Thoughts

by

A Few Things I Do Not Understand and Need Explained


Health Care Reform a.k.a. Obamacare — Under the new health care reform, millions of Americans will be sending many more millions of dollars to private insurance carriers to cover their health care costs.  How does a new revenue source for private companies hurt America?  How will it ruin our health care system, as claimed?

Reducing the Size of the Military — Democrats think we spend too much money at the Department of Defense and say a smaller military is the answer.  Why is it I do not feel equally as safe under that plan as I do now?  How does that improve our national defense posture?  Republicans claim it is just a leaner more efficient fighting force.  How?

Reducing Taxes — Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes on the middle class by 20%.  How is that going to work considering our increasing national debt?  He has not proposed reducing the size of government which is where all that money goes.  This is like saying, “I can afford the monthly payments on my Rolls Royce even though I only earn $20,ooo a year.  Believe me!”

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life — Why are we still trying to legislate morality?

Death Penalty vs. None — In this case, why are “pro-lifers” in favor of killing people?  Isn’t that just a bit inconsistent?

Ending Federal Funding for Public Television — Is Sesame Street really just a liberal thing or do all children benefit from it?  What left-wing ideas are Antiques Road Show, Nova, American Experience, etc. promoting?

Subsidizing Oil Companies — Really?  How do you justify that?  I really don’t get it.

Subsidizing Corporate Owned Farms — Same as above, really?  I mean, really?

Government Ethics — Every non-politically appointed government employee must adhere to a strict code of ethics.  Why are politicians exempt?  In reality, should we not expect the Secretary of Defense to adhere more tightly to ethical behavior than his office manager, or his office manager’s secretary?

Public Education — Why do we expect our students in public schools to get the same level of education when the per student cost of education is four times higher in the private sector than the public?  How will vouchers fix that? (The average cost per student in the public schools is a little over $5000 while at a private school it is over $20,000)  How are our public schools repairable when we are not willing to pay for the level of education we want?

Regulating Wall Street — If Wall Streeters are a bunch of foxes, and we are the chickens, who is supposed to protect us from the foxes if there are no regulations and therefore no regulation enforcers?  Don’t foxes love to eat chickens?

Too Big to Fail — Republicans constantly avow free market ideals.  But is not one of those ideals allowing for corporate failure when the corporate entity becomes inefficient and/or corrupt?

The Liberal Press — If the liberal press is so powerful, so persuasive, how did Bush become President?  How does any Republican ever win in those states dominated by the liberal press?  Is it possible the “liberal press” is largely a myth?

Patriotism — Are Republicans and conservatives naturally more patriotic than Democrats and liberals, or is that just another myth?

Who Can Come to America — Imigration quotas, by nationality, were set in 1922 based on 1900 data.  Why are we still using that data to decide who can emigrate?

Feel free to add to this list.

by

Whose God Do You Believe In?


I think the most personal thing anyone has are his religious beliefs, his personal philosophy.  It is something that we humans have held dear since before recorded history.  We find it useful mainly because it gives meaning to our lives.  Even an avowed atheist has atheism as his core belief system.  It is a religion unto itself, and atheists have banded together, just like those who believe in a god, to profess their beliefs.  And that is exactly as things should be.  Every person has a right to his belief regardless of what anyone else thinks, regardless of how abhorrent some may think them.

Americans have an almost unhealthy pre-occupation with religion.  Too many spend countless hours trying to convince others of their religious wisdom, and their general righteousness.  To that end they become, to some degree, intolerant of religions other than their own.  Sadly, this intolerance, and ignorance, has hit an almost fever pitch with too many Americans when the subject of Islam is brought up, and the belief of Muslims.

I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion and led to believe that it is the one right and true religion on Earth.  I have since learned, fortunately, that not only is that not true, but it is not even close to the truth.  But the autocratic method that the Catholic Church used in its doctrine did not allow for other religions to be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ, or so they said.  That too, of course, is a bunch of bunk as I came to realize that the man named Jesus had in mind a reformed Jewish church and no designs of starting a new church.  In fact, those who had known him when they preached in the lands removed from Palestine simply referred to the beliefs that Jesus taught as being “the way.”  None even once thought of himself as a “Christian.”

Before Christianity there was Judaism, many Asian religions, and the religions of the first inhabitants of the Americas, the Inuit, the North American tribes, the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans, to name a few.  Even those religions of pre-Christian times of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and many others, all had a single highest god, with lesser gods all around.

Religions, even those that are regarded today as having been pagan, had loyal and devout followers, who, lacking other information, found their religion fulfilling.  They were good people who were generous, kind, good parents, good leaders and were so because of, or in spite of, whatever religion they practiced.

