No Easy Task: The Turning to Liberty

It is no easy task to stand firmly rooted in a moral code when the common ground of our now broken political system is money, power, and personal gain ahead of the interests of the common man.  To stand for the rights of those the majority would abuse, negate, neglect, or attack is the only way by which to defend that same majority: what should happen if today’s majority becomes tomorrow’s minority, short of social “retribution”, and the loss of their rights, same as they stole the rights of others?

It must be our intent, if we should improve our nation, to understand the full scope of the changes overtaking this world.

Only through more moderate government spending can we provide the tax cuts to allow us the opportunity to fill our food banks, provide clothing and shelter for our young, adopt orphans, and provide other help to needy persons.  Instead, our governments continue to focus their money and energy on providing themselves: raises, funding through government projects to their own companies, and favors to their buddies in exchange for continued campaign donations and lobbying favors.  All this they do with the money taken from hard-working citizens struggling to put food on the table for the supposed purpose of aiding the poor.  We can see clearly the purpose and the end result do not match.

These candidates campaign on their work for the poor and provide programs that were originally intended to assist people getting back on their feet, but which have been perverted into systems used to hold people back.  As long as the people require these government programs to survive, they are forced into voting for and supporting candidates who continue to provide those programs, even if they disagree.  Such coercion has created mistrust of government, and confusion and frustration for voters.

We are then given two choices, and told to pick one.  The result of which is the extinguishing of the flame of thought and reason.  Our politicians ignore original ideas, dismissing the with form letters and a shrug of the shoulders, leaving us nothing more than a choice between “two evils” come election day.

We cannot get back to common sense government until we stop being self-serving, nor until we awaken to the possibilities we can build by shifting the political landscape from a two-party system, to a more inclusive three-party system.

We could restore our standing upon the world stage as the torch bearers of Liberty; we could restore our dreams and aspirations, putting us back in line with our common belief in hard work, responsibility, and respect for our fellow man.

But first, we must rise from our thoughtless coma, overcome our fear of change, and send our hatred for opposing views to the depths of the night.  Such beasts of burden are not found in the light of truth and liberty, which shine only upon those who, like the flowers, turn from the cold darkness to embrace the warmth of day.

We seem, evermore, like children afraid of the dark, and so finding comfort in artificial mechanisms, with total faith in the coming day.  Unlike children, however, the light of day does no come to a nation simply by the movement of the earth: it comes only by the movement of the people.

Excerpt from Current Project

What follows is an excerpt from a project I am currently writing.  This excerpt starts towards the end of the first section.

…After careful consideration of the arguments presented, I felt comfortable discounting socialism as a viable option for a successful society.  I did, however, learn to respect the views and opinions of men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, as by extensively reading their works I understood they were men of good intentions, but who also lacked the capacity to consider the side effects of their visions.

Still, it amazed me to see people so steadfastly holding to their opinions as to wish death upon those who saw the same facts in a different light.  Soon, I came to conclude that they, in this nation, were no different than those who attacked us on September 11, 2001; that they were so filled with hatred for any others that they were, instead of intending to change morals and ethics through reasoning and logic, explanation and compassion, were ready to do so with the tip of a sword, or the barrel of a gun.

I came to view this intense hatred with the same caution I approached Middle East terrorism with.  Either way, such a powerful emotional drive would never sustain peace, and would never seek to delve into the deeper realities around us, instead focusing on the superficial and easily identified “problems” so often referenced.  Such stances clearly violate the most basic and intrinsic right placed upon humans: the right to life and liberty.

This hatred, however, appears most often to stem from fear.

I thought about people hating certain individuals, but realized that it came from a fear of being associated with that person, or of what that person might do, or has done, a fear of neglect, abuse, or of something deeper.  The fear turns to anger, the anger as a means by which to justify the fear, and the anger leads to hatred.

I thought of incidents of road rage, someone cutting someone else off, and the anger that ensues, and sure enough, that’s directly related to fear as well… a fear of a crash and the consequences of that crash.

I thought of profiling.  Why does racism exist?  Fear.  A fear of the other races taking control, or taking jobs, or intermingling or any number of other concerns.  Why are there so many people, for example, who hate Mexicans?  They fear they will lose their jobs, or will have to pay higher taxes, or will have drug cartels running their streets.  Why do people hate Muslims?  Because they fear all Muslims are terrorists.

