My Two Cents – Politically

My ability to affiliate with a political party has always been constrained.  My grandfather, who served two term as a county commissioner when I was young, was a Democrat in a predominately Republican area.  He was a farmer, and while he was staunchly Democrat at the local level, he never voted Democrat for president.  He said, “They always mess up the agriculture policy.”

Well I am not a farmer, and I have struggled, until recently with the idea of being politically affiliated.  I don’t struggle any longer because I have embraced being an Independent. Some may say that I can’t make up my mind, but that is not the case.  I am a moderate who like to choose each election who I think is the best candidate.

So 2012 – I have tried to keep an open mind and evaluate the candidates based on their wisdom, advisors and when possible, their policies.  I believe that if the “new guy” can’t improve upon the “old guy” in office, then leave the “old guy” in  to finish his job.  (Luckily we do have term limits on the office of the president).

So while, many things have bothered me about Mitt Romney over the election cycle, none have disqualified him until the convention this week.  The sum of his faults tipped the scales during his convention speech, specifically when his Cold War rhetoric resonated as he spoke of foreign policy, and when he projected the idea that only ‘for-profit’ business experience was of value.

So here is my two cents worth for the record.

I am beginning to really think all Romney knows is money and money friends. None of his political and certainly none of his Foreign Policy decisions seem to be coming from a well thought out position. He seems to be cutting and pasting pieces of past presidential ideas and creating a Frankenstein. Now if he is so good at making money, why doesn’t he A) tell us how he plans to create 12 million jobs, and B) higher some younger, more modern advisers. (Also, why didn’t he make more jobs with all his money, while in the private sector?)

He projects the idea that only expensive old guys are worth the investment and as advisors. This seems to be completely ill conceived when it is the ideas of the old that keep us in this economic state. The economics of the 50’s and even the 80’s can’t possibly work for the world today. Have they all forgotten that A) the baby boomers all had kids, exponentially increasing our population, B) the baby boomers are not retiring fast enough to open at least some of the jobs needed to decrease the unemployment, C) that the world has changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and D) the economies of the past were bolstered by military buildup. On that note, the military buildup created jobs, and during the Cold War we were a major exporter of military tech/machine. While the Cyber Technology growth helped offset the decrease in military sales, it could not replace all the jobs.

No one argues that the economy is in a less than happy state, but just as I don’t think Cold Warriors should be deciding Foreign Policy, I don’t think that “old” thinkers should be steering the nation’s economic or legal courses.

Oh, and I seriously question his judgment when he surrounds himself with press advisers who can’t keep their mouths clean and respectful, especially in public.  Especially since I am rather familiar with the standards of his faith.

Wisdom is for advising, but youth is for innovation. Romney seems stuck in the old – not wisdom, just old.

So this is my two cents, I appreciate the courage Romney has shown in his decision to run for office.  I value his desire to serve, but if he wins, I anticipate more war and less peace.  For while the economy is struggling, and innovation is required, he does not seem to understand that we cannot return to the 80’s where strong rhetoric was backed by huge military development, constant fear, and little sense of security.  The world is filled with conflict, but the policies of the Cold War do not work for the world we live in today.  He should ask President G.W. Bush about this, because right or wrong, his administration proved war had changed, and the ability to bolster our economy through war has changed as well. We cannot go back and Romney does not seem to know how to go forward.

Cold War Syndrome & Cold War Hero Syndrome

Is it possible that the Baby Boomer generation all suffer from a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? That their youth filled with bomb shelters and threats of communist infiltration has left them traumatized. Do they suffer from Cold War Syndrome – the fear that we are in grave peril whenever we do not have an enemy inciting strong militaristic talk from our own leaders.

This syndrome includes the strong desire to stockpile weapons, have a National Offense Policy rather than a National Defense Policy, and the belief that anyone who disagrees with us is ideologically evil. Symptoms include, bullying our friends and threatening any who votes against our National Interests. Happiness and a sense of security is only achieved when the world tells us we are the best, most beloved, and bows at our feet.

The 80’s generation is often exempt from this syndrome because of the mentality that war equals total destruction, and our own leaders are just as dangerous as those of our enemy. However, there are a few who were overly influenced by movies like Red Dawn and have subsequently developed an off shoot of the syndrome called Cold War Hero Syndrome.  This syndrome is similar to its parent syndrome, but deviates by placing a stronger belief on the idea that huge, home-based stockpiles of weapons will save the day.

It is highly possible that there is a genetic factor in the developing of Cold War Syndrome and Cold War Hero Syndrome. Evidence, while not conclusive, indicates that the syndrome is more prevalent in family units and therefore maybe passed from one generation to the next.