History teaches us that those who are in high political positions tend to be far less religious than they portend to be.  The best leaders recognize that their own personal religious beliefs will align only with a small minor of those over whom they govern, and because of that, they speak of religion in the most general of terms and seldom refer to their own religious upbringing.  They recognize that speaking in terms that the majority agrees with is their best way of controlling their population.  Good leaders have always known this.  Machiavelli wrote a book on it, “The  Prince.”

That brings me to the concept of God.  Everyone has a concept, usually and largely derived from their personal experience and upbringing.  The only question that needs to be asked is “Is your God the same God that Muslims pray to?”  And by extension, is your God the same God another other religion believes in?  For me, that necessarily has to be answered “yes!”

A number of years ago I was introduced to the concept of “the God of my misunderstanding.”  That is, it is impossible for me to define God, to thoroughly understand God, so I am bound to misunderstand God by definition.  That quite simply means that I am required to accept another person’s belief of God regardless of how contrary it is to my own.  But, that also relieves me from having to accept any person’s, or group’s, definition of God and how to follow God.  I do take the God of my father as my God even though I have absolutely no idea of how he saw God.  And since my father is dead, I have no way of ever knowing.  But my father is one of the finest human beings I have even known and so I desire to believe as he did.  He was a Unitarian by upbringing, but the only day I ever saw him in a church was when he was in his coffin the day he was buried.

I have one basic and simple request of everyone, please keep your religion out of my life.  I expect us to have differences, sometimes big differences.  But religion being what it is, I have no right to arrogantly insist that I am right or that you are wrong.  We Americans love to think of ourselves as a well-educated group of people.  But that has not stopped us from being ignorant of other religious beliefs, and in that, being intolerant.  I know for certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea of what Islam is all about, of what Muslims believe.  I include myself in that group.  But I am smart enough to recognize that the actions of an extremely small and militant group of people calling themselves Muslims, is hardly representative of the beliefs of Muslims in general.  To the contrary,  I think the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful good people who have no use for the violence proclaimed in the name of the God they pray to.  But that God is the same God the very conservative evangelical American Christian pray to.  It is the same God liberals believe in, that Jews believe in, and that probably any other monotheistic religion believes in.

My point is a simple one.  Do not let the defined God of any other person draw you into their fight, their beliefs, their misconceptions, without due research on your part.  You will find that your God resembles that of many other people, but in no way will that God be identical to any other person’s, by definition.

by

Education’s Biggest Problem: Getting Students to Learn, Teaching Them to Study


I am a pretty smart guy.  I have been told so my entire life even though I oft-times doubted it.  I did graduate from college, and then got a graduate degree from Harvard.  But, I did not even come close to achieving my potential.  The reasons for this belief are numerous but are rooted in my primary and secondary education.  At no time during those years was I ever taught how to study, and more importantly, how to deal with failure.

For the past five plus years I have been involved with primary grade school children.  They are expected to learn more, and at an earlier age, than I ever was.  But the most confounding problem for them, and the teachers, is getting any particular student to learn what is being offered.  A minority of student learn in spite of adverse situations and in the absence of being told how to study.  They, the fortunate few, will succeed regardless of circumstances.  But for most students, learning is an ongoing challenge but I contend that it is more of a challenge than need be.

Before I ever finished my junior year in public high school, I realized that any chance I had at getting into college meant I needed to change something.  To that end I convinced my parents to send me to a prep-school where distractions were minimized and I was able, mostly on my own, to gain the grades needed to get into not just any college, but a good college.  The problem was, and I found this out during my first semester in college, was I had absolutely no idea of how to study.

Studying is not natural.  Human beings have ingrained in them the natural desire to eat, sleep, and reproduce.  Everything else we humans need must be gained either via experience or education.  While experience is a fabulous teacher, saying we take experience as a teacher, our ability to study and learn something is neither natural nor guaranteed.  But proper studying need not be a trial and error sort of endeavour.  There are people who are well-versed in the art of study and its application.  The problem is, this knowledge is not being made available to our children, particular at early ages when it is the easiest to apply and practice.  In stead, children are largely left to their own devices.  A young person really has no idea of a successful way to study.

I remember in my young years often feeling overwhelmed by school assignments.  It was not unusual for me to either do them incompletely or not at all.  Too often I was so clueless of how to start that I gave up before I even tried.  Other times, I would have a study assignment of some sort and have no idea of how to retain what I was tasked to study.  By the time a test came I was frantic to do well and too often failed.

Studying is something that requires scheduling which is not natural to humans in general or to children in particular.  Within that there needs to be a plan.  The plan necessarily means breaking up an assignment into parts, completing it as best possible, and returning to the classroom with a list of written questions to bring back to the teacher.  But these ideas are not only not taught to students, they are not even hinted at.  This may be our public education system’s biggest failing.  The thing is, it can resolved easily and without a large insertion of time and money.  It simply needs to be added to every school’s curriculum in every year of a child’s education until he graduates from high school.