Now, this fear and hatred of individuals does have its place within society.  We fear, are angered by, and hate rapists and murderers, for instance.  We fear being raped, murdered, or having our property stolen.  We grow angry with those who do those things, and hate those acts.  This is for our own survival.  To cast away those given individuals who violate our rights is a means by which we protect our rights.

The problem with fear, anger and hatred is not related to individuals violating our rights.  It is when we transcribe that fear, anger and hatred from one individual within a group to the entire group itself.  The moment we make such broad, sweeping judgments is the moment we, in order to “protect” and “defend” our freedoms create acts that go so far as to take away our freedoms and rights.

We created the Patriot Act out of fear, anger and hatred.  And it was allowed to be done because people feared another attack, were angry with those who attacked us, and hated the entire group that minority associated with.

This is why it is vital that anytime we create law it must be in such a way as to apply and be intended for all persons equally.  It must not target a specific segment of society.  We cannot create laws that allow ownership of certain individuals without creating a precedent that could expand to allowing ownership of any individual, as an example.  With this in mind, the creation of any law becomes difficult except when it protects and defends the rights of individuals from being violated by other individuals or by government.

In other words: we must take great care not to create precedents which might lead to unintended negative consequences down the road.

Thus, we see that the outlawing of killing others outside of self defense or defense of others is clearly a good thing to do, as the illegality of murder protects and defends the right to life of individuals from other individuals and from governments and government agents.

However, we can see that the creation of anti-terrorism laws targeted at specific groups (Muslims, for example) allow the government the ability to classify all Muslims as terrorists, and as such create a precedent where-by the government can now label entire groups of people as enemies of the government even if only one person within that group is.  Today Muslims, tomorrow may be your religion: Protestants, Catholic, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, etc., thus allowing the violating of individual rights.

This is why it is vital that our elected officials and our populace not succumb to fear of entire groups of people.  We must not become a nation of fear, less we become slaves to hatred.

Real Ethics Reform: The Voters Matter

There’s a lot of talk lately about ethics reform, but the problem is that people frankly don’t understand ethics.  We talk about how much money and other gifts politicians accept from lobbyists, and the reform goal is to require them to report all of the gifts and money, or to cap it at a certain amount.

What’s missing is the point that politicians, especially elected officials, should not be serving the lobbyists in the first place.  They shouldn’t accept these gifts in the first place.  They should serve the people of the state, not the big money corporate machines that have run our economy into the ground.

It’s no wonder people can’t tell the difference between “Corporatism” and “Capitalism”.   Capitalism is built around small businesses, competition, and a clear separation of government from business.  Corporatism is what we have now, which is ruining our nation, and is built around large corporations running out the small businesses, relying on gifts to politicians to incite promises, bailouts, and other favors that will save the corporations even as they continue to set in place bad policy and poor business plans for the sake of making the highest members of their boards as rich as possible.

The problem is that ethics reform cannot be done through legislation.  Would you trust a thief to teach himself not to steal simply by writing on a piece of paper that he won’t?

Why would you then trust elected officials who rely on corporatism to get elected to put an end to it without creating loopholes?

Not only that, but why should you?  Demand that politicians make available to the public and media all of their donations, no matter the minimum amount.  Then, the ethics reform is up to the people.  Do you continue to elect people who put their faith in the rich CEO’s who are relying on the politicians to save their own jobs?  Or do you instead demand a vote go to a candidate who remains independent of any and all political favors from those who seek to subjugate others to their control?

Ethics reform is an individual choice.  Ethics always has been an individual choice.  If you don’t choose to behave a certain way, then you haven’t made a choice, and if you didn’t make a choice then you didn’t act ethically or unethically, you just followed orders.  Ethics are preceded by moral decisions put into action.  And the only way we can effectively bring forth ethics reform is to start electing candidates who do not sell out to the corporate machine that has held so many down.

Sadly, we can’t trust any political party to do that, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have sold out to lobbyists.  No, we have to look at individual candidates who rise above, whether they are Republican, Democrat, third party, or independent.  The party affiliation shouldn’t matter.  At least, party affiliation won’t matter to an ethical voter.

