To Be Informed or To Be Educated

The citizens of the United States are distracted by political campaign information. They are embroiled in heated debate over healthcare. They argue about getting rid of the immigrants who long to support our economic and social system when they should be concentrating focus on the dangerous criminals who are the real threat. Therefore, they are missing the warning signs of other problems on the horizon.  One such international problem can be found just across the southern border as Mexicans go to their polls.

It is doubtful the President or the experienced members of congress are distracted from the international problems. Looking outside of the US, one sees that the US is not the only nation struggling with a poor economy, immigration issues, international crime and terrorism. What kind of a future does the US face, if a majority the ‘experienced’ leaders in DC are replaced by a whole new crew of 1st timers? Especially if the only agenda they bring with them is on the US economy, and on the US healthcare, and on the US borders.

The origins of US immigration policies are found in the early 1900’s during the time when isolationism was still being valued as good US policy. Isolationist policies, however, did not prove effective in the early 1900’s, they simply made the US late-comers for two wars for which joining was unavoidable.  In 1942 the internment policy of rounding up anyone “suspicious” was beyond contemptible, but it was policy.  Fear and a tremendous feeling of suffering dictated US domestic and foreign policies in the first half of the 20th century.

However at the same time the US was closing its borders, there was a social push to help its poor and downtrodden citizens.  Labor laws, workers unions, Social Security and legislation similar to the National School Lunch Act, all played a role in post war successes.  Due to economic policies during WWII, employer based health insurance became widely offered as well.   It was determined that prosperity was much easier to achieve if the nation was healthy rather than unhealthy. There was a need for the government to act, and the power of big government began to replace the power of big business.

Now a hundred years later, immigration and health care issues are at the center of US politics again.  Citizens are beginning to fear “others” and focusing on national issues while avoiding international issues.

Progress has been made but fear, misinformation, and “money” backed political theater will not keep the progress moving forward.  Talk of the “good ol’ days” is just talk.  If you are blessed to know survivors of those days, ask them about epidemics, outhouses, food shortages and social inequality.  It is a human trait to reminisce of the ol’ days. Selective memory is common, some prefer focusing on the good and some on the bad.  The citizens of the United States need to evaluate the good and the bad, the effective and the ineffective.

It is sad that with easy access to so much information, so many are misinformed.  A random comment posted concerning an editorial on the Supreme Court Healthcare ruling claimed, “We are becoming like the USSR.”  Many would like to blame this misinformed opinion on a failing educational system, but that would be unfair.  That would be like saying Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC are to blame for all the ignorance in society. To quote a common saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, on that same reasoning, “cable news doesn’t make ignorance, people choose ignorance”.

Ignorance is conquered when an individual seeks information, evaluates the information by comparing it to other information, and then forms an opinion. This is how an individual becomes educated.  This how parents should be teaching their children. This is what voters should be doing before casting a vote.  This is what politicians should encourage.

While some journalists still prescribe to providing information rather than opinion, it is not up to them to educate us.  It is up to the individual to become educated and not simply informed.

The Soviets Had Excellent Border Security

Is it socialist policies which make the US more like their enemies of yesteryear, or is it their growing fear of outsiders? The Soviets were really good at keeping people out, but they were also really good at keeping people within their borders.  While it is true the average person from the West did not often seek to cross the border, one still must admit the system worked.  The borders were secure to all but the crafty espionage types.

In days of yore,

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me …”

 

Today, it seems, we only want educated, socially acceptable, foreign born individuals to visit our shores.  I wonder, though if at some level, we fear them as well?

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.

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.

Saith Me… Propaganda and Makeup

Lesson learned from political news coverage. Have your propaganda ready to deploy before you go out and make a scene.

Propaganda is like makeup, you have got to keep a bunch on hand if you plan to go out in the public.

If you enter a political fight, you are eventually going to get a black eye. So make sure you have plenty of makeup to cover your bruises when the inevitable punches land.

This advice should also be heeded by anyone in the public whose policies or actions have the potential to create a public fervor.