A Dilemma to Ponder

A recent media blitz has centered on whether men or women have been more adversely affected by the current U.S. recession. It is just the latest in a long line of discussions about unemployment and the slow economy. Democrats have pointed to the fact that the bad economy began during the Bush years.  Republicans have pointed to the fact that Obama hasn’t “fixed” the economy during his three years. It seems everyone has an opinion about rich people’s taxes, rising gas prices, and the ineffectiveness of government.  

With all of these opinions, is it strange that there is confusion on what the candidates believe? 

So when a candidate actually speaks about what they plan to do if they are elected, I like to take notice.

 “I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.” Mitt Romney 15Apr2012

It is important to remember that for every “bureaucrat” who works in D.C., there are dozens of regular support staff who are simply trying to earn a wage. It won’t be easy for them to find replacement jobs, even if jobs get sent “back to the states”.

While I agree that the federal government is too big and could use some serious pruning, I wonder if a recession is the right time to be talking about large scale downsizing.  

It does make for a dilemma…

Common Sense??? – A Cry for War?

Is a cry for war an acceptable political slogan? It has been used as one often, and it does make a good rallying point for the fearful masses.

It makes me think back to the days prior to the American Revolution. I can imagine the debate between two cousins. Samuel Adams would have been accusing John Adams of being too rational and pointing out that there was no negotiating with a crazy king.  John would have been arguing for the use of diplomatic relations, and going to war only as a last resort.

The cry for war is not a new tactic, the speed of the cry reaching the world has accelerated and the scope has amplified. Crazy or not, I am sure that no king likes to be called names or given demands and ultimatums.  I doubt that leaders of the 1700’s would have heard the words of every rhetoric shouting hot head with an agenda.   Today it is easy to hear, record, and catalog all the rhetoric.  It is also easy for leaders to use the rhetoric as an excuse for aggressive behavior under the pretense of defensive international policy.

While I believe most international leaders recognize the current rhetoric spewing coming from the mouths of presidential wannabes as nothing more than campaign politics, I suspect there are a great many civilians who hear real threats to their nations and their safety when US candidates call for tougher US foreign policies.

At some point the politicians and citizens of the United States need to recognize that while we may not always like or get along with our neighbors, we don’t have to go to war with them over it.  There very well may reach a time when physical conflict cannot be avoided. First strike capability is a good tool in our defense arsenal, but flexing our muscles too often makes us a bully and not a world leader.

Don’t Tell Me What to Do – You’re Not the Boss of Me

Why should a king be able to tell his subjects what to do, or a parliament, or a president for that matter? “No taxation without representation,” was not a battle cry for independence, but a cry for a voice.  Unfortunately, a crazy king sort of thought, “I am king, my voice is all that matters.” Rational voices advising the king were ignored.  Hot heads in the colony ignored their moderate comrades, took advantage of the king’s attitude, promoted independence, war broke out and the rest is all history.

Well, except for the fact that nobody knew how they were going to fund the new nation. That issue took a few more years for the wrinkles to be worked out. Luckily there was plenty of land wealth just to the west; land filled with untapped natural resources and rich farmland.

That great expanse of land to the west served a couple purposes for the new nation. The first was it acted as a great national income booster; land speculation and sales have always been good money makers. Secondly, it afforded people a place to migrate when they began to feel penned in by civilization and all the terrible ills of government.  History tells of land rushes and land deals, of frontiersmen and pioneers, all taking advantage of the great western territory, ripe for the taking and cheap.  True there was hardship and uncertainty, and one can’t forget the peoples that would have to be removed, displaced or killed, but what is a little hardship and genocide if it keeps your citizens happy and your national coffers from running dry?  As long as the land didn’t run out, everything would be fine.

