Campaign Finance Reform - A Simple Solution

The simplest solutions are often the ones that get overlooked. In the case of campaign finance reform, there is a very simple solution that could alter the face of politics in America, dramatically reducing the level of corruption and nearly eliminating the ability of big money organizations (corporations or unions or anyone else) to own the political agenda.

Which is exactly why COMA (Corporate Oligarchy Money in America) will do all that they can to assure that such a simple solution is never implemented. They will paint it with all of the normal paintbrushes of emotional fear that they have used for years. They will call it socialism, and if that doesn’t work, they will call it communism. They will hammer on these themes until enough people fall back into their place with the rest of the sheep, and let their COMA masters have their way yet again.
First, a starting place:

• We must reaffirm the notion that there is such a thing as the “Public Commons”. This was an important notion when our country was founded – the idea that each person had a right to stand in public and say whatever they wanted to say. If there were no Public Commons, then there could be no free speech, right? If all space were private, then landowners would control speech completely – they would decide what got said on their property. Unless you were a landowner – part of the aristocracy – you would not be able to speak freely. The right to speak freely was completely dependent on the existence of public space.
• At the time of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, electronic media obviously did not exist. The Public Square was the place where we expressed our freedom of speech, as well as the written word.
• As the electronic airwaves came into existence, there seems to have been an understanding that these airwaves were public property. In order to use these electronic waves, a person or organization must “lease” a particular space in the public square of the airwaves. They are granted the privilege to use that bandwidth for a particular period of time.
  So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.

So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.This sounds a lot like the feudal systems in Europe that our forefathers were trying hard to avoid, doesn’t it? There would be a small aristocracy who would be in complete control of speech, and through that control of all speech and communication, would further consolidate their hold on power, influence, and money.


I think that we understood this to some degree as print media became more influential, and electronic media began to explode. We put in place laws and limits on how much of this huge power could rest in any single hands. Radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc. needed to be owned locally rather than as part of big national corporate voices. We rightfully feared the ability of big barons of money and power to completely control the public conversations, and put strong limits to try and curb this.
Over the past 3 decades, these protections have been rapidly eroded. We have a very few mega-corporations who own essentially all of the media in our country. Is it any surprise that the explosion of corruption and corporate ownership of our represented officials has coincided with this handoff of the Public Commons to this small handful of the super-rich and super-powerful?
The first step in fixing this uber-corruption is to remove control of the election process from the hands of COMA, and put it back in the hands of the American People. This is the simple step:

• If I broadcast over public airwaves, I am granted this privilege by The People, as represented by the government. One of my responsibilities in order to maintain this privilege is that I must grant voice to people who seek to represent The People.
• It should be illegal for me to charge any fee when I fulfill this responsibility. I MUST provide free voice to people seeking election in my coverage area. There will surely be some definitions regarding where lines might be drawn, but the bottom line is that a big portion of my airtime is held by the public in order to express their right to free speech.
• It is illegal to buy time on the airwaves, and it is illegal to charge for that time.
• Period

Notice what this does? It takes money out of the equation completely. The big media giants will whine and cry about all the revenue we are keeping them from taking in. Tell me why this is the problem of The People? I run a small business, and there is no “Bill of Rights” that guarantees me revenue or profit as a business person. If Fox and NBC don’t like it, they can fold their tents and go home – I am absolutely positive that there are many other organizations who would LOVE to have the privilege to use their bandwidth, and will find a wonderful way to make excellent profit within these rules.
For us – The People – we take money completely out of the election process. Well, we don’t eliminate it, but we reduce it dramatically. Sure, this means the media companies take a huge hit – maybe we can find a better way to deploy those resources…
Pretty simple, right? I wonder why we never hear about it? Could it be that the way we hear about ideas is through Big Media, and this would be a crushing blow to Big Media?

The Supreme Court of Corporate America

It should come as no surprise that as the court has become stacked further and further to the right, they would continue to assault the constitution of the United States.

This is way more simple than the media makes it out to be.

Corporations are not people. Period.

Corporations, Unions, and other organizations have no protections under our constitution. The modern corporation is an invention of a cartel to whom we continue to turn over control of our country. This latest move by this right wing activist court shows the depth to which we have handed over our country to the modern day robber barons of corporate America.

Every true conservative in this nation should be alarmed at this shameful activism on the part of partisan judges serving their corporate masters...

Any Other Health Care Ideas?

As a conservative, I am curious about how the public will punish the right wing for their gross obstructionism and complete bankruptcy of ideas regarding health care. This is an area where the Republican Party, run by the extreme right wing, demonstrates again just how far they have strayed from core conservative principles.

The fiscal conservative wants as much as he can get for his dollar. He doesn't like wasteful spending. So, when it comes to healthcare, there are a couple of really simple facts that should drive every conservative in America to support radical change in what we do.

First, healthcare costs us twice as much as it costs the rest of the developed world. Absorb that a minute, because the media would have you believe think that we have reasonably priced healthcare in this country. There are several sources of information on the cost of healthcare - the REAL COST is what I am looking at - what does it cost us as a country to deliver healthcare to our citizens - regardless of how that is done? In 2007, Congressional Research Service, (remember congress was still controlled by the right wing in 2007 when this report was published), reported that in 2004, the US spent just over $6000 per person on healthcare. This is twice the average of other developed countries, (1st world big economy countries), and about 20% higher than the next most expensive nation.

So that's the first half of the equation - we pay WAY more than everyone else in the world for healthcare. Not just a little more - TWICE AS MUCH! The fiscal conservative in me doesn't like this at all. But wait, maybe healthcare in the country is just so good - just so much better than everywhere else - that this is one of those places where I need to just cool my jets, and accept that our culture wants to spend way more in order to get really really really great healthcare.

So I look around, and start asking the question. Just how much better is healthcare in the country than in the rest of the western world? Not for the ultra rich who can afford anything they want, but for the entire country - for all of us - because at the end of the day, one way or the other, we are all paying that $6000+/year to get this really cadillac healthcare, right?

Well, come to find out that we don't deliver healthcare that stands out head and shoulders above the rest of the developed world.

But wait, it's worst. We don't deliver healthcare that is better than all the rest of the countries at all.

But wait, it's worst. We don't deliver healthcare that is as good as the top western nations in the world.

In fact, the quality of the healthcare that we deliver in this country is worst than the entire western world. The key here is to measure some objective metric that applies across the population, and demonstrates overall health levels of the population as a whole. You can be unfair about this if you want, and look for only those measurements that either prove this as an understatement if you are one side of the argument, or those that prove this as an overstatement if you are on the other side of the argument. A good article in the Christian Science Monitor tries to put the best face possible on it I think - from the same year that the cost numbers above are quoted - 2004.

