Seeds - Some ideas to think about:

February 18, 2012

As I watch the Republican candidates vying for nomination, and listen to their words, I am reminded of the dangers of conservatism. It seems that the very nature of this ideology cannot resist sliding into extremism. The nation is desperately trying to lift itself from a grave recession, and before you know it, conservatives are talking about banning birth control. Their references about freedom always seem to lead to restricting freedom for someone else. Right now it is women, whom they want restricted to uncontrolled reproduction, even as their hypocritical leaders are constantly reminded of their own sexual excess. Right behind women are gays, who just want to be treated as human beings with all the rights and privileges as anyone else. Not long ago, and still viciously targeted, are racial and religious minorities. Conservatives have to have someone to target their rage. While they enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us, you would think that they were terribly burdened by whatever their leaders tell them to complain about at the moment.
    This is the ongoing legacy of conservatism. It has nothing at all to do with freedom. Quite the opposite. It has everything to do with surrendering to glib moralizers who have no qualms about dividing the nation with their lies.
    Liberals, in contrast, are quite lame in articulating what they believe in, and this has long time been their weakness. They occasionally win elections by default, when conservatives show their real colors and Americans reject them out of fear - which is what we are seeing now. President Obama, the exception, who won his first presidential election by actually inspiring people, instantly became the number one target of angry conservatives who could not admit their own failures. No president in our lifetimes has been targeted as much as him, and for no good reason. George W. Bush was targeted for getting us into two terrible wars and setting us up for the huge deficits we have today. Republican deregulations helped spur the Great Recession. In other words, he deserved criticism. Obama, in contrast, has given us a conservative healthcare policy, that conservatives now call socialism, which it is not. They had to fabricate complaints, like the birther issue to sow seeds of distrust among the paranoid.
    Any political ideology that is anti-intellectual is, by definition, anti-free thought - another assault on freedom. Those scientists who have studied global warming and evolution are automatically considered wrong and radical, by people who have nothing in their hands to prove their opinions.
    More and more conservatism is becoming the ideology of angry, wishful thinking, and empty moralizing. The question is, how is it that so many people thoughtlessly fall in line with it? What does it say of them? What does it say of American, since this is a largely American phenomenon - since World War II at least?

