Choose Wisely (Part Two)

[A Follow-On Commentary, Continuing from the Previous Post]

Having done my best to dissuade you from certain candidate in the previous post, it is now my privilege to give you a ray of hope, a chance for greatness, a hint of prosperity, a link to someone who might be able to lead our America back to pride and integrity again...
- - - - - - - - - - 

 

There is a way back to Peace, Prosperity, and Pride in America. 
We must Believe.  And we must Choose Well. 

Part One of this post was about a candidate characterized by self-justification, personal irresponsibility, and haughty self-importance.  It was necessary, in order to explain that part of our current political situation, to write some negative things.  But I cannot stop with negativity, because there is more to the story.  If we are fully to understand the choices we must make in the coming election, we must see clearly both the ugliness and whatever bright rays of hope may be taking shape around us.

Having written about the candidate of deceit and division, I now want to write about a candidate who offers the promise of better days ahead, because there is hope.  There are several ways for this to play out, and some of the scenarios are very positive.  It is up to us, citizens and voters, to face the truth about our options, to avoid being deceived with slick pseudo-intellectual doubletalk or intimidated with the politics of fear.  It is up to us to discover, perhaps with surprise, that there is reason for optimism.  We are at a turning point this year.  We will collectively choose to continue down the dark road to anger and insignificance… or we will choose to make a course correction in the direction of wisdom, responsibility, and faith in ourselves. 

If we are wise, we will choose a leader who speaks truth and practices integrity.  If we are responsible, we will follow a leader who lives responsibly and respects others.  If we are to recover from a crisis of confidence that we created ourselves with input from both political left and political right, we need to elevate a leader who knows we are capable of great things, who is equipped to lead us in a more positive direction, who can inspire and encourage us as we begin to heal our broken national government.

If we are to overcome the bitter partisan divide and hatred that threaten to destroy us, it will not be because we choose yet another extremist or manipulative Machiavellian.  We can only have hope for a better tomorrow if we are courageous enough to break with the cycle of escalating contempt and break the habit of self-loathing that we have learned over past decades.

To make the right choice, we must make a conscious decision to reject hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle.  We need leaders who respect us instead of patronizing us, to whom we are partners, not subjects or peons.  We need to exercise good judgment and wisdom.  We need to choose as our leaders persons who will inspire instead of threaten, who will raise our spirits instead of limiting our expectations.  We need to give access to our “bully pulpit” to a person of principle, compassion, proven ability, and undying belief in the possibilities of what we, and our America, can be.

We need a leader who can tap into a deep well of optimism about our future, who can lead us out of this desert of despair where we have lived for too long, forward to a new faith in our nation and ourselves.

There is a candidate who is capable of all this.  If you want to know who he is, look for the candidate whose face has laugh lines rather than angry furrows from scowling.  You’ll figure it out, if you pay attention.

Think about the significance of that simple observation.  Who smiles when things are not so good?  The one who sees a bright future.  The one accustomed to encouraging.  The one who is proficient at instilling positive attitudes in others.  The one who basically likes people. 

If we apply moral fortitude, if we resist the manipulation of elitists, if we reject the drama of intimidation so common among extremists of both sides, then we have the real possibility of starting down the long road to economic and moral recovery before this new year is out.

Our choice of attitudes, leaders, and role models will determine our future.  At least for now, we still do have the power to decide what our future will become.  Time, our behaviors, and our votes, will tell.

- - - - - - - - - -

If you want to be persuaded, or merely informed, in a much more specific way, I recommend that you follow this link to the candidate endorsed by the Des Moines Register.  Thank you for taking time to think seriously about these issues.  Your understanding and action are an essential part of building a solution to the crisis in which we find ourselves at the beginning of 2012.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/17/23902/

Gryphem

Choose Wisely (Part One)

This blog is a place where opinions are freely shared.  Some discussions are political, some are personal.  Some discussions are whimsical, some sociological, and some philosophical.  Some defy categorization.  Overall, though, I actively try to prevent this blog from becoming just another political site.  There are too many of those already. 