I don't want to split hairs. I am paying twice as much as the rest of the developed world, and I am not getting healthcare that is better than the rest of the world. THAT is indisputable regardless of what you want to argue.

So, the fiscal conservative in me says what we have is clearly the WRONG way to deliver healthcare, and we should be looking at the rest of the developed world to see what we can learn from them on how to do this better than we have been doing it.

Don't know the answers yet, all I know is that the Republican Party has been hell-bent throughout this debate on making sure that nothing changes. They haven't been offering alternatives plans or other ways to think about it - they have just been playing good lackeys to the corporate medical world, and doing all they can to prevent change.

And me, as a conservative, is disgusted once again at how far the Republican Party has strayed from true conservative principles.

Again.

And will the public punish them in any way? So long as the media keeps up their outstanding work of keeping the wool pulled down low over our eyes, and moving those shells around, they might just get away with it.

How incredibly sad...

On The Other Hand: The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

On The Other Hand: The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

World Hunger - Solution or Problem?

Did I hear it right yesterday – that Bush is suggesting that we spend $750 million of taxpayer money to help the hungry in the world? I don’t have any details – just heard the headline.

This sure sounds good – makes a good soundbite – but is it possible that we really want to do this?

Let me understand the lay of the land with regard to what we do as a nation to impact food supply around the world:

• The government takes my tax money, and subsidizes farmers to not grow food, in order to try and keep food prices higher.
• The government keeps food prices higher by controlling trade with higher prices as a goal, taking yet more of my money.
• The government takes my tax money, and subsidizes the use of food crops to create ethanol. This uses the tax money I give to them to subsidize something that I don’t believe in, with the result being higher food prices that I must pay at the store.
• I haven’t even gotten into the subsidies that they pay to the big agricultural firms and the big oil firms, all combining to continue the cycle of high prices that they have created.
• I haven’t even gotten into the moral implications of our habits and practices in this country with regard to how we produce and consume food.

I could go on, but from a purely fiscally conservative perspective, it would appear that the government uses a lot of MY money that they take from me in the form of taxes, and they use this money to ASSURE that food prices remain high, and that food availability around the world remains low. Then they want to act as though this is a problem that they want to solve, and of course, their solution to the problem is to take yet more of my tax money and throw it at the problem.

This is absurdity. What takes it from absurdity to the realm of moral crime is that they will most likely assure that most of this tax money of yours and mine that they say that they want to use to solve this problem will most likely go right into the pockets of the big agricultural firms to assure that the problem continues, rather than into programs and policies that might actually encourage independence on the part of poor regions of the world.

Can someone find a more clear example of moral bankruptcy?

The Balance of Beauty, Ugly, and Utility

I design and build gardens for people. It is a dream job in many ways – the ability to use as your palate beautiful plants that will evolve and grow each year.

As a result of this vocation, people often want to talk about plants, and get ideas on which plants are the “best”. Of course, as with most things, “it depends”, right?

Each plant brings its own particular beauty, expressed in many different ways. Some plants compliment one another, some will always clash. Each has its own “hardiness” for cold, or heat, or sunlight, or shade, or soil, or moisture. And of course, they each have their own “ugliness” too.

Right now I am looking out my office window at the purple Delosperma that lies drooping over my rock walls. It looks brown and dead – starkly unattractive really as the Colorado springtime is exploding in the garden around it. However, I know that by the time that June gets here, those ugly masses of drooping brown will have transformed once again into beautiful bright drapes of purple and green dressing-up the granite walls.

So, I accept this little period of ugly, knowing the beauty that is to come once again.

Our relationships with others are like this too I think. Perfection is pretty hard to find in anything – particularly in people it seems. I know that the gap between me and anything approaching perfection is too great a distance to see on the clearest of days. So, the people who are my friends, family, lovers, or whatever, must have decided that even though I have my seasons of ugly, the beauty and utility that I offer makes the ugly season worth overlooking. No accounting for that…

What is it that makes this possible – this ability to overlook the ugly season that a person displays in order to see the beauty when that season is upon us? I have to say that when I am gardening, there is truly some level of connection that I have with the plants that I put into the ground. I know that plant, and I know its many phases, and I know what it is finicky about, and I know that if I treat it right, and place it right, and assure proper care, that it will – once again – wash the garden with the beauty that I know so well.

My friends are like that too I think. It is that connection that you develop with a person that allows you to rest assured that you understand the balance of beauty and ugly and utility in this person well enough to deal with them, and to help them grow as they are meant to grow. The tighter and closer the connection is, the more in harmony we become with each other, and the thing that once seemed only ugly, can now become balance and harmony.

Social Policy

I think that the word socialism is one that we should re-think. I agree with you that one of the basic tenants of socialism seems to be a redistribution of wealth. How does their saying go - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need - or something like that.
Here is a link to a good definition:

It seems to me that western culture all has some degree of socialism. Wouldn't we all like to have a class-less society? (Maybe not those in the “upper” class who reap all the rewards of a class-based society, but surely the rest of us would I think.) The early followers of Jesus were certainly as socialist as you could get. When the US instituted the income tax to pay for WW1, (back when we paid for wars that we waged), and then kept the income tax in place after the war debt was paid, that income tax was used to begin to implement the progressive policies that marked all of western society in the post-enlightenment world. We were making a conscious decision to re-distribute wealth in that progressive era. We were all instituting some form of “socialism”.

We could spend a lot of time discussing the different paths that we and other nations have been on since then, but I think that it is fair to say that in the US or any other western country, there are going to be those who are satisfied with the way that the wealth is distributed and spent, and those who aren't. I have heard for years from people in this country who talk about how unhappy the people in more socialist countries are with both the distribution of wealth policies and the use of that money - usually things like social medicine or universal health care used as the example. However, I never hear those things from the people in those countries. The everyday people that I have known from Canada, Sweden, Britain, Norway, and Germany have generally felt pretty good and positive about their social systems. A case can be made that our economy in this country is suffering, though certainly not in as bad a shape as France and Germany as you point out. However, during our last recession, (01-02), as I recall the European countries fared better than we did, but I didn't hear much talk of our economic problems being tied to the fact that we had an almost completely private system of medicine. Why is it that when their economy is in the tank, we always want to bring out the “social medicine” card as the cause?

I agree with you that the working class in many countries is getting fed up with the load that they are being asked to carry, but I don't see this as linked very strongly to the social policies of the country. I think that a culture makes value statements about themselves when they decide what is important - what they want to pay for. The more socially progressive countries make value statements that indicate a strong sense of accountability for everyone in the culture - regardless of class or economic privilege. My dealings with the everyday folks like you and me in those countries leads me to believe that they generally support those national values. Where they get upset, just like the people in this country get upset, is when an ever increasing burden of the bill falls on their shoulders, as those who are wealthier see their portion of the bill reduced. While the European countries remain more socially progressive than the US, there has been a growing trend in those countries to follow the lead of the US and redistribute the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the poor and middle class. This - in my opinion - is what causes the unrest among the working class that is growing throughout the western world – the fact that their share of the bill continues to increase, while the share that the wealthy pay decreases.

