share it with the people she is around most of her day. Her students.

I can understand it. I just can’t abide it. Nor should any of us. There need to be limits and complete accountability where kids are concerned.

Here’s a question: What did these kids learn? How it will affect their future? How will it influence the realization of their dreams? Did it in anyway alter the way they look at their dreams? And did it in any way change what dreams they might have for themselves? …for others?

If any one of those kids end up in politics, would anything this teacher might have taught them about Barack Hussein Obama have something to do with it?

We do not yet know how history will remember him. We do not yet know if he’s a good president or not. And more importantly, it is not this teacher’s place to teach such things to the kids; it is a parent’s.

Let’s lay some groundwork…

First, voting based on political party has given us–and will continue to give us–a plutocratic republic: a few wealthy and powerful interests are running the show based on what they believe the masses will accept, all under the ruse that they represent our best interests.

Second, political office was never intended to be–and should not be allowed to continue to be–a career. Doubt me on this? Bone up on your history. Our founding fathers knew the wisdom of not serving more than a few terms in office. They did not believe it was healthy for a democratic republic. Had they known that people would actually one day live long enough to be able to hold a senatorial seat for 40+ years, they would have written term limits into the constitution. Speculation? Maybe, but I repeat: bone up on your history.

Third, why do we allow the talking heads on TV to sway us even one iota? Think about it. Ultimately, their ability to stay employed and talking to us is based on the viewers they can attract. This means they will say what they need to say in order to get people to tune in. Doubt me on this? Then explain why Glen Beck continues to beat out Keith Olberman in number of viewers by nearly a 2 to 1 margin!

But he loses advertisers, you say? Sure. If you had a guy on TV telling your customers things that would lead them to undermine your market position and profit potential, wouldn’t you pull your advertising dollars?

Don’t get me wrong here. I think Beck’s TV persona is a pure lunatic. Read his book, “Common Sense”, though, and tell me you don’t see bursts of sobering sanity. Olberman, Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity…pick your nut, but they all get paid to entertain and draw viewers.

I’m not suggesting you should stop being entertained by these people, only that you realize what it is you’re watching and listening to. Let them bring you the high-level topics of political interest and expose the dirt on the politicians for you, but don’t buy into what they are selling…at least not without a bit of your own, independent research. Think of it in the same terms your mom used to advise: If Tommy-Down-The-Block told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that, too? No? Then why be swayed by the talking heads purely on what they alone have to say?

But they point out facts and are just reporting the news! …heh really? You believe that, eh?

News is information that is reported without a spin or underlying motives beyond simple edification. Tell me FOX News and MSNBC aren’t aligned politically with their favorite party. Here’s a newsflash for ya: If they didn’t pander to the politicians and report all the “he said, she said” bullshit, then maybe our bi-partisan system would have a glimmer of hope of working. Who makes people like Sen. Wilson famous for dissing the most respected position in the country? Doubt me on this? Then ask yourself why the next day Wilson’s coffers swelled by a sudden infusion of several hundred thousand dollars of political support.

Money and power are the seeds of corruption. We know this. It isn’t any secret.

We also know the more of both you have, the greater the chances of corruption growing. Again. Not news, just well-established facts.

So, what do we as American people do? We put people in political office where they have access to both, which on the surface isn’t terrible. But wait. Look again…years later. They are STILL IN OFFICE!

*double take*

*blank stare*

How the hell did that happen? How did politician X manage to eek out 40 years of senatorial experience? Hmm…wait! I know!

We voted for them over and over and over again. And yet we bitch about how the government isn’t doing what we want. We constantly feel like these people spend more time campaigning to keep their jobs than actually doing anything substantial to improve the human condition in America.

Why would they? They have no incentive to do that. Their incentive is to keep voting for policies, programs, bills, and pork projects that keep their pockets lined with campaign finance dollars–dollars they can use to keep their sweet little honeys on the side living large in the Carribean!

For the love of our country, STOP VOTING FOR THEM!

No one should be allowed to remain in office more than 2 terms. Admittedly, maybe 2 terms isn’t the perfect number, but shit! Start somewhere! If you go to the polls and pull the lever to cast your vote for a person who’s already been in office for 2 terms, just remember YOU helped keep them in power…and money…and seeded sufficiently for the coming corruption of their term in office.