One thing every student is confronted with is fear, both of failure and of negative criticism.  A student who needs to ask a question does not do so because it is his belief that his question is “too dumb” or that his having to admit that he has absolutely no idea what a teacher means by what he is saying will be poorly received.  It is incumbant on schools systems to make the learning process as easy and comfortable as possible.  Inherent to that end is giving the student a written form of how to do things.  For example, the student does not understand what the teacher has been explaining.  On his written booklet is a highlighted question that deals with this exact problems and two, or more, ways to deal with such a problem; either the student makes the statement in the moment that he does not understand at all, or, goes up to the teacher immediately following the lesson and states his concern.  Buttressing this is the teacher reassuring the student from the beginning of the class year that such is the good and proper way to deal with problems.  Such problem solving becomes an education unto itself and enhances the education process.

Dealing with problems is something people experience their entire life.  But a healthy approach to dealing with problems is not a natural process but rather a learned thing.  Leaving such experience entirely to trial-and-error is both extremely inefficient and unnecessary.  Simply by teaching such principles at an early age helps every person with living successful and manageable lives.

by

Getting Sober In Your 20s


I have long thought about writing on this subject but have been reticent about “outing” myself.  But that has changed.  In January of this year, 2012, a young woman who I was friends with lost her battle with alcohol and prescription medication.   A little bit about her:  She was 31 years old at the time of her death.  I had known her for 3 years at that time and we had become close, closer than I even knew.  She came from a good family of substantial means.  She was a Yale graduate and a navy veteran.  She was tall, lean, well-liked, and by all outward appearances, in great health.  She was very athletic, able to run a marathon.  But in the end, all that was simply window dressing to a serious problem.

I have been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous for almost 14 years now.  I could easily have convinced myself that I did not have a problem with alcohol as I was never an everyday drinker, I had a job that I had held for a long time, and by all outward appearance, I was doing pretty well.  That just was not the case.  My inner turmoil was tremendous and had been that way since I was a teenager.  Whenever I felt an unpleasant emotion or unpleasant situation descending upon me, I would use alcohol at a means to blunt those feelings.  I also used the excuse of drinking to be “more socialable.”  And I really believed that was true!  But the truth was, I was failing to deal with my fears by covering them up which allowed me to do things that scared me.   That is, by any stretch of the imagination, not a healthy way to deal with problems.  In point of fact, it only serves to make the problems worse.

When I stopped drinking my only reason was to gain peace and sanity, neither of wich I had.  I did not believe I had an alcohol problem, but if the Alcoholics Anonymous program would help me with a legion of other problems I had, I would do it.  Fourteen years later I can say that regardless of what I believed all those years ago, my life today is fabulous because I made a commitment to stop drinking and to closely adhere to this 12-step program.   For as much as I hated life back then, I love it now.

My young friend who died early this year had a future as bright as anyone could want.  But I firmly believe she had some inner demons that kept dragging her down.  And within those demons was one in particular that told her that because she was so young and so healthy she could have another drink.  But that was the big lie.  For whatever reason, her last drink killed her.  And the truth is, it did not have to be that way.

I remember my 20s.  I was drinking hard and it never occurred to me that I either had a problem or that my drinking could have killed me.  It was not that I felt invincable, but that I refused to consider my actions as being all that dangerous to my own health and welfare.  Worse, it never occurred to me that it was having a hugely negative effect upon those people in my life, but it did.

I see young people coming into Alcoholics Anonymous all the time, as young as 17 I have seen.  It is extremely difficult for those people to believe that it would be best if they never took another drink.  Their concept of drinking is that it is something everyone does and that they are going to be just fine.  They cannot imagine being out with their friends who are drinking and not drinking themselves.  They are victims to peer pressure and their own faulty thinking.

Here is something to consider.  Have you ever made the statement, even to just yourself, that you need a drink or that you have to have a drink?  Most people would have to honestly answer that question with a “yes.”  The follow-up question necessarily has to be “why?”   Almost without exception, if a person is being entirely honest, the answer is going to come along the lines of having to deal with uncomfortable feelings or situations.  And then the honest person must ask themself how taking a drink is going to help that situation.  And the honest answer is, it will not!  The strong sober person deals with those feelings and situations head-on, without feeling it necessary to anaesthetizing themself.   They will actually view taking a drink as getting in the way of good progress.

Webster’s Dictionary defines sober as “straightforward: serious; plain or subdued; devoid of frivolity, exaggeration, or speculative imagination.”  I particularly like that last definition because it harkens unto “magical thinking.”  That is, the belief that if I take a drink I will somehow be better at something.   That, of course, is totally illogical, but that is also very common thinking.  Everyone does it but it is never right.

