A Runaway Government

As I’ve watched the news today and reflected on the past actions of our Congress, Senate and our President, I realize that on more occasions than not, I find myself analyzing their actions not necessarily in terms as to how they will affect their party, their potential run for re-election or even with regard to the temporal outcome for our country as a whole.  When I read about President Obama hoping to acquire additional powers to shrink government and merge federal agencies to make our government more efficient, my first response should be:  That’s a great idea!  Shouldn’t it?  And what about the ability of the American government to shut down any website that is reportedly conducting criminal activities?  That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

When I read about how Congress wants to cut the national debt by depleting social programs and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society, I should be ecstatic, shouldn’t I?  And when I hear of a position being added to the government of a certain state, an unelected official who will go into towns that are failing financially and fire everyone they think is standing in the way—regardless of their elected or unelected status—in order to create a more efficiently run town, there should be a sense of relief, shouldn’t there?  So why do I get a knot in the pit of my stomach?

And, why do I see the push to make our wartime commanding generals a more faceless entity—rather than a personable human being—as more of an opportunity to abuse a position of power by broken government officials?  I guess it’s because I’ve come to a point in my life where I don’t trust the integrity of our elected leadership.  Surprising?

As we sit in our homes, day after day, and watch the atrocities that are happening around the world unfolding on the face of our flat screen TVs, I can’t help but wonder why it hasn’t happened to us.  And then I begin to wonder if it isn’t already happening but we’re too absorbed in our iPads and XBoxs to see beyond the 3-dimensional characters or life-like war game distractions to bother examining what our elected officials are really up to.

If you think that it can’t happen in this country then you should think again because it already has.  And it’s not conspiratorial paranoia that I’m talking about here.  It’s not well documented that is true, there was more of a cover-up surrounding the circumstances as they were, but the evidence is still available.

You see, in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was trying everything he could to curtail the depression he had inherited when he was elected president.  He had the New Deal being held up in Congress by interested members of the Wall Street elite.  There was contention between the white house and certain major corporations, who were upset over how the attempt to depress the US dollar—a move intended to encourage foreign trade—was deteriorating the balance of trade between the US and other countries.   Major corporations such as the DuPonts, JP Morgan, as well as Standard Oil, were frustrated and losing profits. 

The war was waging in Europe, Hitler was seducing wealthy Americans and members of the press with free cruises to Germany to see how kindly and loved he truly was.  There was a sort of romance that was developing between certain members of the American elite and Nazi Germany.  And there was a coinciding concern that communism might gain a strong-hold in either country.  It was then that the American Nazi Party was formed.

Now, the details are unclear and some of the available information is sketchy at best, but reading into all of the circumstances surrounding this time period is important to have a better foundation of understanding for what transpired.  What we do know is that well-known retired US Army Major General, Smedley Butler was enlisted by one of these organizations to assist in a devious plot.  They planned a coups d’etat to overthrow FDR and replace him with another leader and asked for Butler’s assistance.  He agreed to meet with them and hear what they had to say, then invited a former personal assistant—who was at the time working as a reporter, unbeknownst to those involved—to attend with him. 

What unfolded was a story of intrigue, an attempt to encourage the president to step down or risk being assassinated and replaced.  Instead of joining the coup, Butler chose to report his encounters directly to the president.  Early reports I have read on this event, have stated that Congressional hearings had transpired and that some of these conspirators were found guilty.  It was then realized that such a ruling meant the heads of these powerful corporations were guilty of Treason and that the penalty was death. 

Standard Oil threatened to cap its oil and sell none to the US, which was a detriment, since, at the time there were discussions of whether or not our country should join the war efforts in Europe.  There was equal pressure from the British and other members of the Alliance to encourage American participation.  Without access to oil it would have been impossible.

Equally disturbing to the members of our Congress who were hearing these allegations; if our country began giving death sentences to treasonous corporate officers for being complicit in attempts to topple our government, then our stock market would crash again and there was no chance of an economic recovery any time soon after.  Roosevelt and the presiding members of Congress chose to cover up most of the testimony and the proceedings that the commission heard from Butler and the accused conspirators. 