If the politicians won’t police themselves and pass legislation to require term limits, then the responsibility falls to us: the people.

A friend of mine asked me the other day if I thought the economy would recover. I immediately and without hesitation answered, “Not to the level we have just previously enjoyed, no.”

His question came in the midst of opining on the merit–or lack thereof–of Obama’s economic stimulus plan and package. We covered such areas as whether or not we felt the AIG bailout should have been allowed, whether or not the government should be allowed to step in and take over management of a business that it felt could have an economic impact if it failed, and whether or not we felt racking up $1.5 trillion in debt was something that would ever be paid back and eliminated.

He proceeded to quiz me on why I felt so strongly and confidently that the economy would not recover to previous levels. Here’s the upshot of my response…

I own two houses: one is in Minnesota, the other in Iowa. When we left MN and came back to IA, we tried to sell our house, but in 2007 the housing market was sluggish in the area where we lived. I could have sold it, but only if I dropped the price so low that I would, in essence, take a small loss. I wasn’t willing to do that. The property was, at one time, valued at around $275k (give or take $20k). Today, if I wanted to sell it, I’d have to drop the asking price to something near $100k–maybe less. So the question being asked, in my mind anyway, is whether or not I think my property in MN will ever have the potential to fetch $275k again. Realistically, I just don’t see how. So, no, I do not think the economy will recover to previous levels. 

Under Obamanomics, the idea seems to be able to be distilled down to a few simple ideas:

• Dump a ton of money into the economy.
• Increase government’s role in the private sector.
• Raise taxes on the wealthy and sustain them on the less wealthy.
• Convince everyone that the Obamanomic economists have accurately projected the rate of economic recovery.

 I was skeptical of Obama during his campaign. I can’t say I wasn’t caught up in the excitement of the prospect of having an African American as our president. And I don’t think Obama is a stupid man in any fashion. I have a genuine belief that he sincerely wants to do the right thing for our country. That being said, however, some of the things he is suggesting–or allowing the democratic controlled congress to suggest–just scares the hell out of me.

Part of what scares me is the notion that there are few, if any, bona fide altruists in the world. The idea that one of those few true spirits might choose a life of politics is just unfathomable to me. But an altruist is what is required if these Obamanomic practices become national law.

Think about this…

You start a business. It does well. You guide and steer your company to the point of it being a major corporation earning enormous profits. But then you start making bad decisions–or allowing others to make them for you. The size of the corporation and the nature of its products have risen to such a prominent level that should your company fail, you will affect the lives of 1000’s of people. Hmm. I hope to high heaven you are not an asshole, because if you are there is nothing to prevent you from driving the business into the ground as you play with the money and investing and the compensation payouts to line your already thick pockets with extra cash.

The government, when it recognizes what is happening, will step in suddenly and tell you how you are mismanaging your company and take over. Hmm. What’s the down side? Where’s the risk?

If government would stay out of the private sector, the risk is that you’d be broke at the end! Hey, there’s some incentive not to be a complete asshole! You’ll be poor in the end if you try that stunt.

Government’s role should be to keep the playing field leveled so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be successful. And by “leveled” I don’t mean handing out fistfulls of cash to any swinging dick that asks for it. There needs to be SOME level of oversight, but when I hear suggestions that government should step in and “partner with the private sector,” well, it just scares me to death.

To be fair, though, I have to admit I could just be an anti-change curmudgeon on this. Maybe it is time for America to embrace a new ideology; one that expects government to be involved in everything we do. Maybe we need that level of intervention for a while–say, for a couple of decades–as we plow through some evolutionary changes in technology and social interaction encouraged by the Internet and things like Web 2.0 technologies. The problem, though, is in figuring out how to decommission that intervention at an appropriate time. And making SURE that decommissioning activity actually happens.

If this kind of change is necessary, though, I want everything to be above board and transparent, analyzed by experts and reviewed in the court of public opinion before it happens. And to be clear on this, I am not referring to airing the information on television networks, edited and spin-doctored by an agenda-driven press. I want it to be available in a coherent, concise, undertandable form that solicits and gathers my feedback and opinion. I don’t want the responsibility abdicated to a bunch of talking heads who think news and the media is about entertaining the public.