Most of all, I agree with your last statement - what the party platform says and what the practitioners practice are often very different!

Greens and Libertarians

My experience with the actual positions that seem to be taken by people who call themselves by these labels, (Green or Libertarian), has led me to the following generalizations, (which are never fair of course).

The ideas that are put down on paper by Libertarians attract me at first glance. We all get frustrated by "big anything" sometimes, including government, and I am no exception. But when put into practice, (for example when you hear a Libertarian in a debate focused on how they would solve problems), I come away with the idea that they are really rooted in the worst kind of selfishness. If is all about me, then I want all the ability to make all the decisions for myself, and I want nobody else involved. I want small government, no taxes, I make all my own decisions. There is a great deal of this Libertarian philosophy (I think) that drove the shift in the Republican party 25 years ago away from being for fiscal conservatism and toward a single-minded focus on tax reduction, and a push to starve government programs of cash, assuming they would go away.

The bottom line is that at some point I have to think of myself within the culture that I live in. How does my culture meet the needs of all the members? It is great to theoretically think in terms of charity and people voluntarily stepping up to the plate to solve problems within the culture, but the fact is that this simply does not happen in our culture. At one end of the spectrum you have the notion of a social democracy - we empower and expect solutions from government. Most of the western world leans far more toward this model than we do. Over the past 25 years, we have been moving steadily away from this model, under the banner that people are better at managing "their money" (the Christian in me has a problem with this term) than the government is. As a result, effective tax rates - especially on higher income brackets - have plummeted over the last 25 years. In theory, we should have seen a corresponding rise in both the personal savings rate, (as people take better care of "their money", as well as an increase in the rates of "giving" to charitable and philanthropic causes. In fact, personal rates of charitable giving have not dramatically changed during that period, and the personal savings rate has continued to drop - I think that it actually stands at a negative number right now. (In 1987, when the tax rates were dramatically dropped such that the top rate dropped from 50% to 28% - meaning that high earners had an extra 32% of their income that they kept - the rate of charitable giving rose only about 7%.)

At the end of the day, I guess I do believe that as a culture we should be providing for each other. While much of that work can be done by private organizations, the fact is that Americans don't tend to fund such a model voluntarily. The other drawback to that model is the lack of democratic process - those with money will begin to fund the organizations that favor them, rather than maintaining an egalitarian perspective. So, after wondering for many years if the Libertarian philosophy was one that I could sign on to, I came to the conclusion that they had some interesting ideas, but that their foundational premise was too self-centered for me. They don't really want to solve problems, they just want more control over what they consider to be theirs.

As to the Greens, I have similarly found myself supporting their positions on many things over the years. I know that this is a broad and unfair generalization, but they do too often seem to me to be very "elitist" and "politically correct" - too much so for me in some cases. For example, looking at the 10 Basic Values, they list "Feminism" as one of these. While this is a very politically correct term to use, what does it mean? I don't think that you would find a common definition of what that word means across the board. Mind you, if you know me you know that I am a huge believer in social justice for all, I believe that no one should be discriminated against based on what they are or aren't, and you probably know that if push came to shove, I would probably rank women in general as smarter, wiser, and more capable in most professional respects than men, and believe it to be obvious that western culture has scorned and denigrated femininity for over 1500 years. I don't call myself a feminist though, because I don't know what the word means. I have known militant "female supremacists" who assign that label to themselves, and everything else on the spectrum. So for an organization to use such a vague word as a "Basic Value" bothers me. It shows a lack of thought, and a tendency to do something because it is politically correct - the wrong reason.

With that criticism, I will say again that I find myself agreeing with Greens on many (but certainly not all) issues. Looking at their "Basic Values", how can anyone argue with Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Responsibility, and Non-violence? (I think that the other labels fall neatly into these).

At their web site, the Greens offer a very nice discussion guide in the form of a comparison of their position with the position of the Democrats and the Republicans - you can find it here. I think the document is not entirely fair with the other parties, but makes a great discussion document. I think that we could print this document, and bring it with us as a discussion guide, and start wrestling through the issues one at a time, and see where we end up. Would be a fun thing to do - I might surprise myself at where I ended up. Would be nice if the Libertarians were a little less theoretical, and we could add a column for them on here too. How about another column for a new party that we form right there at the table? That would be fun! We could call ourselves the Christian Heretics. :o)

A Human The Size of a Grain of Sand

What are we made of – a flexible bunch of carbon based molecules of stuff? Ever look at a model of a these basic building blocks of matter – atoms and molecules and whatever else they build models of? Ever tinier pieces of things spinning around each other. The relative distance between these “little pieces” is immense really – held together by nothing more than electromagnetic energy.

I read somewhere that if you got rid of all that “space” of electromagnetic energy that is holding it all together, and just piled the little bits of matter together, that the human body would be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Wow. That’s all there is to us – a tiny little grain of sand.

And we think we are so much more significant than that – we think we matter somehow.

In the big picture – the really big picture that only the Source of All Being can see – is there really any relative difference between something the size of a grain of sand and something that is around 6 feet tall and walking on 2 legs?

Scientists, theologians, and spiritual seekers seem to come together in some sort of rough agreement that somehow or another, everything – in the end – boils down to energy in some form or another. Different wavelengths of energy, different forms and speed, but all energy.

Somewhere in the middle, there exists The Source of all this energy. This Source has set the bits and pieces in motion, and fills all of the space between the bits and pieces – keeps them from collapsing onto themselves – keeps us upright and thinking, rather than lying in a bucket with other grains of sand.

We are made up almost entirely of space and energy – very little “real matter”. Lots of space in there for a soul to live and work, if we let it. Makes it easy to imagine how we can be vessels for the Divine Spirit to pour itself into. Makes it easy, also, to imagine how we can be a beacon from which this Divine Energy can shine.

If I focus on me – look to myself for answers and growth, I am continually refocusing my energy into myself – moving toward collapse into a grain of sand.

If, however, I make myself a vessel and a beacon, continually emitting energy outward and soaking up ever increasing portions of Divine Energy, then I become a radiator for the Divine Energy in the universe – The Source of all, continually expanding away from the tiny grain of sand that is all that I am without this energy.

Is God Mad at George Bush?

Why does God seem so mad at the Bush family?