And when you know the facts you can’t help but realize, it was the integrity of a man who had sworn to defend our country at all odds that made the difference in American history of that section in time.  It decided the outcome of which side of the war we would have been on and who would have been the victors.

And so I look around today at those members of Congress, the Senate and our President of the United States and I wonder how many of these elected officials would have made the same choices Smedley Butler, retired Army General, had made.  As I see the articles about our evolving country and I hear the rhetoric and propaganda being disseminated to unwary citizens, I grow concerned as to the origin of that rhetoric.  Isn’t that what was happening in pre-World War II Germany?  Doesn’t the enactment of a law that allows an unelected official to seize control of the political processes in certain mid-western cities in America make you think of fascism at its best?  Doesn’t most of the other onerous laws that are currently being enacted, concern you as it does me?

Proposals that would have no better effect than to appease the wealthy with tax breaks while increasing taxes on the middle to lower classes and diminish social programs that help to strengthen our middle-class, are already being suggested.  Does this cause me to believe that the wealthy have too much control over our candidates and elected officials?  You bet it does.

When George W. Bush introduced the Homeland Security Act, which is nearly identical to Hitler’s Fatherland Security Act, to run in conjunction with the Patriot Act was I concerned at the direction our country was going?  You’d better believe it.  I voted for President Barack Obama because I thought he was the only one who would abolish such an abomination to our Constitutional freedoms that we treasure the most.  And since his inauguration I’ve seen only one of those disturbing laws being tossed into the waste barrel or changed to make us accept them more—Military Commissions Act—as others—Indefinite Detention—are being enacted.

I think that before we begin to chant the same rhetoric and weekly talking points as those who portend to have our best interests at heart, maybe we should stop for a minute and take a deep breath.  Although some of this may seem like commonsense on its face, we should look at the lasting implications of such a disastrous turn in our course of sail.  Perhaps there’s a deeper intention or outcome that will adversely affect which side of the war we will be on in the next major altercation.  Perhaps we won’t end up being the good guys riding into the sunset after all. 

What's in a word?

There he goes again.  Newt Gringrich is, once more, making sweeping statements and offending a large group of people with a very limited understanding of the facts.  You may even call his comments disparate and divisive.

In case you missed it yesterday, Gringrich called out the NAACP saying he would be glad to meet with them and discuss how the black community should consider preferring paychecks over food stamps.  Wow!  Making a statement such as that takes more guts than brains, as my mother would say.

What he’s missing here, though, is that he’s addressing the wrong group.  The statistics show that only 29% of people who receive food stamps are African American while 59% are Caucasian.  Hmmm.  What’s more, who does he think he is making the assumption that just because a person is on food stamps means that they want to be on them?  To stereotype the many by the actions of a small few is not an attractive trait Mr. Gingrich.

I also read a comment post yesterday where someone called another person the *N* word and I can’t deny that I was offended.  The very word—okay I’ll say it; nigger—tends to incite anger as well as lively debate over its appropriateness, just as much as Mr. Gingrich’s falsely assumptive comments did in the press yesterday.  In fact, just writing it here in my blog, the combination of letters with dual syllables, has the uncanny effect of raising my ire.  And I’m sorry to say that after reading the simple yet irascible message, I replied in kind.

After all, the root of this term (as I understand it in its historical sense) is a reference to those who are enslaved by a selfish and manipulative ideology.  This arcane philosophy is manifested by a disparate and divisive dialogue utilized by simpletons whose biases are rooted in fear and greed. 

The Encarta Dictionary describes this word as “a highly offensive term for a black person.”  I would rather define it as more of an examination of the person who expresses it or those who exemplify it; a reference to an inability to discern truth from rhetorical exploitation.

And so, as I think about the enflaming message of Gingrich’s speech yesterday, and the ignorant utterance of a commenter on Yahoo! as well, I am brought to a precipice of thought in which we should redefine our outdated terminology and begin using these words in a less simple and a more valuable way.  I believe that the word Nigger should be used to describe people like Gingrich and the man who used it to denigrate a young girl of color.  It is only then that we can drive out the truth into the sunlight and begin to have an honest dialogue about their rhetorical and divisive natures.