Given the stark choices involving questions of character that are a part of upcoming elections, though, it seems to be time for an exception.  I feel strongly about a certain candidate, and am compelled to share some facts and observations about that candidate of which you may or may not be aware. 

I will not name the candidate who is the focus of these comments, because I have no desire to vilify anyone personally.  There is too much of that in the current political environment, and engendering antagonism is not the purpose here.  The purpose is to educate, motivate, and improve the electoral result.  The person who is the subject of these comments will be obvious to those who are politically informed.  To those who stay out of such things, I encourage you to read on to gain a sense of the moral miasma that is brewing…
- - - - - - - - - -

We Have to Talk about Him: The Pretender to Morality

There is a man who is the embodiment of the partisan divide that threatens the stability of our nation.  He is adored by a few, scorned by many, and noticed by nearly everyone.  In this era of media hype and no-bad-publicity, he stands alone as the most polarizing figure on the political scene today, save only perhaps the current incumbent.  This partisan is running for president and, for reasons I leave to historians and psychologists, is currently doing quite well in the polls.   His election would be a political catastrophe the magnitude of which this nation has not seen since the 19^th century.
- - - - - - - - - -

Is moral character important in a candidate for public office?  How important? 

I think most of us would agree that the positions of a candidate on the crucial issues of the day should be more the focus of the voters than his (or her) personal behavior.  Unless the personal behavior crosses a certain threshold of indiscretion, that is.  I suspect that none of us would endorse a murderer or a rapist for high office, regardless of political position.  So there is a baseline of character that must be present in any particular candidate for that candidate to be acceptable to the public and viable. 

Where do you draw the line?  Could you vote now for Bill Clinton, knowing that he lied to the American people and officials of a court?  Could you vote now for Richard Nixon, knowing that he covered up a massive scandal involving his reelection campaign?  How much can a candidate do – or get away with – and still be a legitimate candidate?
- - - - - - - - - -

Would you support a candidate who has stated repeatedly that he was not to blame for a divorce, that the divorce was undertaken only because his wife asked for it, even though the court documents show clearly that he was the one to file and his wife plainly requested that the judge not grant the divorce?

How would you feel about that candidate if you knew that former friends had broken ties with him over the way he treated his wife and children?  How would you feel about that candidate if you knew he was not well thought of in his home county because of his poor treatment of family?

Would you support a candidate who, according to a former friend and coworker, said of his first wife, “She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president”?  How about if he said that right before he divorced her?  Would your opinion be affected if you knew the wife had been an important part of helping her husband get elected to office in the first place?

Would you support that candidate if he had indeed subsequently divorced his wife, and married a younger woman less than a year later?  Would you continue to support that candidate if had you knew that at the time he had filed for divorce, he was already seeing the new woman?

How would your opinion be affected if you knew he had repeated the same series of events nearly two decades later, disposing of wife number two in favor of a younger aide who became wife number three?

Would you support a candidate who had refused to provide material support to his family, including dependent children, during a period of separation, until legally ordered to do so by a court?  Would it matter to you that their local church had to conduct a food drive for his dependents?

Does it matter whether the candidate’s espoused beliefs and behavior are not aligned?  More specifically, would it matter to you that this candidate was a church member and has courted the votes of evangelical Christians?

Would it matter to you that while in office, the candidate was reprimanded for ethical violations?
- - - - - - - - - -

Personally, I would have a problem supporting a person like that for office.  I don’t think he is the kind of person I want making decisions that affect others, much less millions of others.  In my opinion, a person’s moral makeup and integrity really do matter.

To be clear, divorce is not a barrier to high public office, nor should it be.  In some cases divorce is a reasonable thing to do.  There have been several good men and women who have served their fellow citizens after enduring the trauma of divorce.  But when the separation has been preceded by dating outside the marriage, when the candidate has made cruel remarks about his spouse based not on her behavior but on her appearance, when the candidate’s friends have broken with him over the way he treated his family, then we might want to think twice about supporting that candidate.

As a Christian, I do believe that redemption is possible.  Even given all this, if the candidate has made amends in his behavior, made peace to the best of his ability with all concerned, and moved forward over a period of time with compassion and integrity, then he might have learned moral character and courage, and might still be a decent choice for high political office.  People do change, and honest change can be not only an enabler of forgiveness, but a profound resource, a reason for moral courage and fortitude, and a key to magnificent new accomplishments.