What’s that, you say? Impossible?

I agree. It does not, however, change my opinion on the matter one iota.

Here’s my position on the issue of abortion and abortion as a political issue.

I see these as two separate issues. I am, like every thinking person in this world, “pro life.” That is to say, I do not believe in committing murder and unwarranted killing of anyone. I find it unfortunate that God seems to disagree with this position in that he sanctions the existence of wars. This is something that is written in the Bible and we are taught that what is written within is the word of God.

I am also disappointed that people in our culture today are so easily hoodwinked into following and/or subscribing to the demagoguery of someone’s political agenda. The term “pro life” is not a confusing term, but it is one that is often misused. The extreme political right would have us believe that people who believe in a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is also not “pro life.” The correct term would be “pro abortion,” for if you ask the woman choosing abortion if she also believes in murder or senseless killing, she will tell you she does not.

I would submit that there are extreme situations that are beyond the right of any individual other than the one involved and God to pass judgment on them.

When a woman chooses abortion, it is a matter of spirituality that guides how she is judged and suffers. It is not a matter of political policy that should be allowed to do these things. “Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged.”

Do we want politicians deciding matters of faith? This is an important question, to my way of thinking at least. If we allow them to interfere in the faith-based question of whether or not to choose to have—or perform—an abortion, then what else is fair game for politicians to also decide for us?

But let’s take this matter one step further and think about this in a more detailed and more down-to-earth way…

If a woman is raped, one of the most violent acts against a woman that can be imagined, and out of that violent episode she becomes pregnant, what are her choices?

She can choose to live the next nine months with a daily and constant reminder of that violent episode, then raise the child herself or give the child up for adoption.
…or…
She can choose to terminate the pregnancy, thereby saving herself from the mental anguish and daily infliction of cruelty that not doing so would produce.

Who am I to judge her choice? I am not God. I would not make such a choice for myself (at least I don’t think I would). And I would offer support for any family member who might have to endure the daily pain and suffering such an event might inflict upon them so that they would choose another path besides abortion. But I could not, in good conscience, judge any woman for making what would most definitely be one of the hardest choices in her life. I will leave that to God to do. He is far more wise and knowing than I will ever hope to be.

And I will not force my choice upon others. Given the opportunity, I would guide others to a different choice than to have an abortion. It is up to the person, however, to choose to follow my guidance. If I supported a political candidate who believed there is not a right to choose, that everyone on this earth is not gifted with free will to make the right choices that will lead them to salvation, then I would be doing exactly the opposite of what God encourages us all to do…to exercise free will and make such choices as we are guided to make according to our spiritual conscience.

It is never as simple as vote for this person or that person and we will achieve God’s purpose. I wish it was. Life would be a whole lot simpler.

I admit. I caught the Obama bug. I wasn’t always an Obama-ite, but after watching the Republican party stoop to such incredible lows during this campaign, I couldn’t, in good conscience, support McCain. And it’s too bad, really. I used to have a lot of respect for John McCain. I didn’t always agree with his positions, but I could at least respect the man. He was clearly a principled man, passionate in his beliefs, and seemed to genuinely care about what went on in our country.

Over the last few months, however, I saw a different man. Worse, I watched as the man I knew as John McCain change and become some other person. And the only glimpse I got of “the old McCain” was when that Minnesota woman asked him outright if Obama was a terrorist and he responded with a well phrased version of “no, he is not.”

What transpired over the final months of this most recent presidential election was a stroke of pure genius for John McCain…if he wanted to alienate a good chunk of the neo-republicans out here. I still consider myself more of a Republican than a Democrat, but I could not bring myself to vote for a man who sold himself out to the radical right. McCain is a conservative, but those who helped his campaign cannot, in my opinion, really call themselves conservative or even ultra-conservative. They are radicals out to push an agenda at any cost.

I don’t know if Obama will be good for us or not. I know change is needed in Washington. I know change is needed in our political system. I heard Obama consistently state his desire to see change happen. If it is the right kind of change, we’ll all reap the rewards. If not…well… *sigh*…we’ll just have to wait and see.