Yes, I am being a bit flippant with the issue, but barring a full history lesson which would probably bore you, this quick synopsis does the trick of setting up my point.  You see as long as there was open land to the west, unhappy citizens could pack up their gear and move when they decided the government was interfering too much in their private lives. It is what our ancestors have been doing ever since the first European feet were planted on North American soil.  True the rebels of the American Revolution told the king to take a hike, but then they turned around and created a government based on the constitutions of British colonies (i.e. Massachusetts and Virginia). Yes, yes, and yes, I hear your arguments streaming in, they did reform, reorganize and design a constitution of the people which could continually evolve as the nation grew.  They did an excellent job, but citizens still got miffed and moved west from time to time. “Don’t tell me what to do – you’re not the boss of me,” was an attitude that settled the west.  Just look at Texas, Oregon and Utah.

In the end, the government remained the boss.  Contrary to what some might want you to believe, our current president is not a Crazy King George and still listens to the people.  The same holds true for the majority of our elected officials and for the political candidates seeking office. However, with all the shouting, distrust and propaganda coming from all sides of the political world, it might be hard for any of them to actually hear what the citizens are saying. Too much noise and sensory overload can seriously get in the way.  So if you really have something to say then research your point well, write a polite letter, and remember to sign your name.  That is what rational, mature citizens do.

Oh, and if you want to know why the US government can tell you what to do, it is the price of citizenship.  Don’t believe me, just check out the oath all new citizens take.  “…I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America…” 

Responsibility of Speech

A worry…

Historically other US presidents and politicians have been disliked.  Some have been assassinated, sadly by US citizens.  I am sure hate rhetoric has always been part of US politics and culture. Isn’t it sad that with new media technology, the hate rhetoric of today is recorded for all to see? Is spread by the click of a button? I wonder if studies will now be conducted on how often someone posts, “the president needs to go, and we shouldn’t wait until November”.

These thoughts bring me to another, why is President Obama so disliked? Is it because of his policies?  Is it because he continued the bailouts President Bush started?  Is it because he has not produced a miracle and returned the economy to some undefined economic glory days of the past?  Is it because he didn’t spend all of his youth living in the United States? Is it because his parents’ union would have been against some state laws during a more ignorant past?

Whatever the reason, it makes me worry anytime someone lightly speaks or writes about the death of another.  It especially makes me worry when it is our president.  Only the crude, the ignorant or the anarchist would wish the President of the United States dead. Oh yea, and a few terrorists.

Freedom of Speech is well and good, but responsibility of speech needs to be encouraged more.  Not political correctness but ownership and understanding of what you actually say and spread.  I believe there will be a judgment day, and I suspect that what we say, what we write and what we share with our friends will be on the list of items we must account for to the Almighty.  Passionate debate, strong beliefs and political rhetoric have a place in society, but the crudeness of political speech that is becoming more prevalent, is something we should not support or encourage.

Defend Freedom of Speech, but also promote Decency and Responsibility of Speech.

Common Sense ??? – The Palin Election Strategy

In my second installment on Common Sense???, I would like to highlight an amusing, yet spot-on article about a sad trend in US politics. Washington Post contributor, Richard Cohen begins his article, Sarah Palin’s foolishness ruined U.S. politics, in the form of a movie critique.  While I for one do not plan to watch the HBO movie Game Change, having watched the debacle unfold in real time was more than enough, Cohen’s critique seems to follow the same gist as other reporters, claiming the movie makers have based their script on insider interviews.

Cohen’s article diverges from standard media coverage of the film as he moves away from a movie critique and begins to discuss a tragic result of the 2008 campaign; something I have called the Palin Election Strategy (PES)*.  Cohen defines this strategy with the election slogan, “Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.” 

With this strategy in mind, Cohen proceeds to evaluate the 2012 Republican candidate lineup based upon the candidate’s similarities with Palin, and what he fears has become the new GOP’s platform. He finds that most of the candidates have been infected – I mean affected in some way.

More worrisome for our nation is the apparent effectiveness of this type of strategy and contagious spread of the acceptance of uninformed national candidates. I concur with Cohen when he warns the Democrats that PES might also be contagious to those outside the GOP field and voting pool.