But when the story the candidate tells does not match the legal record, when the experiences he has lived through seem to have failed to create any sense of empathy for others whom he comfortably criticizes, when his coworkers find it necessary to publicly censure him for unethical practices after the passage of many years, when the whole series of events surrounding the ugly divorce is repeated after a period of two decades, then it seems nothing has really changed.

This candidate’s political party has viable options as we approach the 2012 campaign for the White House.  The long-term frontrunner is a man of impeccable character and ability who, for some reason, seems to be unacceptable to the rank-and-file.  The only criticism they seem to be able to level at him (and they do so repeatedly) is that he changed his position on government involvement in health care.  I cannot understand how changing one’s mind about a public policy issue is on a par with all the meanness, two-faced hypocrisy, and deception exhibited by this rival who is on the verge of displacing him as the face of the party in the coming election.

Inexplicably, everyone talks about how intelligent this person is, this candidate of questionable morality.  I’m tired of that comment.  If he is so intelligent, he should get his own life in order before attempting to remake a nation.

If this man’s political party can find no one better to carry their standard forward than this a man of questionable ethics, lacking in personal loyalty, prone to rewrite the past to fit his current objectives…

If they can find no one better than a man who values career objectives more than people, who appears to have sacrificed the one he should have loved above all others to get ahead in his career, who did all that without the inconvenience of too much remorse…

If this man is their candidate, then that party is demonstrably morally bankrupt. 

But there are other options, and the story may yet find a happy ending.  That depends mostly on us.  Check back for Part Two.

[To be continued…]

Gryphem

What’s Wrong with Congress?

Our Congress, which has become more and more erratic over the past several years, has reached another level of irrationality, one that leaves ordinary citizens scowling and befuddled.  I have more questions than answers about this latest fiasco, but I do have one good idea... More on that later.

For now, let's take a look at a situation that is continuing to develop in the capital.  Here's how it shapes up.  Democrats have long proclaimed the need to increase revenue (raise taxes) to reduce the federal budget deficit.  Republicans have championed the cause of lower taxes as a way to invigorate the economy.  So when the Democrats propose to extend a tax cut on payroll taxes, you might logically assume that Republicans would be overjoyed, right?  Wrong.  On the contrary, the Republicans have characterized the Democrat tax cut proposal currently before Congress as ‘reckless’ and vowed to oppose it. 

What's going on?  Suddenly the ‘higher taxes’ side wants to cut taxes?  And in response the ‘lower taxes’ side is fighting all out to prevent it?  Why?

Would the Democrats really go against all their arguments of the past year in order to ingratiate themselves with working people who will benefit from this payroll tax break?  Will the Republicans really oppose anything a Democrat suggests, just to be obstinate, even if they wanted it yesterday?

I don’t know about you, but this disturbs me.  Being a conservative-leaning moderate, I already have plenty of reasons to be upset with those on the political left.  I think they have done a lot of damage to our country over the past few years.  But in this case it is the Republicans who amaze me most – and that's not a good thing.

Let me be clear about this.  I am not a member of the Republican Party.  I used to be, until I realized that the national party only wanted my contributions and could not possibly have cared less about my opinions.  I am an independent, a free thinking fiscal conservative with libertarian tendencies.  Even so, I had continued to think of the Republican Party as the “better” of the two parties, the one with ideas that had a chance of working, the ones with more moral integrity than the duplicitous and manipulative political left. 

No more.  Now, suddenly, I see as much hypocrisy on the political right as on the left.  Suddenly I am faced with the fearful possibility that there is no one in Congress with integrity or intelligence, no one with our best interests at heart.

Look at this Republican Party.  They went to the wall, threatened to shut down the government to preserve tax advantages for the wealthy.  I kind of thought they were overdoing it, but I made allowances for their zealous defense of a principle, the principle of less government and free markets.  I respected that.  But now that the recipients of the proposed tax break are the middle class and the poor, they are in active opposition to lower taxes?  Will they will fight to preserve tax breaks for millionaires, then turn around and fight to end a tax break for working people?