Not that I am a big one on believing in the notion that God picks people out for punishment, but doesn't it seem funny to anyone else that all of these disasters are stricking dubya and his friends?

First the mess in Iraq. I mean, if dubya thought that he was led somehow by God to invade this country, (as some have suggested), then wouldn't you think that things would be going better for us? How is it that things keep getting worse and worse there?

And the economy - why does it continue to be a mess?

And why does the proportion of the world that views us with contempt continue to grow?

And all of these traitors and liars that surround the man - why is this happening?

And then Katrina, messing up his adopted state and everything close to it.

And now Wilma, seeming to target both dubya and his brother.

I don't mean to make light of the human tragedy involved here, but it strikes me that the Christian fundamentalists might want to rethink this whole thing. If they believe that God would target a single person and bring them either special good things or special bad things, then it would seem that the Bush family is one that you might want to distance yourself from - the appearance is that they have done things to bring about the wrath of the Almighty.

Just a thought...

Poverty and Deuteronomy

Discussion recently got me to wondering...

The discussion revolved around Jesus rebuking the disciples for their rebuke of the kind act of a woman, where the disciples were clearly focused on the waste of the oil used for anointing, and Jesus is said to have made a comment something like, “The poor will be with you always.”

This may very well be a reference back to the 15^th chapter of Deuteronomy. The actual verse comes from the 11^th chapter, which reads something like, “There will always be poor people among you”, but the context of the preceding instruction in the chapter, as well as the following words, is extremely critical it seems to me. For that reason, here is the text (NIV).

¹ At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. ² This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. ³ You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. ⁴ However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your G-d is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, ⁵ if only you fully obey the LORD your G-d and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. ⁶ For the LORD your G-d will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

⁷ If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your G-d is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. ⁸ Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. ⁹ Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. ¹⁰ Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your G-d will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. ¹¹ There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

If the quote that is attributed to Jesus was truly referencing this passage, then the light that is cast on the issue is brand new. As usual, lack of context is blinding.

The instruction is imbedded within dialogue meant to eliminate poverty – exactly the problem that we said could probably never be cured. Yet, here in the Torah, we are given the formula for eliminating poverty. Within that formula, the assumption appears to be that even as we follow the instruction of G-d, and do out best to eliminate poverty, there will be a constant flow of people into our system who will be poor, and we are commanded to be “openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land”.

To follow this through for a minute, did the authors of Deuteronomy truly believe that it was possible to eliminate poverty? If this was possible, then why would there remain a constant flow of poor? Is it possible that we could read into this the notion that as we follow this command, and share wealth among all the people, then a “rising tide” will indeed continually re-define poverty, constantly raising the bar so that the affluence of humanity will require a constantly revised definition of poverty, (thus a constant flow of the poor)? This is, indeed, what has happened in our world, as most in our country who are considered “poor” might be considered pretty wealthy in many parts of the world.

If this reading of the command was accurate, then our instruction is very clear. As we continue to distribute wealth to the poor, and the tide of affluence rises among all the people, we must continue to raise the bar, not lower it. Progress toward the Kingdom of G-d lies clearly on this path, and breaking this command moves us away.

A discussion of politics within our nation might go well here…

Did Jesus see things like this? If so, then His rebuke makes all the sense in the world. The struggle to eliminate poverty is not a struggle at all, but a blessing – a mitzvoth that we are given. It is one that we can (and should) practice all the days of our lives. He was at that table at that moment, and kindness shown to Him should in no way be taken as a slight to those who were more poor than him. The woman in the story was, indeed, sharing wealth with a poor man at the table, just as everyone at that table should continue to do as a way of moving toward G-d.

Are the poor within our culture a blight to be struggled against. or a blessing for those who are less-poor? Perhaps the Beatitudes take on a new meaning?

Moral Bankruptcy

War

Can war be justified? I think so. There can be many justifications for war.

Most of these justifications are based upon greed – deciding who gets to control resources.

Many of these justifications are ego based – desire for power.

Some of these justifications are based on a need to protect ourselves from some other predator.

Sometimes, (though very rarely I think), these justifications are even based on compassion and charity – the desire to help others out of a terrible situation.

These are all justifications – some good, some bad. But can war ever be “moral”? I think not.

In order to win a war, one must commit acts that are not moral – that is plain and simple. If a leader is going to commit his nation to war, then he had better feel pretty convinced that his justification for this war is rock-solid and will stand the test of hindsight and introspection.

Nietzsche said, “If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

Our world is full of soldiers who have done what is required to win wars. Some of these soldiers were on the winning side, and some were on the losing side. Some committed acts of greater cruelty and immorality than others. Most are good and moral human beings, who were asked to “look into the abyss” by the leaders of their country, and they responded as a solder responds – with loyalty and obedience. For most, the abyss has looked back into them in some way.

I have an uncle who served in WW2 – the Great War. For most Americans, this was the last time that our nation entered into a conflict that seemed “just and right”. My uncle looked into the abyss for 3+ years in the South Pacific. He has spent his life since as a quiet semi-recluse. He farms, in a small community, so it is easy to avoid people. Nobody notices his reclusive nature. For 60 years, he has lived in the shadow of the abyss, as it has stared back at him. He knows what humanity is capable of.

My generation dealt with Vietnam. While our government insisted that the conflict was both just and necessary, many questioned this. 50,000 Americans gave their lives trusting a government that lied, and well over a million Vietnamese civilians and soldiers gave their lives. Many came back from Vietnam wondering why they had been there – what they had really been fighting for. Many came back with the ghost of the abyss watching over them for the rest of their lives. History has shown that those who questioned our motives for being in that war were correct – that much of our motivation was based on greed, with many in the defense industry gaining great wealth while our generation wrestled with the abyss.

And what of today? We are asking the generation of my sons to look long into the abyss in the Iraqi desert, and many are struggling with what is looking back. Many in our country question our real motives, while a few in the defense industry grow quite fat profiteering from the war that Bush has insisted on – many in his own administration are growing rich daily on war profits. They are not asked to sacrifice, they seem to feel they have a right to a profit.

In The Great War, we made it illegal to profit from the war. Doesn’t that small sacrifice seem reasonable, when so many are asked to look long into the abyss?

The abyss is looking back into the hearts of our sons and daughters – how long will we allow this to continue? I wonder, does President Bush sense an abyss looking into his heart? Does Mr. Cheney?

Administration Fears of the Special Prosecuter

Dejevu, all over again.

What will the indictment be?
A special prosecuter is closing in on members of an administration.

Last time this happened - to the Clinton administration, it was a special prosecuter who was hired to look at business dealings of the President before he was even elected to office. There were probably 7 people in the entire country who even understood what Whitewater was. I wasn't one of them. The basis for the special prosecuter seemed tenuous at best, and when he couldn't find anything naughty in the Whitewater investigation, he turned his focus onto the personal sexual life of the President, and struck pay dirt there! (Mr. Clinton made that job easy with his quick release zipper.)