Fortunately these syndromes do have a cure.  Education, Community Service, Cultural Diversity, International Travel, and Loving Thy Neighbor as Thyself all reduce, if not eliminate, the fear that perpetuates these syndromes.  Humility and a desire to work with rather than dominate others, also helps.

Is the Cold War Really Over?

I remember how excited everyone was when the Cold War ended. Today, I researched about how hard it has been to leave the policies of the Cold War behind for a certain group of politicians. Bush was a big one to use Cold War rhetoric and policies. His advisers were entrenched in the Cold War. They saw phantoms at every turn, but missed the phantoms with a strategy.

Tonight I heard more of that same Cold War rhetoric, even directed at an old enemy, simply because I wasn’t smart enough to turn off the tv. The enemies have changed slightly but it seems we still need to have an enemy to feel good about ourselves. Still think we must define our power and our strength by the suppression of others.

Ironic how we don’t want to be the world’s police force, but at the same time we want to tell the world what they can and cannot do. All in the name of our national interests.

Today, I read an interesting article about how we have been at war since 1776. Do we know how to get along? Do we know how to be free without constant war? Must we play the international bully to feel good about who we are? Must we fear the world in order to feel protected? Does national defense always have to include international conflict? Is there no other way to lead, participate, or show strength?

What is wrong with being part of an international community? What is wrong with working together?  Yes, there will be war, will be bad people committing atrocious acts against humanity, but must we become so afraid that we justify Machiavellian preemptive strikes? Justify being the international bully?  How did we get this way, and how do we get off this path?

Will the Cold War ever be over if we continue to live in a perpetual state of fear and distrust?  Because the Cold War was not man against man, or even nation against nation – it was ideology against ideology, and we still can’t seem to understand that not everyone has to be like us in order to be a good neighbor. We can disagree and still work together dealing with real threats and not perceived ones.

The days of bolstering our economy through military buildup are over. New solutions must be found, and they won’t be found chasing phantoms. Whenever we chase phantoms, we lose. Phantoms will use our fears against us, and there is no weapon that will stop them.  Like the natural disaster, phantoms and their evil can reach us through even the best protections. Waging a Cold War of containment or annihilation will not stop the phantoms, but will cause us to run ourselves into the ground.

Pitch-fork Wielding Assimilated Riots

Before joining a revolution, make sure you know the intent and the cause.

There is a difference between a revolution and a pitch-fork wielding, assimilated riot.  One is based on seeking a better world through freedoms and diversity of thought.  One is based on holding back freedoms and diversity; restricting thought.

Make sure your desire to protest, march and fight is based on a clear understanding of the objective, intent and goal.  That you are not simply an assimilated, crowd following, pitch-fork wielding puppet of someone else’s plan to hold back diversity out of fearful ignorance.

Agency is the freedom to choose.  It is unwise to choose assimilation over knowledge, and choice of thought. It is unwise to give your freedom up so that you may fit in with the crowd.  For you never know when the mob will turn on you, and the riot will be in your backyard.

 

see also: Why Do We Go to War?To Be Informed or To Be Educated,

 

 

 

 

Saith Me… Understanding Your Opponent

Understanding your opponent is vital, misunderstanding your opponent is detrimental to success. Information inaccurately sourced or evaluated can lead to great struggle and strife; can lead to confusion and defeat. Avoid quick assessment or popular belief, dig deeper and be prepared to admire your opponent even as you prepare to defeat them.

 

A Gun Owner on the Subject of Guns

It is said all the time here in the US that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  In light of the latest horrible episode depicting the horror wrought by one human on another, the saying should be changed.

“Guns may not kill people, but people carrying guns kill people.”
More people carrying guns will only lead to more dead, not less.  

People legally carrying guns into schools, parks, and theaters will not deter the senseless, horrific killings of innocents.  By all means, if you chose to own guns, do so, but do so at home, or on the gun range. Do so after receiving training. Do so with the knowledge that only nutcases talk about killing others.  Spouting off that you are prepared to kill another, even in self-defense, does not make you sound brave. It makes you sound foolish.

Many men and women train to protect the nation and its citizens with deadly force if needed, but I doubt they brag about the actual idea of killing another human being.  It is one thing to own a gun in honor of your Freedom to do so, it is completely different to own a gun with the intent to kill someone.  If you doubt this, ask a cop or a soldier.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lost their lives or their loved ones this week.  My heart aches for your sorrow.

Saith the Daughter … War

Women tend to make advancements in equality after every war, probably due to the decrease in the male population.  So therefore, war must be an evil female plot to get ahead. – A Theory to Ponder in the Future, saith the daughter.

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.

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.

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.