I guess at the end of the day the biggest question we all have to ask is: are we ethical in our own political choices?

Health Care Debate is Selfish

I walked up to work this evening to the sound of chanting.  “I want health care and I want it now” was the chant.

How selfish.

How self-indulgent.

These people weren’t chanting for healthcare for the poor.

They weren’t asking for healthcare for children.

They weren’t even asking for healthcare for our troops, the physically or mentally unable to work, the elderly, or the under-employed, nor even the families who suffer daily with children with developmental disabilities, cancers, or other diseases which suck the money from their bank accounts if they’re lucky enough to have any money.

These people were selfish slobs unworthy of even partaking in any serious debate.

They wanted health care, and they wanted it now.

For themselves.

Their chant was clear, and disturbing.

For a nation so wracked with corporate greed that our entire economic system nearly collapsed, to see greed overwhelming a debate where altruism would prevail, and where so many suffer without any true concern from even those fighting for universal care, was an act and a chant I found, frankly, disgusting.

While people in many other nations struggle for the basic necessities of life, we are so self-centered as to argue that “I want health care, and I want it now”.

I could at least empathize with a poorly worded chant that at least focused on others.

I feel no sympathy for any person who is so self absorbed as to stand on a street corner chanting for the government to act out of their own personal wants, without any apparent regard for the welfare of economic status of others, nor the businesses providing jobs, or the entire national situation with regards to economic and social stresses or situations.

On the other side of the coin we have people obsessed with their own personal plans, without regards for the other families who suffer, or don’t have plans.

Neither side of the debate shows any real altruistic characteristics.  And that is sad, because both sides could, because both sides have legitimate points concerning the well being of the population in general.

I stand firmly behind Capitalism, and feel that it is back-door favors, corporatism, and government favors that have caused the problems with health care in the first place.  I take my stand and have formed my position not for my own good, I have no health care and would benefit greatly from a universal health care plan, I take my position as I feel the entire weight of the measure would be such that my position, my plan, would result in the best care at the most affordable price and with the best over-all results for the greatest number of citizens.

State Government Headaches

There are certain factors which would show 2009 to be one of the worst years in the history of Indiana government.  From the closing of the Indiana Soldiers and Sailors Children’s Home, to the passage of a law requiring a vote on a regional transportation district that was unwanted by an overwhelming majority, all on the same day, packaged with a budget weeks overdue.

 

Partisan fighting, ethical compromises, and political games marred a state hit hard by one of the worst economic times in its history.

With the state of Indiana’s government declaring that troubled youth at the ISSCH were better off in foster care and their family homes after having already failed in those circumstances, it was proven that special interest were more valued than the interest of the citizenry.  When the American Legion steps up and offers to find ways to fund a home and school for troubled youth, and elected officials from all parties agree it’s valuable, all efforts to preserve the mission should be taken.

When the children can be helped and the burden can be placed in the private sector, what business is it of the government to reject the future of the futures of so many?  The government has shown its true self by granting the grounds of the ISSCH to the Armory, and to the Army and National Guard, all agencies that did not need more ground, more land, nor more facilities.  The cost: exactly as predicted by myself and others, the children who were taken from crime to hopeful situations were placed back into the communities which first failed them, and which again failed them, resulting in lives of crime for many of them once again.

In that same passage of a state budget passed at the last possible moment before state government shut down, was included a provision requiring a vote for the creation of a regional transportation district including four counties in north-western Indiana.  There was no merit for such a requirement, and the vote was forced to be held in an off-election year, costing the counties more money.  Two counties followed state law, two violated state law, lawsuits are pending, and the government has proven itself to have wasted money, with one county denying the state’s initiative by an 18 to 1 margin.

Both of these failures of the state government resulted directly because partisan fighting resulted in an imminent threat of a government shutdown due to their inability to pass a state budget.

If our state government had exercised ethics, morals, and shown an ability to do the right thing rather than playing to their constituents against the will of the general populace and against the good of the state, we would be better off, with less money wasted (which might mean lower taxes), with fewer children failed (which might mean less money spent on police investigations, criminal court cases, incarceration, etc., and more citizens getting a quality education and becoming productive, tax-paying members of society), and we’d not have lost money on elections that were so overwhelmingly denied by the people that it was hardly worth holding.