Then, Republicans saw no problem with either the questionable nature of the investigation in the first place, or the fact that the investigation became a snoop dog / watch dog for anything that the President might have done wrong. When these issues were brought up at the height of the Clinton scandal, Republicans generally were indignant - wrong is wrong - it doesn't matter how we came to the indictment.

The worst part of the Whitewater investigation was that it still is. That is, as I understand it, we are still spending money for that investigation to continue. Hello - when does this end?

The tables are turned a bit now, and it is pure entertainment all over again. This time, the nature of the investigation makes sense. That is, someone in the administration has committed a shameful act at the very least in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent - and purely for political motivation it would appear. In my opinion, I can't imagine how such behavior doesn't rise to the level of at least "high crimes and misdemeanors", or more likely grand treason!

But the Republican press is busy smearing the special prosecuter already, preparing for the possibility that people like Karl Rove or Scooter Libby (or others?) might actually be indicted for something like conspiracy rather than treason. If there isn't enough evidence for treason, then it doesn't seem fair to them that some other charge might be considered I guess.

What if the special prosecuter were to start to dig into the pre-election business dealings of either Mr. Bush or Mr Cheney - I wonder what they might find...

So here we go again folks, but this time, the massive Republican media machine might be able to stop the special prosecuter machine before it reaches critical mass.

The Relevance of the Special Prosecuter
And what about the special prosecuter anyway? Can't this get out of control?

I think it can. I think that limits should be placed on these people to prevent them from digging into issues that are either irrelevant, (as Monica Lewinski was), or trivial.

However, I also think that in this era when way too much power seems to be getting concentrated into the office of the presidency - especially when that office also controls Congress and the Supreme Court as they do today - a special prosecuter might just be the only check and balance that we have on an office with way more power than was ever intended by our founding fathers.


Fair Game
At the end of the day, what should be fair game for Fitz to go after?

I think that we have a clear precedent in this matter - the Whitewater investigation. In the end, we indicted the President, (but failed to convict him), on charges that he lied about who he slept with. With that precedent, I think that we can fairly say that that anything is fair game - the prosecuter should be able to put the President of the United States on the stand, and ask him about his personal sex life, and if he lies, then he is open to impeachment. (sic)

That was absurd when it happened to Clinton, and would be absurd today. I hope that my friends who support these people who are in power today and who call themselves Republican see now just how silly the Clinton/Lewinski ordeal really was. I also hope that my friend who are Democrats see how silly it would be to repeat our past folly.

But, anything that involves the security of this country, or the business dealings of the office of the Presidency, should be fair game.

Stealing Money

This subject is so simple that it makes my head spin.

• Do not spend money that you don’t have.
• Be honest and honorable in how you make your money.
• Do not cause harm to others in order to make your money.

Why can’t we get it? The primary role of government is to provide security for its people. Running the country into bankruptcy provides insecurity, not security. It makes us vulnerable in the world market, and makes our way of life less secure every day. Yet our government is racing us toward bankruptcy at a rate that makes your head spin, and nobody seems to be paying attention.

When I talked about religion, I talked about the Republican party today using Christians to get elected, and then stealing us blind. This is what is going on. For 25 years, they have continued to shift the tax burden further and further onto the backs of the lower and middle classes, all the while reducing the tax burden on the wealthy, (which is them). They have stolen from the trust funds of programs meant to help the most needy in this country in order to fund these tax cuts for the wealthy. While they were stealing it, they said they were just borrowing, and that the money would be paid back in better times. But when better times came, they chose instead to give the wealthy more tax cuts, and continued to steal from the trust funds. The rhetoric that is now coming out of the Republican party makes it quite clear that they have no intention of ever paying the money back – they expect to simply shut down the programs when the programs look to them and ask for them to repay what they have stolen.

Again, the Democratic party is led by the rich as well, but they were shackled by their constituency into doing more of the right thing over the years – that’s how they stayed in power. Now, the Republicans have become master magicians, and have learned how to keep our attention focused elsewhere while they pick out pockets.

Katrina - Clearing shelters by spending millions on hotels

How does this make sense? The president sets some sort of "bring em on" mandate to clear out the Katrina aftermath shelters by mid-October. (Not sure why this makes sense - the fact that people are in shelters is a symptom - how does this solve the problem that people have no place to live?)

So, regardless if it makes sense or not, in order to meet this deadline, we are moving people out of shelters, and into hotels?

The NYT reports that we are spending $11million a day on these hotels, with the outlay for hotels expected to grow to $425 million by 10/24.

They still can't tell you where this money is going to come from, and this is just a tiny piece of the billions that we will spend providing aid to the region. Just like they can't tell you where the hundreds of billions that they are spending in Iraq is going to come from.

Is anyone in this administration even coherent?

Conservatives, wake up! As always, rather than looking at the supply side of the tax equation - which is the taxes that we take in - we should be looking at the spending side of the equation, and how we are spending and wasting money.

These neocons are ruining the country, and well meaning conservatives are doing nothing to stop them!

Justice, Equality, and Poverty According To Jesus

I was having a discussion with friends the other night about a book we had read, and a quote from the Bible came up that troubled me greatly - I wanted to share my thoughts on this.

The quote was one that is used often, where Jesus is depicted as saying "The poor will be with you always", usually used in the context of defending the notion of inequality with regard to distribution of resources. As if to say, "Hey, Jesus said it himself - the poor will always be with us - so it is OK to maintain policies that allow inequity between rich and poor."

There are many quotes from Scripture that are taken out of context (in my opinion) and used to justify the actions that we want to continue to take. In my opinion, this is one that is most offensive.

The story appears in 3 of the Gospels. They are as follows: (NIV)

Mathew: Ch26: v11

⁶While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, ⁷a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

⁸When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. ⁹"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

¹⁰Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ¹¹The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. ¹²When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. ¹³I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

John: Ch12, v5

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³Then Mary took about a pint^[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.^[b]" ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Mark: Ch14: v7

³While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

⁴Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? ⁵It could have been sold for more than a year's wages^[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

⁶"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ⁷The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. ⁸She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. ⁹I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

The Greek interlinear that I have for the verse in Mark translates exactly as follows for the verse in question. “For always the poor you have with yourselves and when you wish you are able for them to do good, but me not always do you have”

The essence of the story is that a woman does something nice for Jesus, and she is criticized by the disciples for using funds unwisely. Jesus’ rebuke is consistently aimed at the criticism of this woman, and within that criticism is the implication that this woman’s kindness should not be reduced because there are other kindnesses not yet given. Jesus even says of the poor in one of the versions that “you can help them any time you want”. Note that he is not suggesting in any way that the poor should not be helped.