I have been defending Republicans against the popular stereotype (“rich white guys who don’t care about poor people”) for years.  I don’t think I can do that anymore.  I used to believe in their integrity, used to believe that they were fighting for constitutional principles and liberty.  If they were fighting for principles, though, they should be consistent.  Despite all the talk about reducing the deficit, it has become apparent to me that they care only about themselves, their peer group, and the contributors who give them money for their reelection bids.  They had me fooled for a long time, but this series of unfortunate events has exposed their hypocrisy so clearly that even I can see it.

Is it possible that I just do not understand some important underlying factor?  Is it possible that the Republicans in Congress are doing the right thing and I just don’t understand why?  It’s conceivable.  For the sake of argument, let’s say there really is a good reason to raise payroll taxes on the middle and lower class while simultaneously refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Even if there is such a good reason that I just don’t understand, do the Republicans in Congress realize how this makes them look to the ordinary people of the United States?  Are they actively trying to lose the next election?

Don’t get the idea that I am going over to the other side.  I am not.  I believe the political left is disingenuous, ideologically intolerant, and dangerous.  The left is not an option.  In fact, the point of all this is that there is no political organization in the U.S. Congress that is honestly looking out for the best interests of the United States of America.  There is no viable political affiliation among the major parties for Americans of good faith, reason and integrity.  Both sides are corrupt and dangerous.  Congress has an approval rating of under 10% for a good reason.  They have earned it.

In the interest of fairness, let me say this.  There are 535 people in congress and senate.  Among those hundreds there are undoubtedly several fine, conscientious persons of integrity and intelligence.  I have known such a Congressman.  I have no desire to slander the honorable among them because of their positions or associations.  

Members of Congress with integrity, though, are few.  We the people have proven to be very poor judges of character when it is time to vote.  Because of our poor choices, Congress has been allowed to abdicate its responsibility to do right by the people and the nation.  Congress has stopped being the responsible manager of our federal government and has become a malignancy sapping the health of our American nation.  If we are to stop the decline, we have to turn out every member of Congress. 

To the few who are doing right, we are sorry but you are about to be caught in a tsunami of political reform.  We acknowledge that there will be collateral damage, but that is a harsh reality of political life today.  If you truly are a person of honor, intelligence, and goodwill, perhaps you will be able to make a comeback to the new, improved congress in 2 or 4 years.  Undoubtedly there will be a few new members of congress who will not live up to our new, improved ideals and will need to be replaced.

But for now, we need a House-cleaning.  And a Senate-cleaning.  This is triage.  In the same way a surgeon might amputate a toe to stop the progress of life-threatening gangrene, We the People of the United States have to remove this entire Congress - with its culture of extreme partisanship, misplaced loyalties, narcissism and entitlement, dishonesty, and ineffective government, in order to save the federal government itself.

There’s no group in Congress today that has the best interest of the nation and the people at heart.  We need to change that.  We need to make sure that the next Congress is made up of patriots, committed to our remarkable nation first and foremost, yet still able to work with allies and people of all nations without arrogance .  We need to make sure that the members of the next Congress have the morally stamina to stand by essential principles without resorting to mindless formulas or pledges that divide their loyalties.  We need to fill the next Congress with persons who are able to speak with conviction and remain civil and respectful while doing so.  We need Representatives who are intelligent enough to think for themselves, independent of polls or party leadership, and to understand the implications and consequences of their actions.  We need Representatives who realize that moral fortitude is an admirable quality, that extreme partisanship can sometimes indicate a lack of discernment, and that neither of these statements contradicts the other.  We need Representatives who will put the needs of their nation and their constituents before their own political wellbeing.  We need to make sure that the next Congress appreciates what amazing resources we have in our Constitution, in the shared experiences of our history, in the diversity of our landforms (physical and cultural) and our people, and in the common vision we share of liberty in law.

We need to remove elitists of all political parties and replace them with people who realize that they are our peers and our employees, not our superiors or our bosses.  We need people in Congress who will do the right thing despite adversity.  We need a government of men and women who know that principles are inviolate and governing requires cooperation – and that these two are not a contradiction but a creative tension by which the American people have lived and thrived for over two centuries.  It’s time for some real change.