A Fallen Soldier

I just read the story about a tragic shooting over the weekend of Mt. Rainier National Park Ranger, Margaret Anderson.  It’s a sad story of two lives converging in a moment of confusion and desperation. 

The shooter, 24 year old Benjamin Barnes, was a young man who had fought in Iraq from 2007 to 2008.  His girlfriend told authorities that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, was suicidal and that she had filed for a restraining order because she feared for the safety of their young daughter.

According to the news report, Barnes had been at a New Years Eve party when a fight erupted.  Shots had been fired and 4 people were injured, 2 of them critically, and somehow Barnes was involved.  Subsequently, he gathered some belongings and headed to the mountains, perhaps to cool down and clear his mind. 

After Barnes blew past a check point to ensure all cars had necessary tire chains before entering the snow-packed mountain roads, Park Ranger Anderson was instructed to set up a road block to stop him.  She was unaware that the young man speeding toward her was not in a reasonable state of mind.  The rangers had no idea he had just been involved in a violent act that may have revived some demons from his time in Iraq.  Before she could get out of her car, Anderson was fatally wounded when Barnes shot at her and the ranger who had followed him from the previous check point.

It was unclear when Barnes decided, or was forced, to set out on foot, but his body was found yesterday, partially submerged face down, in a mountain creek.  He was wearing only a T-shirt, jeans and one tennis shoe.

The tragedy here is the number of lives that will be affected by this incident.  The woman who left behind a husband and two young daughters.  The young man who also leaves an innocent child and was once considered a hero but saw himself in a much different light.  The loved ones of these two people who both knew what it was like to sacrifice their lives for others.  All will be forever changed.

It’s easier for society to think of Barnes as a trouble-maker and to forget that he struggled with the psychological effect of a war that took away the better part of his soul.  It is also difficult for society to refrain from using this situation as an opportunity to push an agenda that is completely unrelated to the circumstances at hand.

I was disappointed to read that prior to the discovery of Benjamin Barnes’ body, there was an outcry to repeal a federal law allowing national parks visitors to carry loaded weapons.  Having been an avid camper in my not-too-distant past, I understand the reasoning behind such gun laws. 

It takes a very narrow mind to be convinced that this tragedy could have been avoided by stricter laws on guns.  I have no doubt that Barnes could have cared less that he was violating any ban on loaded weapons in national parks, had there been any in place, as he veered toward that check-point.  And to insinuate anything different would be an insincere attempt to manipulate a situation that has greater questions to be answered. 

As we hear of situations such as this, tragic events brought about by lingering emotions that affect many if not all of our returning veterans, we should keep in mind that they signed on to make the ultimate sacrifice.  And we should respect them for that sacrifice, not see them as an opportunity to promote an agenda that will be of no benefit to anyone, especially those deserving so much more than reproving insinuations.  Perhaps, what we should be promoting is an environment of understanding.  Perhaps the only way to avoid another terrible event such as this is not by inventing more laws, but by focusing more attention on programs to help our returning service members who are having a difficult time remembering that their nightmares are no longer trying to destroy them. 

A Trojan Leadership

For those who’ve been following what has been going on in DC, it should come as no surprise that there is a tremendous focus on Congress of late.  Our Congressional leaders, with 192 Democrats and 242 Republicans holding tightly to the purse-strings of this country, have never been so criticized for their actions, or lack thereof.  And one has to wonder what will happen in the coming elections.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, here’s a brief history leading up to our current situation.  In 2007, our Congress, that had been under Republican control, turned predominantly Democratic.  Considering that the president of the United States was Republican (and many blamed the fact that we had a Republican controlled Congress and White House for the ease at which the much hated war in Iraq had been approved) it seemed like the obvious choice to counter the Republican White House was with a Democratic House and Senate.  The moderate opinion is that separating the power amongst the two parties helps to temper a lack of constraint that always occurs when the legislative and executive branches can conduct business with unfettered partisanship.  But then, another mistake was made. 