February 9, 2012

The trouble with abortion policy, like many important issues, is that it has long been used by politicians for purposes.
    Democrats and Republicans do their best to adopt positions that define them as antagonistic to each other. If one finds a topic where it can find vocal supporters against the opposing party, they naturally jump upon it and, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, have every strategic reason to make the problem worse instead of better. Partisan politics thrives on contention. If the abortion issue were solved tomorrow, what could possibly take its place.
    There is political competition within the parties as well. It is not enough that all members of a party agree on a position. Those who are ambitious have to make themselves known by pushing their stance a little farther than the others, which feeds extremist ideas that eventually lead the party astray. In this regard, the dynamics are ultimately self-defeating, despite early political rewards.
    Abortion is a prime example. We all know that having a child is a significant and time-consuming responsibility. In order for women to enjoy equal rights with men, and control over their own bodies (something men are not similarly subjected to), the law granted women certain reproductive rights. Among them was the accessibility of legal abortions in every state of the nation. Row v. Wade was a court decision that made this the law of the land. It said that states did not have the right to make this illegal, whereas in some states it previously was.
    Now, the moral problems involved in abortion are pretty opaque. Is an unborn child to be considered a person with guaranteed civil rights? What about a fetus? What about a zygote, or fertilized egg cell with human DNA? At what point does an evolving fetus become a person? In the past, personhood was thought to come at birth, when the child was not attached to the mother’s body to survive.
    On the other hand, if women, as persons in their own right, are to enjoy freedoms that men take for granted, reproductive rights do appear to be essential. Men might better understand this if having sex pulled them away from their careers and made them work 24/7, without compensation, in a daycare center.
    So, there are certainly two valid sides of this issue that cannot be easily reconciled, and well-meaning supporters on either side. This encourages partisan instigators to take advantage of these people for their own purposes. We find a lot of so-called leaders changing their position about abortion over the years for this very reason. It's all part of the game.
    And then there are the pushers, who do their best to push policies further and further from any sort of resolution to make sure that the animosities continue. They are political consultants, pundits, and talk show propagandists – and are well-paid for their services. The topic of abortion has now been pushed to include contraception as well. Former enemies of Catholicism are now beating the drum to amplify the dissent of Catholic bishops, knowing that it will hurt their political adversaries.
    This is worth considering. The Affordable Healthcare Act demands that employer paid health insurances include prescription coverage for contraception. This is a labor issue, which provides an exception for religious entities, but not affiliates of religious entities. Catholic hospitals must provide this coverage for their employees. Certain bishops rebelled at this, saying it crosses the line between separation of Church and State, and is therefore unconstitutional.
    Is it unconstitutional? A lot of people use this term in complete ignorance of what the Constitution actually says. The Constitutional amendment they are referring to forbids the federal government from establishing its own religion. It is called the Establishment Clause because of this. In the past these same people argued against the separation of Church and State, but that is another matter.
    Labor issues, like healthcare coverage, do not establish a state religion, or even give preference of one religion over the other. Quite the opposite. They hold everyone to the same requirements.
    Catholic bishops might not like paying for insurance that includes contraception, even though in many states that have done this for years, but that is unfortunate. When it comes to laws and taxes, we all pay for things we don’t like. It is part of being a community, a state, a nation and a world.
    No one is forcing women to use birth control. Those who use it do so of their own free will. Isn't the amplification of freedom this what this nation is all about?

February 5, 2012

Listening to Newt Gingrich speak, one might think that all Americans are entrepreneurs. Take away taxes and regulations, and we will all start our own businesses, responsibly purchase medical insurance, become super-inventive and wealthy, replace secular law and society with religious mandates. Take away Social Security, and we will enjoy massive retirement income and live happily every after.
    Even a moment's thought about the way things really are negates all these claims. Americans are not monolythic. Everyone has different skills, interests and capacities. Entrepreneurs are a minority, and Capitalism, without a moral conscience to guide it, is a monster catering to the greedy and the powerful.
    We must imunize ourselves from these fast-talking propagandists. We must hold our own ground and demand that they explain themselves more fully. They are depending on taglines that appeal to angry gut-reactions, that will not be questioned.

Speaking of tagline politics:
    Are the Republicans being truthful when they say that President Obama has made the economy worse instead of better? Or that the recovery would have gone faster without his policies?
    Let's think it out. By all accounts, the economy is in recovery, and the recovery started when Obama's policies took effect. That is a simple fact that anyone can research. I encourage the reader to do this.
    The suggestion that the recovery would be quicker and stronger if not for these policies may sound good to those who do not like government involvement, but what are they basing this on? We have no other equivalent recession to compare it with. Past recessions where comparatively light in comparison, and had more manufacturing in the nation to help move things forward. This one came out of a conservative environment of lower taxes (thanks to President Bush and a Republican congress), and loosening of regulations. If these policies contributed to the recession, hand over fist, surely they are not the policies that would repair it. They are hoping that the American people forget what led to the Great Recession, and while many have, many others have not. They are reminded of it every day as the unemployment rate remains high and wages stagnate. They also remember how Republicans made congress completely dysfunctional, hoping to make sure that Obama's policies failed. They never even tried to hide their motives.
    So we must be careful while listening to political speeches, radio and television propagandists and punditry. And not just when it comes to Republicans either. Democrats profit from political division as well, taking every opportunity to make Republican comments look their worse. The future depends upon us.