Every action within the ministry of Jesus seemed aimed at trying to reduce inequity, and find ways to “bring the poor to the table”. In this passage, I see a Jesus who is trying to help his disciples see a potential pitfall of the ministry of bringing greater justice that he has put them on. He is, after all, only a couple of days away from his execution at this point in his ministry, and he needs to put the finishing touches on what he has taught to those closest to him. In modern, western style bullets, here is how I read the message:

• Of course we are here to help the poor, and bring those who are outcast into the fold of the Kingdom of God – we should be doing this every day.
• In your zeal to “do good”, be careful that you don’t end up at each other’s throats in criticism over the best way to do good – this is the easiest way for evil to enter into your midst.
• Apply your goodness and kindness to the problem right in front of you, and apply it with zeal and gusto.
• Do not allow your attention to be taken from the problem that has been given to you and is right in front of you. This is hard to avoid, as our natural tendency is to be anxious about a distant problem, as this is sometimes easier than applying ourselves to the problem at hand. This is also an easy way for evil to make your hands idle.
• God will supply the problems and challenges that you need in your life to move forward – do not question this by trying to focus on other problems – solve what you have in front of you.

Now I don’t know how closely my reading of this message is to what Jesus meant when this event took place. We are just guessing and accepting really that the event even took place like this. However, this message is easy to read from the event, it is consistent with the rest of the teaching of Jesus, and it is consistent with what you would expect within the time-plane that the event was to have taken within, (days before his execution).

This message is dramatically different than a message that even begins to imply that Jesus was “OK” with the notion that there should be large discrepancies between the poor and the rich in the world, and that we should not try to make the world more just and equitable place.

Don’t fret and be anxious over the problems that are enduring and complex. Try to solve them, of course, but don’t think that there is a quick fix. Focus each day on the problems that are on your plate, and work to make the world a more just and equitable place. Actions are much more effective than anxieties.

Who Dishonors Our Vets - Sheehan or Bush?

I read a piece slamming Cindy Sheehan for what she is doing. I am always glad to hear from those who agree or disagree with me, provided there is some degree of sense of logic to what they write. In this case, I wasn’t sure that I could understand the logic, and could not see much sense in what was written.

The essence of the piece seemed to be that women (mothers especially) should be rooting for those women who live in parts of the world where their sons are brainwashed into doing horrible things like suicide bombings, and the women had to stand by powerlessly as this happened. The piece, (of course) attacked this woman by stating that he husband (and others in her family) did not agree with her.

Unless I am mistaken, this is exactly what Ms. Sheehan is doing. And by stating that her husband doesn’t agree with her, the author is displaying exactly the sort of misogynistic arrogance that makes Ms. Sheehan’s stance so noteworthy.

This woman raised a fine young man. An Eagle Scout as I understand, with many other honors to his name. She is proud of her son, as well as her family’s long history of distinguished service to this country. Her son was apparently proud to sign up, and who knows – she may have been proud to see him carry on a family tradition. At any rate, he believed that he was honorably serving the society and culture that raised him.

Now that he is dead, she simply wants to know if he was. The web of lies that took us to war is what dishonors the men and women who are dying there, not those who question those lies. She has the courage to question those lies, and President Bush obviously doesn’t have the courage to answer her question.

Our enemies today use lies and coercion to enroll impressionable young men into their ranks, and they strap suicide bombs on these young men and tell them of the great honor that it will be to die for their country. And the mothers have to sit by and watch – powerless to say anything – powerless to do anything. We are right to criticize this effort. We are right to see the disgrace and evil in this.

And in our country, when we have leaders who lie to us and deceive us to take us to war, are not their lies as disgraceful as those of our enemies? The only difference is that in our country, the mothers of those young men still have the right to stand up and question these leaders. We may not have the right to go to a “town hall” meeting that we pay for as taxpayers unless we are Republican supporters of the President, we may be losing our civil rights at an alarming rate, but for now, a mother still has the right to question leaders who she thinks may have lied to her.

If these leaders were men of courage and honor, they would sit with her and answer her questions – and the questions of the country. If they are cowards and scoundrels, they will attack this woman, and try to paint her as unpatriotic, and say that her opinion doesn’t really count, since her husband doesn’t agree with her.

Thanks G-d for those millions of true American patriots who have given their life and blood to assure this woman’s right to question openly. Thank G-d for the hundreds of thousands who serve today to protect that right. Shame on this President and this administration for dishonoring their sacrifice with their lies and deceit, their cowardly attacking of the woman who raised a soldier who died for their cause, their shameful profiteering from the lives of Americans.

More about "facts"

There really isn’t much disagreement about the facts surrrounding the Katrina response, though some in the media would like us to believe that there is. By creating the myth that we can’t agree on the facts, the media is able to allow whatever side that they support to hide from the facts.

On this Katrina discussion, the issue (I believe) that many people are raising can be boiled down to a couple of key points. These, by the way, are perspectives not facts.

1. The response of the federal government to the disaster was not adequate – perhaps even shameful – especially in light of the fact that we have been spending billions on “homeland security” since 9/11, and one would hope that this would have allowed us to be better prepared for disasters.
2. The response of the President, in particular, is shameful. He continued to vacation and politic for days after the hurricane hit, rather than show a sense of urgency to provide aid to the region.
3. Especially in light of the response of the President and the federal government to the hurricane in Florida that resulted in much less damage and loss of life, this appears to be a case of doling out the federal help to those who the President likes.
4. The political appointees that the President has put in charge of important entities like FEMA show him to be far more concerned with rewarding political friends than with serving the people of this nation – especially when compared to previous administrations.

The timeline that MoveOn.org sent out seems to be pretty factual, according to the research that I am able to do. Nothing that I see in this timetable conflicts with anything that Betty also reported that she had heard on cable news.

Regarding the Red Cross reference that Betty saw on the news, it appears that the Red Cross is working directly with local authorities and the National Guard to set up in the most effective place and manner. The Red Cross “applauds” and is full agreement with the decisions that have been made. For the facts, here is the link to the Red Cross site:

http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524

Regarding the “refused to let FEMA in” report that Betty sited, I can find only opinion and conjecture, no fact on this issue. But I do have what I think is a good “theory” based on what I have read. That is, when the Bush administration took over from the Clinton administration, they set about to change everything that they could. One of the changes that they made at FEMA was that rather than a collaborative response to disasters with state and local authorities, they created clear separation between state response and federal response. Whether this is good or bad, in this case it may have created a communication void that both sides are now trying to use to their political advantage. In any case, this appears to be exactly the sort of red herring that the administration has become so adept and providing the media as a way of diverting attention – exactly what got me fuming in the first place.