While I enjoyed reading the article, I hate to say it, but Sara Palin is not the creator of this political strategy.  Anyone who has ever witnessed a middle-school student body election should recognize the familiarity of PES.  Hopefully planning, plenty of homework, and a real fear of embarrassment, will set our nation up for a more mature 2016 election cycle.

* I was tickled to read, “Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.”  To me this slogan defines a great deal of the campaign rhetoric of 2012.  Palin Campaign Strategy (PES) is a title of my own making.  Hopefully PES will not become a worldwide epidemic, and it will be eradicated by 2016.  If not eradicated, I can at least hope that it will be relegated back to the world of secondary education.

Women Attacking Women: The Covert War on Women

A call to war, a battle cry, a rally of the forces!  Unless you have avoided the news media entirely over the past few weeks, you must have heard the phrase, “War on Women.”  Is there a war?  Most definitely, but as with most wars, those who call for war instead of diplomacy are as much to blame for the eventual collateral damage as those who drop the first proverbial bomb and ignite the fire.

As with every war, there are quieter, more dangerous forces working just under the radar.  These covert warriors often go undetected and therefore unstopped.  Even when their warfare is known to the public, they are often discounted as being of little consequence or threat.

As someone who grew up in a very paternalistic society, I recall being repeatedly instructed, “While men may look like they control the world, it is the women who you need to look out for; they have the real power.”

I left my conservative, male dominated society and studied at an all-female college.  At school, the lessons of my youth were reconfirmed.  Women had voices, they had strength, and they had power.  They could be viciously truthful, unbending in their beliefs and forceful in their causes.  Women, who would shelter you from a storm or come to your aid, could also tear you to shreds if they felt you were unjust, or worse, lacking a cause.  Vocal women are not rare at an all-female college, but direct attack will most often be parried with more direct attack.  When verbally attacked by men or women, women will defend themselves, not always to their credit, but often with results.  “She was like an angry mother bear,” is a metaphor which applies not just to women with their biological children, but also with their ideological children.

As with any war, covert operations exist in the War on Women.  It would not be covert, however, if the secret warrior didn’t blend in with the crowd.  Choosing a man to covertly attack women would be foolish. Just as foolish, would be to utilize the same attack tactics.  Direct, open attack would only strengthen a woman’s determination, not weaken it.  Women, regardless of what some might infer, are not stupid or weak.  By “some”, I do not mean “men”.  Sadly women have a terrible tendency of treating other women, who hold differing beliefs and lifestyles from their own, as being stupid or weak.

The news this week has provided two examples of this type of war on women.   The first tactic has left the covert battlefield behind and like the covert military actions of the Cold War, is now under public scrutiny.  Oddly, the revelation of a longstanding covert war between two groups of women in New York has come to light because President Obama chose to speak at Barnard College’s commencement rather than at Columbia University’s.  Barnard is the all-female sister school of the co-ed Columbia University.  While Columbia men have made some appalling statements in regards to the women of Barnard, the women of Columbia have been just as applauding in their commentary.  Hostilities between these neighbors are not new, the rhetoric and attacks did not begin recently. The only recent development is that these attacks have come to the attention of a larger public.

The second attack on women is much more subtle. It is acting on the perceived idea that women are shallow and easily manipulated.  It is the idea that a woman who stays at home with her children is somehow less intelligent, less informed and less interested in social causes than a career woman.  Now, I have been a career woman, a super-mom, and a mom whose children are her career. Never, during any of my stages of life, has my interest in social and political welfare been as keen as it has been since I became a stay-at-home mom.  Every day, the time invested in my children reminds me of how important it is for me to work for their future.  I do not believe I am a rare woman today, and contrary to myth, I think women of the past were not so different either.