Gryphem

Rejoicing in Thessaloniki

A certain quotation which was read in my presence yesterday seemed particularly significant to me.  You might say it spoke to me.  I pass it along to you, in the hope that you will also realize... Not only do you have permission to be happy, you are actually expected by God to be joyous.

For an instant I wondered, ‘How can I rejoice?  There are so many issues to deal with...’  Then I remembered that God is bigger than any problem in my life or my world.  I sometimes get wrapped up in what’s near at hand and need to take a step back to regain the big picture.

This quote comes from a letter written quite some time ago by a religious leader to some friends in Greece.  The most momentous part for me was the paragraph beginning with the word, ‘rejoice.’  I also present for you the surrounding parts.  I hope it speaks to you as it did to me. 

   

     Live in peace with each other… warn

     those who are idle and disruptive,

     encourage the disheartened, help the

     weak, be patient with everyone.

     Make sure that nobody pays back

     wrong for wrong, but always strive

     to do what is good for each other and

     for everyone else.

     Rejoice always.  Pray continually. 

     Give thanks in all circumstances. 

     This is God’s will for you…

     Hold on to what is good. 

     Reject every kind of evil.

     May God himself, the God of peace,

     sanctify you through and through. May  

     your whole spirit, soul and body be

     kept blameless…  The one who calls

     you is faithful, and he will do it.

          - Paul deTarsus, "Letter to Thessaloniki"



Thessaloniki, Greece

Spending more time in joy.  Sounds like a great idea to me.

Gryphem

Where’s Ron? (Part 2)

In a previous post on October 28 I pointed out how the media has systematically refused to cover presidential candidate Ron Paul.  When present, his positions and situation frequently have been misrepresented, but more often he has been actively ignored.  The exclusion is intentional, and nowhere is that more evident than on CNN.com on December 3, 2011. 

The headline reads: “Gingrich ahead in Iowa, poll shows; Romney drops to third.”  Which, of course, begs the question – “Who Came In Second?”

Just to be clear,  CNN.com did write a headline that named the first and third place finishers, without naming the candidate who finished in second place.

Of course they did mention his name in the body of the article.  Barely.  If they had omitted the name of the second-place finisher entirely, human nature being as it is, too many people would be asking “Who is it?”  That would have defeated their purpose by drawing attention to candidate Ron Paul instead of keeping him in the shadows.

How blatant does the bias have to be before we recognize it and call CNN.com (and other media manipulators) on their unprofessionalism?

To reiterate, Candidate Ron Paul is now in second place in the polling in Iowa, the first caucus state.  People in Iowa are taking notice of this candidate who is so different from all the others, even though the media are doing their best to marginalize him.

Every American should take serious note of this oversight.  Although it may seem small at first, it doesn’t take long for a thoughtful person to realize that this is the tip of a large, dangerous iceberg that is threatening to sink the democratic process in the United States.  The iceberg is blatant media bias out of control. 

My purpose here is not to advance the career of candidate Ron Paul, although I respect him.  My purpose is to shine a spotlight on media bias in action.  My purpose is to highlight how the media is misreporting and therefore unfairly influencing the electoral process in our nation.

In a small attempt to counterbalance this one instance of media bias, I reprint this from a commenter on the article site:

GregD:

“Gingrich first.... Romney third!  This whole ignore Ron Paul thing is starting to get ridiculous! There is a good reason why he is polling so high despite getting next to zero coverage…  Ron Paul never flip-flops, he doesn't have any skeletons in the closet… and he actually has a plan to balance the budget. If you do your own research instead of relying on the news, you will see why Ron Paul's supporters are so enthusiastic.”

Thanks, GregD.  Gryphem readers, do your own research, and don't be afraid to think for yourself.  Don’t trust any public entity to do either for you.  They most likely have an agenda of their own.

Presented in the public interest by Gryphem

An Escalation in Class Warfare

The article was entitled, “Austerity' policy: Low-paid foot the bill” by Sally Kohn, November 30, 2011. 