So here we sit, really in agreement on the facts, yet the media has us convinced that “we don’t know enough”, or that there are “conflicting facts”. There are a great many places where the facts as pretty clear, and I have seen little disagreement:

• It was known as Katrina was coming to land that this would be catastrophic.
• Bush took a few days to personally react. Good or bad?
• His FEMA director had virtually no EM experience, seems to have been politely fired from his last job of 12 years or so as a commissioner of some Arabian horse foundation or some such thing, and his 2 top deputies were PR people from the Bush campaign with no EM experience. Good or bad?
• The Louisiana National Guard is largely not at home, they are in Iraq, along with the specialized amphibious equipment that apparently only they have. This equipment is designed and built to help with exactly this sort of flooding catastrophe. What are they doing in Iraq? Should they be there? How much more effective and immediate would our response have been if they were home with their equipment where they belong?

Again, the play by the administration through the media to shift focus away from the response of the federal government is exactly what has me so upset.

So, how do I react to the media? Depending on where I fall on the perspective line, do I simply look to sources who will give me support for my perspective, or do I evaluate the information that I receive from conflicting sources, and see how it changes my perspective? If the media that I listen to sees that “their guy” is in trouble on this issue, they have repeatedly created confusion and the myth that there are conflicting “facts”.

Clearly, MoveOn.org leans far to the left, as Betty says. When I receive information from them, I must take into consideration the high likelihood that they are giving me only the facts that support their position. I have found that while they support one side clearly, they provide very well-vetted and well supported information, or facts. By the same token, if I receive information from the Heritage Foundation, or Focus on the Family, it has the same clear lean far to the right, and they will only provide information that will support their position. I could use the term “hysterical” with any of these organizations, provided the position that they support is different from the position that I support, and if they support the same position that I support, then I will probably call them “justifiably passionate” or something like that.

There is a difference between presenting one side of a story – which is what I expect from partisan organizations – and presenting information that is meant to mislead. I have to be smart enough to see the difference – to divorce myself from my position long enough to discern the nature of the information that I am looking at.

Rather than allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media, (which appears to run the state), what if we were willing to truly look at the facts, and debate our perspectives with one another. We can agree to disagree over perspectives, but this should not be the case with facts. Rather than dismiss the issue as “confused”, what if we honestly reviewed the facts together, then debated our perspectives on those facts?

Fact or Perspective?

My friend Betty wrote the following:

“I think we simply don't know enough unbiased "facts" about almost everything/anything to have an informed opinion, only "interpretations of facts." Given that we all have different life experiences and therefore have different filters, of course we are going to have different opinions.”

In addition to this comment, last winter, my brother and sister and I were having political discussion, (which we commonly do), and were discussing a particular issue about which we disagreed, and my sister made the comment that, “It just depends on your perspective”. While I agree that perspective drives everything, the issue that we were discussing was not one of perspective, but of fact.

When my sister made this comment, it really set me back and made me think. When Betty added her comment above, it brought this back to the top of my mind.

I think that we have a crisis going on right now, and that crisis is our difficulty in discerning the difference between fact and interpretation (or perspective). It is just now striking me how big a crisis this is. There is a big difference between fact and perspective, but we seem to be struggling with that difference today.

Below, I have some examples to review, but before I get to those, I want to discuss this problem. You see, when the media creates this confusion by mixing opinion with news, as they have been doing for the past few years, they create an environment where we don’t seem to see the difference. There is not a gray area here – facts are facts. What you do with those facts, and what they represent to you, that is where opinion comes in.

I don’t think that there is such a thing as a “biased fact”, there are only facts. The bias occurs when only some of the facts are shared, and the reporting of those facts is overlaid with opinion. If the media is actually reporting news, it is difficult for it to be biased – only the listener can add bias based on their “life experiences and filters”, as Betty says.

But there is very little actual “reporting” in the media today, and quite a bit of overlay. This is a change from years past, when there was a clear delineation between news and commentary. In addition, the “news” that you see or hear depends entirely on which outlet you watch or listen to or read – I am often astounded at the difference in coverage that the same story receives depending on the source.

Then there is the laziness issue. People don’t want to be challenged. We don’t want to have to think and be open to change. We have been taught that all that matters is that we be on a “winning team”. We listen to the sports talking heads to be indoctrinated on what we should be saying regarding sports. We listen to the political talking heads to find out what we should think and say about politics.

This is not football, this is life. If we want to be lazy about sports, fine. But when it comes to politics, we need to turn off the talking heads. We need to hear all sides of the story, and form our own opinion, and have that open to change as the information that we get changes. Since the news sources will only tell their half of the story, we have to be willing to listen to all sides – even the ones that we don’t agree with. And most of all, when we listen, we need to filter out the nuggets of “fact” that are hidden within the commentary, and clearly see the difference.

I think that it “is only a matter of perspective” if I am only listening to one side of the story. If that is the case, then it appears that my “facts” are different than your “facts”. I need to be willing to hear you and “take your side” long enough to sift through what you say and vet the facts out of it, and find where those facts disturb my universe. Because clearly, no matter how hard I try, my presentation of the facts will sometimes (not always) reflect how I am interpreting those facts.

Let me use a few examples that will hopefully stir everyone up.

• FACT: Our federal budget has been running deficits for many years. The deficits are masked to some degree and larger than they initially appear because we have been using Social Security trust fund money to fund the operating fund of the budget. This money will have to be repaid to the trust fund for it to remain solvent. These deficits add up year after year and become the “national debt”. One can view the debt in terms of actual dollars, in which case you will see the graph spike a bit during WW1 and WW2, then steadily decline until around 1981, when it begins to explode. One can also view the debt in relationship to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or how big our economy is). Viewed in relationship to our GDP, you will see the graph spike up during WW1, then steadily decline until the Great Depression, when it begins to climb again, then it spikes to its highest level during WW2. It steadily declines following the war as we pay down our war debt. It begins to rise again in 1981, and rises steadily until about 1993 or 1994, when it reverses and begins to decline. This decline continues until 2000 or 2001, at which point we have reduced the debt to about the level that it was in 1956 or 1957. In 2001, the debt begins a sharp rise, and continues to rise today so that it is now higher than the previous high point in 1992 – 1993, headed toward the 1945 -1946 wartime high unless the trends are reversed. In fact, current projections show a continued rise, and a crisis in 2017 or 2018 when the trust funds need to be re-funded with the dollars that we have been using to subsidize general operating funds since about 1980. Right now, the federal debt equates to over $100,000 per American family.

REFERENCES:

http://www.aier.org/2004pubs/RR20.pdf

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=noll.publicdebt

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/feddebt/debt-facts.html

The above is fact – it is not perspective. Google these subjects on your own to research the subjects.