I acknowledge that women come in all kinds of packages, with different education levels and with different beliefs. With such diversity, it is easy for women to get frustrated with other women. While women can be harsh when frustrated, on some level they recognize that they are on the same team; a team where the players acknowledge their dislike for each other or for each other’s ideas, but where they often come to each other’s defense when under attack.

When politicians act upon the perception that women only care about how much it costs to fill up their SUVs gas tank, they are being repugnant.  When women defend this action, promote this perception and infer that somehow homemakers are just not concerned with social issues, it is more than repugnant. Today, it was two Republican women on ABC’s This Week’s – Roundtable, who made this type of subtle attack on women.  You will have to watch the video link, rather than read the article to hear it. I commend ABC for editing out the reference to women voting rather than general public voting on this topic.  While today it was Republican women attacking, it reminded me of an interview* that I watched also on ABC, many years ago, when a prominent woman shocked the host with an attack on moms who left the workforce when they had children, and accused the women of being in some way a detriment to their children’s growth.  Sadly the Covert War on Women is bi-partisan.

The phrase, “Look out, woman on a quest,” does not only refer to women looking for the perfect guy, sexy shoes or a great pre-school.  Women of all walks of life organize quests, lead quests and journey on quests.  The main difference between women on quests and men is that they declare less often to the world what their social quests are.  This makes them excellent operatives in a covert war.  When these operatives are respectful, women feel enlightened and informed, but when these operatives attack with subtle demeaning stereotypes, self-esteem dwindles.  Regardless if one believes they are justified in their quest or cause; women should not be waging war on each other.

Oh, and men shouldn’t attack us either, because it isn’t nice, and if we actually do hold the real power, it benefits them to be nice to us…..

* I included a “Mommy War” debate, but am still looking for the episode where the prominent woman made the appalling accusation that educated women choosing to stay home with their children, were in fact harming them, especially harming the female children.  I had only been a stay-at-home mom for about a year and was infuriated by the statement.  Sadly, while I remember the interview clearly, I cannot as of yet find a link.  I will update this article if I eventually find it.

There Must Be a Better Way

I am deeply saddened that during a time when our youth are being bombarded by so many ill winds, good organizations with a desire to help our youth are under attack.  Sadly too often the attacks come from politically driven individuals who have done little to inform themselves before slandering the organizations.

This, I believe, is the case in the recent attacks on the Girl Scouts of America.  In my blog Entitlement is a Symptom, I discuss the benefits of having a community of loving adults aiding in the development of our youth.  I believe that this is a role in which organizations like Girl Scouts can play a beneficial part.

To read one account of some “scary” activity or association should not make us publicly condemn the whole. Nor should we read an account of something “disagreeable” happening in a worldwide organization with similar name, and assume it applies to our local group.  While everyone has a right to develop their own opinions, it is irresponsible to do a small bit of research, and then publicly criticize and condemn the whole.

When a public leader or politician lashes out at a group like Girl Scouts, the consequences can be far reaching.  In just a few unkind or under-informed words, long term damage can occur.  How sad is it then, when the effects trickle down and a young person in need no longer has available resources to help mold their futures in positive ways.

We are not a nation of “one size fits all” and this especially applies to ideological beliefs.  We do not have to agree with every belief or principle of our neighbor.  Our neighbor should not be labeled as someone evil just because they don’t vote the same way we do.  There is enough real evil in the world without creating the perception of more.

The desire to slander an individual or a group based on our own precepts does not make us good people.  Politicians need to remember that while calling names and slinging ideological mud might temporarily rally supporters, it does not make them likable.  Worse yet, they are acting and sounding like lunatics and giving credibility to hatemongering.  So in the end, their politically driven tirade results in a negative effect on the youth who need the resources provided by Girl Scouts and similar organizations, as well as in the encouragement of the radical ideology of hate.

There must be a better way.

Note:  I considered adding links to articles detailing the nature of these attacks, but there were just too many of them.  If you would like to read them, search “Girl Scouts Under Fire” and you will find many from which to choose.