Not that I want you to waste any of the precious moments of your life reading it, but if you want to verify quotes or assess my reactions, you can find the article at

www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/opinion/kohn-austerity-measures/index.html?hpt=hp_t1&is_LR=1

There is a great deal of extremism in the news these days, and more in the opinion pieces.  Even so, this article stands apart in its far left radical perspective.  I might go so far as to call it propaganda, although its errors are more of implication and invective than outright dishonesty.  It is anti-capitalist, anti-business, and anti-government. 

I know that these perspectives exist.  If I hadn’t realized it before, I have been alerted by the Occupy movement that socialist and communist sympathizers are alive and well in the United States.  What really concerns me is that this is presented on CNN without introduction, without comment, without disclaimer, as if it were just another op-ed piece, when it is actually laying the foundation for an insurgent movement to dismantle the free enterprise system.

I am not given to hyperbole, and I have no desire to inflame.  I believe we have too much of all that now, and it divides us when we should be uniting to work together.  Yet I feel an obligation to alert those of you who may not have noticed that the rhetoric of the public debate is escalating and becoming more extreme.  

  

The first thing that I must point out is that the fundamental stance and orientation of this article are Marxist.  Whether the author is actually affiliated with the Communist Party I do not know.  What I do see are her underlying beliefs, evident in the words she writes.  It seems to me that those words are designed to prepare the people for the end of the 'corrupt capitalist system' and the rise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

A Marxist point of view is not illegal, this is not McCarthyism, and the author has committed no crime.  The author has the right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to believe as she wishes and to write about it.  Now I have the right to express my thoughts in response. 

I believe that it is extraordinarily important for people to realize that advocates of Marxism are routinely editorializing on some of our main news outlets.  We need to be alert and wise enough that we are not deceived by their rhetoric, nor mistaken about their motives.

The author portrays herself as an advocate of the downtrodden, and models the moral indignation against the prosperous that will fuel ‘the revolution.’  She says things to imply her empathy for the masses.  But the historical record is clear on this point: If her Marxist objectives ever are achieved, the result will be far more painful to the masses than any problem she describes in this article.  Is she deceptive or just foolish?  I’m not sure which, and I’m not sure it matters to the rest of us.

The author writes:

“…not only are austerity plans failing to rescue wayward nations, they're causing even greater harm.”

We’re talking about short-term pain to stop long term collapse.  The author seems not to understand that without action to curb the international government debt crisis, the situation will become much worse.  The alternatives are not ‘pain’ or ‘no pain,’ they are ‘pain now’ or ‘greater pain later.’  I wonder who she would blame if governments kept those social programs paying out until the governments themselves collapsed, at which time all social programs would collapse with them. 

The author’s position seems to be that we shouldn’t do anything, no matter how necessary, if it hurts.  Perhaps her motto should be “No pain, No gain, No problem.”  The implication that solving this problem painlessly is a possibility is dishonest and extremely seductive to the poor.  Politicians have been wrangling votes for generations by promising such impossibilities.  This partisan is no different, except in her ultimate objective.

She also writes:

“The alleged "deficit crisis" is merely a fig leaf to cover the long-standing neoconservative agenda to gouge public sector unions and poverty alleviation programs and further game politics and the economy to help big business and the rich.”

In this one sentence we are presented with paranoid conspiracy theories, implied threats to our future well-being, and outrage against the evil bourgeois.  This really could be a page straight from the writings of Karl Marx.  Fear and hatred are far more effective motivators for the coming revolution than reason or reality, and the author here stokes the fires of distrust, internal strife, and class warfare. 

She writes further:

“The economic elites… argue that… gains for the super rich will "trickle down" to the rest of us while [they are] simultaneously destroying… middle-class opportunity and stability in Europe and America for decades.”

In good Communist style the author accuses “elites” of attempting to destroy “middle class opportunity and stability.”  The reality is that her unnamed strategy of Marxism is what will ultimately destroy the prosperity of the middle class.  This kind of Orwellian doublespeak is a variation of “The Big Lie.” [Note 1]

If you look closely, you will find more logical inconsistencies.  For instance, near the end of the article the author quotes Saint Teresa of Avila as saying “Pain is never permanent.”  Then in the very next paragraph, she writes, “the pain of budget cuts is definitely permanent.” 