· Perspective A: Federal debt is not a bad thing, and the current rise in debt is a result of our war on terrorism. Like all wars, this debt will be repaid as the economy continues to grow. The rise in debt during the Reagan and Bush senior years was acceptable as it resulted in economic growth, just like the rise in debt during the 30s was OK as it resulted in saving the economy and the country.

· Perspective B: Debt should not be increasing EXCEPT to fund a war effort or to fund extraordinary rescue efforts, (such as the Great Depression or Hurricane Katrina.)

• FACT: During the period 1959 – 2004, tax rates for individuals have risen (combined federal and payroll taxes) from about 10% to about 13%, while tax rates for corporations have fallen from about 4% to about 1.3%. When you add the fact that an increasing tax burden has been placed on state and local governments, this disparity is sharper. In addition, all of the individual tax increase comes in payroll taxes, which are slanted heavily toward redistributing the tax load onto low and middle wage workers.

REFERENCES:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp153

Again, the above is fact.

· Perspective A: Private enterprise and wealthy individuals power the economy, and should not be penalized with high tax rates. The early part of the 20^th century was marked by a lean toward socialism, and the resulting penalizing of private enterprise, and in recent years we have simply reversed that trend and put the tax burden back where it belongs – on all of the people.

· Perspective B: The Progressive movement in the early part of the 20^th century moved us toward a more just and progressive world, with progressive tax rates that asked the wealthy to share their wealth with others at a higher rate than the poor were asked to share. This is reasonable in a just world, and resulted in an unprecedented economic boom that placed the US firmly on top of the world economy. By regressing back to regressive tax rates, we are simply redistributing wealth into the hands of the wealthy, and putting the brakes on the economic engine of the last century, dooming millions to essential servitude and inescapable poverty.

• FACT: While in office, Bill Clinton engaged in sexual activity with an intern. He tried to cover-up the activity. He lied to the American people and to Congress about the activity. (I don’t think I need to put any references in here at all…)

· Perspective A: This is shameful activity by the leader of our nation, and we should all be embarrassed. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?

· Perspective B: Not only did he engage in the activity, but he probably enjoyed it, and frankly, why should I care? Hillary should be good and pissed-off, but I don’t hire Presidents based upon their marital arrangements or sexual habits. The big crime here was the fact that we spent $50 million investigating the man’s sexual habits, and that is just the formal investigation – who knows how much more we spent on the impeachment process etal? The fact that the press produced, published, and distributed pornography by their continued coverage of this silly ordeal is probably the worst offense of all. He did the deed, he lied about it, and who cares? I would probably lie about it too. The rest of the world was laughing at us, not with us on this one.

• FACT: The Bush administration used 9/11 as a tool to carry out a pre-existing desire to invade Iraq. I could spend pages documenting sources, but I will refer you generally to insiders such as Richard Clark and Paul O’Neil, as well as the 9/11 report itself, and the now public official British documents – the Downing Street Memos. In addition, as recently as today, those close to Bush such as Trent Lott admit that this was the case. It is clear from insiders and pre-existing documentation that there was a desire to invade Iraq, and that within days of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and those in his administration began an effort to tie Iraq to terrorism to justify attacking and occupying the country. This effort included citing evidence of WMD that they knew to be false, (the yellow-cake, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame story, well-documented in many sources). It also included the “fixing” of intelligence to meet their requirements, (the now public Downing Street memos). We went to war to rid Iraq of the WMD that we “knew” were there. (Again, many public sources of Bush, Cheney, and other senior officials stating that they “knew” the weapons were there, and in some cases, knew where they were.) But in fact, the basis of this knowledge was weak or fabricated in many cases. According to the CIA before the war, there was no link at all between bin Laden and the terrorists on one hand, and Saddam and Iraq on the other. President Bush and his administration repeatedly tied the two issues together, suggesting that we needed to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. According to polls, a high percentage of Americans came to believe that there was a link, (in the teens to over 50% depending on the poll and the time) even though CIA intelligence and common sense suggested otherwise. (Saddam and Osama hated each other, and each represented exactly the thing the other was trying to get rid of.) It cannot be established as fact that the campaign of the administration resulted in the American people being misled, it can only be established that the administration engaged in a campaign to mislead, and that the American people became misled. President Bush lied to both Congress and the American people on this issue. Since our invasion, the CIA reports that Iraq has now become a major training ground and recruiting ground for our terrorist enemy.

REFERENCES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240541,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM501A.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-h.htm

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/blog.html

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

· Perspective A: Regardless of what happened in the lead-up to the war, Saddam was an evil man, and the world is better off without him. Period. If we had it to do over, we should do the same thing. The ends justify the means.

· Perspective B: This is an honesty and integrity issue. It is not alright to lie to the American people in order to carry-out your agenda, and certainly not within the moral fiber of our nation to invade another on false pretense. If we wanted to have a national debate about whether we should invade other countries in order to rid them of evil dictators, then we should have done that, and Iraq probably would not be high on the list – there are other nations where we could have greater impact at less cost. In terms of national security, the action that we have taken has made us far less secure by providing an excellent recruiting tool for the terrorists. Our deception leading up to the war has reduced our credibility in the world, and thus our ability to lobby and pursue diplomatic solutions to problems. The diverting of resources from our “homeland” has made us less secure here. The actions of our President are shameful, and he should be impeached. We need to restore dignity and honor to the office. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg – if you can’t trust the man, what else has he lied about?

And here’s a fun one…

• FACT: The Christian church, as we know it today, was formed in the 4^th century CE. Prior to that point, there was a movement that began with Jews who were devoted to a man named Jesus, and grew into a fairly broad movement of both Jews and non-Jews. This movement had many factions, with sometimes broadly divergent theology, as well as widely differing beliefs about who Jesus was, and how they should live their lives. In the 4^th century, when Constantine decreed Christianity the official Roman religion, he essentially “endorsed” one of the “factions” within the movement. This faction became “Orthodox Christianity”, or Roman Christianity, while all other forms became heresy. From that point forward, there have been multiple instances where this Roman Church has used violence and destruction to wipe out competing beliefs and “theology”, most especially competing Christian beliefs and “theology”.

· Perspective A: Orthodoxy is the “true” Christianity, and there is evidence that links the orthodox beliefs back to the earliest believers. Other beliefs are, indeed, heresy, and are evil influences within true Christianity.

· Perspective B: There is evidence linking “orthodoxy” back to the earliest believers, just as there is evidence linking gnosticism back to the earliest believers, and many other “forms” of the emerging Christianity. There is great wisdom to be found in these different forms, most of it tied back to Jesus, and it is this wisdom and the seeking of it that ties us together as Christians.