January 31, 2012

When politicians lie to us during presidential campaigns, it should not be tolerated as “politics as usual,” but as an insult to the American people. Either they think we are too stupid to know that they are lying, or too morally bankrupt to care.
    Of course, the fact that we consistently let them off the hook reflects poorly on us. In fact, it makes us just as guilty as they are at, because our expectations set the standards. We should demand that would-be leaders be held accountable right down the line. The media reflects our guilt in how they decide what is notable and what is not, picking the speck out of one candidate’s eye while ignoring the beam in the other’s.
    We should have high standards for candidates for the presidency. Candidates should be intelligent, knowledgeable, and capable of representing the vast majority of Americans, instead of some vocal minority. And yes, that means capable of compromise, not ideological purity. They must be honest and not just celebrity hopefuls exploiting the system.
    The American people have to also take more responsibility about whom they support as candidates. The polling of the last year, with its pick-of-the-week, roller-coaster preferences, made it look like Republicans would vote for just about anyone, of any caliber, without really knowing them. It really made a mockery of our democratic system, while portraying Republicans in a terrible light.

January 29, 2012

I am often chagrined when I see Tea Party proponents pointing to our founders for support, when all they do is show how little they know of what they speak, something that conservatives seem to encourage. I have seen tee shirts quoting Thomas Jefferson thus:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is their natural maure."

Little do they know how Jefferson, revolutionary that he was, would probably take side against the Tea Party for its regressive, anti-Age of Reason mindset.

Now we hear Republican candidates complain about each other's finances, while at the same time upholding Capitalism as the highest virtue. They are so out of touch with our founders' vision that they might best be reminded how Jefferson wrote the following:

"Wealth, title, and office are no recommendations to my friendship. On the contrary, great good qualities are requisite to make amends for their having wealth, title, and office.

"I have not observed men's honesty to increase with their riches.

"In the Great work which has been effected in America, no individual has a right to take any great share to himself.

"Greediness for wealth, and fantastical expense, have degraded, and will degrade, the minds of our citizen. These are the peculiar vices of commerce.

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."

"The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles [to which I add speculators, wealthy partisans, and lobbyists] who will rise up among us if we leave the people to ignorance."

Democrats and liberals are only somewhat better. It is time for real patriots to think for themselves and speak out.

January 26, 2012

Some people think that Americans do not have the freedom to have their own government of the people support programs like Social Security and Medicare. They say it is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution twice mentions that its purpose is to promote the general welfare of the people. They claim a government of, by and for the people cannot help our elderly and disabled with such programs. They say it is an affront to freedom, even though the freedom and security of life for the elderly and disabled is greatly enhanced. They say that the free market can do a better job, when everywhere we look we see the free market exploiting people, and putting greed ahead of conscience. They wish to tear away programs that have long served our nation with great success.
    I say that they are wrong. The United States was fashioned from Age of Enlightenment ideas, firmly based in consideration for human rights for all people. I say that their mean-spirited claims are therefore fundamentally un-American (Or pre-American?), and a political ideology based on greed, even when they mistakenly call it freedom, misses the point entirely.
    For Christians to agree with these people, and there are many, is to disregard almost all of the moral teachings of Jesus. One need only a bible and an open mind to know this.
    We are more civilized because of programs like Social Security and Medicare, programs based on respect for human beings, and not just profit.

January 22, 2012

Freedom is not the final goal. It is the means to that goal. By approaching life as a quest for meaning and virtue, we utilize freedom as we should to bring out the best of who we are.
    Today's culture suffers from an impoverishment of its own identity. Words like freedom, honor, democracy and nature's law have become disconnected from their deeper meanings, which undermines their value.

January 21, 2012

Common wisdom tells us that we have to love ourselves before we can live others?
    Is that true? Do we not become lovable by loving others first?
    And can love, which needs both a subject (the one who loves) and an object toward whom that love is focused, actually be self-focused? The only way it can, is for the person not to love his or her self, but to love one's image, one's ego, which furthers a schizophrenic vision of the world and contributes to all our problems.

Return