What’s that?  Why does the author quote Saint Teresa only to contradict her?  Was the author borrowing the credibility of a saint, and a female saint known for her suffering at that, to create an illusion of sympathy for the poor?  That’s my guess.

Despite the fact that the author quoted her, I doubt the author really likes Saint Teresa because the saint also wrote, “If you have God you will want for nothing.”  That attitude doesn’t exactly match up with the Marxist game plan. 

Incidentally, the “definitely permanent” remark doesn’t hold water, either.  Funding that is reduced can be restored.  Those who endure hardships find ways to cope, and sometimes emerge stronger for the experience.  The implication that fiscal restraint is worse than the intense suffering of a 16^th century mystic is contrived and disingenuous.

Here are a few of my own assertions.  Maybe the author will be kind enough to tell me how I am wrong for believing these things. 

* Governments that don’t have enough money to pay the bills should cut spending or raise taxes to create fiscal balance.

* Being prosperous does not make one culpable for all the ills of society, nor does it make one evil.  (It is ironic that the author should imply so, since she claims that austerity measures will lead to less prosperity for the poor, and that this will “cripple the middle class” and end up “hurting working families.”) 

* It is not the responsibility of government to make everyone prosperous.  In fact, it is not possible.

* Paying for good government is the responsibility of all, not only of the rich.  (Although the rich will logically pay more than the poor because of their greater resources, every member of a society who is able should contribute something for the operation of the government.) 

I agree that there is unfairness in our system, and that we should seek to make it better.  I oppose handouts to big business.  I know the leadership of the largest corporations has sometimes been ruthless and arrogant.  I know that our U.S. tax codes need to be revised. 

None of that means we should give up on economic freedom.  If some are not paying their fair share because of loopholes, then Congress should close them.  If regulations need to be revised to prevent fraud or unfairness, then Congress should revise them.  But pundits preaching against the system that has created the prosperity enjoyed in the America and the western world should be careful not to trash the entire system because it hasn’t created enough prosperity.  Why would we discard the economic system that has created the highest standards of living on the planet because it is not 100% perfect, or because some have found ways to abuse it?  That approach would be like burning down the house because the carpets are dirty.  Instead of pouring gasoline on the carpets, we should be scrubbing them clean. 

Beside all that, if you trash our economic system completely, you might not like the system that would take its place.  Communism did not work in 20^th century Eastern Europe or Asia, and it will not work in 21^st century Western Europe or America.  That is the Big Lie, and it needs to be exposed, not blithely promulgated.

This article does not help resolve our current problems.  On the contrary, it provides justification (however flawed) for malcontents to vent their fury by tearing down the very system that could, in time, solve the problems they cry about.  It creates artificial divisions among the populace and lays the groundwork for a growing insurrection based on envy, avarice, and a culture of condemnation.

Don’t be deceived.  The entire argument of this author is the myth that the rich and the poor are natural enemies.  Not so.  The interests of rich and poor lie in the same direction. [Note 2]  Prosperity is not a commodity to be taken from one group and delivered to another.  It is the result of a group or a society working together for the common good.  We’re going to need to work together to get through all this.

Gryphem

Note 1: See the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

Note 2: With thanks to Chris Dominguez of ‘The Silent Majority’ website.

About That Atheism...

Let me say up front - I realize the comments below are an oversimplification, and maybe a bit unfair.  But frankly I am tired of being berated and falsely accused. 

Atheists routinely characterize persons of faith as ignorant or anti-intellectual.  They blithely blame good people who believe in God for all the wars and atrocities of history.  They sarcastically ridicule anyone who has the audacity to defy their assertion of the non-existence of God.  Their sense of self-importance is beyond reason. 

I believe that God exists, and that he makes himself known to anyone who hasn’t actively shut him out.  But do you know what I do not believe in?  I actively reject any arrogance so great and any ethos so inflexible that every person who does not share the same opinion must be mocked, scorned, and denigrated.

 Just this once, I felt like tossing the grenade back into the other foxhole.