A Democratic President took control of the White House and the Congress and Senate remained under the control of the Democrats as well.  Some considered this a benefit, and I have to admit, I thought it could help to overturn the lack of regulations on Wall Street as well as curtail the practices that had caused our country to spiral into economic disaster.  But the new legislature was less than effective. 

They seemed disorganized, lacking direction and, at times, even ambiguous.   They seemed to be their own worst enemy.  They argued amongst themselves and didn’t support measures that would further the best interests of this country.  It appeared to the outside world that we had replaced the Republican stuffed shirts with vat of Democratic shrimp, struggling for positioning, willing to cannibalize their own.  It wasn’t pretty. 

What this country needed more than a legislator of a specific partisan position was a legislator with commonsense.  That was when the Tea Party walked in.   People were tired, all of us were tired, of the greed and corruption that was allowing our elected officials to act as if they were above the law.  We all wanted something more, someone whose allegiance was to the people, not to their wallets.  So it wasn’t a surprise when, in the following elections, the country took a turn in the opposite direction.  The 112^th Congress was taken over by, not only the Republican Party but Tea Party Republicans.  And, once again, it was seen as a good thing.  However, we have discovered how wrong we were.

The new Congress has brought a group of legislators whose allegiance was purportedly to the people of this country.  They were organized and focused, not lacking direction in any way, so why the lamentations?  The problem is more in the direction in which they were and are focusing. 

The very first declaration that came out of this new Congress was the intent to make Barack Obama a “one term president.”  And all I could say was… Really?  Your main goal isn’t to get this country back on its feet again?  You aren’t intent on passing bills that would put Americans to work and to stimulate our economy?  I was angry and I know I was not alone.

Last evening I watched the interview on 60 minutes of Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor.  He went on the program to try and shore up the foundering support of their party by explaining the purpose and direction of the House Republicans and to show himself in a better light.  I’m not sure that he accomplished what he had hoped for. 

In the interview he repeatedly said that the Republican leadership is trying to do what they think is the best for this country.  The problem was that he wasn’t convincing.  Leslie Stahl was the host who interviewed him and she was effective in calling him on the many inconsistencies that I have noted as well over the past year.  He wasn’t able to effectively explain their reasoning for the expectation that those in this country who are struggling should tighten the belt and struggle even more, even suffer in some cases, while those who would be least affected are given tax breaks in order to “create jobs” they hadn’t considered creating over the past several years and after any of the previous tax breaks.  And at one point during the interview, Cantor’s Press Secretary shouted out in the background that Leslie Stahl was lying when she reminded Rep. Cantor that Ronald Reagan raised taxes during his term as president as a compromise.  Something CBS was easily capable of verifying with a video clip of Reagan’s television address stating his intent to do just that.

There are many people in this country who are desperately searching for work. So far the data has shown that cutting taxes has not stimulated the creation of any jobs and there is no indication that it will change in any way in the not too distant future no matter how low taxes may go for the ultra wealthy.  So why are the Republicans beating this Trojan horse to death? 

The fact has escaped them that in the past, when taxes have been raised on the wealthiest 1% of America but lowered for the middle to lower classes, our economy improved and jobs increased due to increased spending.   It has been completely erased from the memory of Mr. Cantor as well as those who are defending allowing tax cuts to end for the lower and middle classes while renewing tax cuts for the wealthy.  It is also a fact that when consumer spending is up that even the billionaires make more money above and beyond what they are paying in increased taxes.  There is overwhelming data that is being ignored and the losers in this struggle for partisan superiority will be every person in this country, including the very wealthy.  And the desire to push such a destructive agenda just may create another volatile turn in the party that predominantly represents us in Washington come next January. 

Although I would be hard pressed to mourn the loss of certain legislators who have been more obstructionist than constructive, I also have an overwhelming hope that we are more thoughtful in who we are electing.  To rid ourselves of one scourge, only to replace them with another that we are ill-equipped to immunize ourselves against would not only be foolish but potentially devastating to this nation as a whole.  I admonish everyone to use constraint and commonsense when electing our next President, Congressional and Senate leaders.  The radical rhetoric that has become the popular discourse of the moment is merely a Trojan horse being whipped for our benefit and is nothing more than a distraction from what this country truly needs-- sound leadership.