Gryphem

The Enduring Legacy of President John F. Kennedy

In this 50^th year since his election, and on this 48^th anniversary of his death, I would like to share a few thoughts with you about President John F. Kennedy.

First, see the results of this presidential popularity poll from December 2010:

“Nearly fifty years after he was assassinated, President John F. Kennedy remains the highest rated modern president, according to a new Gallup Poll.  Kennedy earned an 85 percent retrospective job approval rating, the highest among the nine U.S. presidents who have served in the past 50 years.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/06/kennedy-remains-most-popular-modern-president/?hpt=Sbin

Now add this follow-up, from September 2011:

“There is no question who the most beloved president of the last half century is: John F. Kennedy. 74% of American voters have a favorable opinion of Kennedy, and only 15% an unfavorable one.”

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/jfk-reagan-clinton-most-popular-recent-ex-presidents.html

No doubt about it.  For all his flaws, John Kennedy was and is loved and respected.

It is easy to understand why people idolized President Kennedy in his own time, and in the years following.  He was young, optimistic, and embodied the hope and vigor of a new generation.  He had a storybook life until it was stolen away.  After his death, things went far wrong.  First there was the extraordinary escalation of the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, under the leadership of JFK’s Vice President and successor Lyndon Johnson.  Then there was the Watergate Scandal of the early 1970s, under the leadership of JFK’s political rival and second successor Richard Nixon.  It was easy, right up until the 1980s, to think of the Kennedy administration as the last of the “good times” in America.

I was surprised, though, to find that JFK still tops this list today.  It has been a half century since he was elected, and I did not expect that JFK’s charisma and the charm of “Camelot” would reach so far into the future.  President Kennedy certainly had some amazing characteristics and accomplishments; I just had my doubts about whether Americans today would remember them.

My next comments may surprise you, coming from this conservative-leaning moderate, but I concur wholeheartedly.  John Kennedy was indeed one of the greatest presidents of the past century.  Personally, I would rank President Kennedy behind only Ronald Reagan among great presidents of the past 50 years.  (Reagan ranked second in both quoted polls.)

Contrary to what you may hear from a small but vocal group of naysayers, John Kennedy was a president of amazing character, ability, and accomplishment.  Consider what President Kennedy was able to do in three short years.  He inspired a generation to love America and to get involved.  He launched the U.S. space program, ultimately reaching the moon in 1969.  He stood up to racism and started the process of reform that after his death became the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He pulled together Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, New Englanders and Texans and Californians and people from all parts of the nation, and inspired them to work together for the good of America.  He made friends for America around the world, and enhanced the image of the nation abroad.  He founded the Peace Corps.  These are only a few of his accomplishments as President, and do not include his accomplishments as an author or as a war hero in the U.S. Navy during World War II.

As impressive as all that is, I have yet to mention President Kennedy’s greatest achievement.  Even though it is impossible to prove the conviction I am about to share, I confidently believe that if a lesser man had been in the White House in 1962, we would have experienced the greatest disaster of modern human history.  In October 1962, President Kennedy adeptly navigated the perils of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  His quick thinking, keen insight, and statesmanship prevented the one thing we feared more than any other: a war with atomic weapons.  If generals had been allowed to make the decisions, if Richard Nixon had won the election in 1960, if Kennedy had given in to the pressure to strike first…  Words cannot describe the tragedy that would have come upon us.  Sometimes we have to remember great leaders not only for what they do, but also for what they prevent.

The death of John Kennedy was the first public event I remember.  At the time I was too young to understand much.  But I understand now.  I am privileged, all these years later, to be able to share my gratitude for the man who may have done more than any other person in my lifetime to ensure the survival of my world, the world in which I was able to grow up, the world in which I still live.

It’s hard to argue against the man who just might have saved the world, isn’t it?

Gryphem

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” 

Maybe today we should think once more about the wisdom in these words from President Kennedy.

P.S. If you want a very good portrayal of how the Cuban Missile Crisis looked from the White House Situation Room, and exactly how President Kennedy stared down the atomic threat without plunging the world into a radioactive World War III, check out the movie Thirteen Days, a tense and historically accurate portrayal with the tagline, “You’ll never believe how close we came.”