People in their 20s, the “Gen-Y” people, are prone to this magical thinking mostly because they lack the experience of life to tell them that the truth lies somewhere else.  It is not their fault.  It is just something every person must go through.  It is really easy for a person in their 20s to deny that they have any problem with alcohol because, as the thinking goes, they are too young to have such a problem.  That, of course, is pure b.s.  A problem drink is any drink that is taken in lieu of something else.

Anther thing, while people in their 20s and 30s may not believe they are immortal, they usually believe they have a lot of time in front of them and that they need not concern themselves with some of their immediate problems.  That somehow, those problems will work themselves out or that they will simply grow out of them or that they are just going through a phase.  All of this happens when anyone, regardless of age, is in denial about their root problems.

I feel certain my friend who died was in denial about her vulnerability to her problems with alcohol.  I think everyone uses denial at some time in their life, if not frequently, because a problem or situation feels overwhelming and that somehow, by denying the problem, it will eventually go away or fix itself.  From my own personal experience, I can tell you absolutely that this is just a big lie we tell ourselves. It is never ever true.

To those people who are in their 20s and 30s I ask that you consider if you have ever wondered if you have a drinking problem, or if it has ever been suggested that you might have one, that you take that extremely seriously.  Consider if a doctor suggested you might have skin cancer, would you ignore that in the hope that it would just go away?   Of course not!  Problem drinking is a medical problem in exactly the same way.  It is also, by definition, a spiritual problem.   I promise that those of you in your 20s and 30s, if you were to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting you will not be in the presence of a bunch of old people who are one step removed from homelessness, although such people certainly attend such meetings.  In fact, you will find there is an entire portion of Alcoholics Anonymous devoted to young people that includes meetings that are mostly attended by young people.  There is a whole group of young people in Alcoholics Anonymous who refer to themselves as “never having had a legal drink,” and yet they have stayed away from alcohol for many years.

If you think you have a problem and want more information, feel free to contact me via email here, or, you can always find a central office of Alcoholics Anonymous listed in phone books and on the Internet regardless of where you live.

My hope in posting this it that it will give pause to young people to at least consider how they drink.  Even the slightest suspicion is worthy of attention.

by

Is America Ready For a Black President? Racism in America


Your first response might be, “where have you been for the past four years?”  I sincerely believe that Barrack Obama got elected because of a coalescing of the minority voter.  Obama was able to bring out many voters who may not have otherwise voted.  The question is, will those same voters come out again for him, or will he have to rely more heavily upon non-black America?   This whole paragraph reeks of racism.  Webster’s dictionary defines racism as, “1) The notion that one’s own ethnic stock is superior. 2) Prejudice or discrimination based on racism.”  To that end I assert that all humans are necessarily racist.  It is not a matter of choice, but of being a human being.  Fortunately, most of us manage to overcome our racist tendencies.

I grew up during the beginnings of the civil rights movement.  I was in the deep south when Martin Luther King was assassinated and was witness to the riots that followed.  The ensuing years saw major cities in the U.S. experience race riots which often times resulted in the burning of large portions of those cities.  For the most part, Americans accepted that the old racial policies were wrong and worked to make changes.  But here in the north, Boston, a more insidious form of racism existed.  It was a type of racism where white parents insured their children did not attend predominantly black schools, even if they were the closest schools.  Boston’s response to this problem was to bus black children to schools in white neighborhoods.  I was, of course, a huge failure.

Prior to 1980 the Democrat Party relied on what was called “The Solid South” to win presidential elections.  Since the Civil War the southern states voted almost as a block for whatever Democrat was running.  That all started to change with the Civil rights Act of 1964.   Southerners had used Jim Crow laws to circumvent the Constitution in assure blacks of their rights.  Worse, southern courts consistently upheld those laws.  Northern Democrats were behind the 1964 civil rights act, and this started a shift of from conservative southern Democrats to the Republican party.  While he was not a southern Democrat, Ronald Regan was head of the Democrat Party in 1960, and only shifted after the civil rights act.  While no one can say for certain why any one person switches party when they do, timing certainly seems to be telling.

In 1970 Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, “I know it when I see it.”  I think that applies to racism as well.  The question is, is today’s Republican party racist?  I think the answer to that is: “no!”  But the hard question that has to be asked is: “Why is the Republican party unattractive to black America?”  I think the answer to that is, the perception of the average black person is that the Republican party will not work in their best interests.   Then you have to ask the average Republican his perception of the average black person.   I do not think for a second that the average conservative is overtly racist but that does not exempt them from racism.  The American population, according to the U.S. Census, is roughly 30% minority.  But minorities represent only about 12% of the U.S. Congress according to Scholastic Magazine.

How do I know that?  In 1968 I was sent by the army to receive my basic combat training at Fort Polk Louisiana.  While there, I encountered a large number of blacks for the first time in my life.  I had grown up in an entirely white Massachusetts town and only came into contacts with blacks when I spent my final two years of high school in New Jersey.   When Martin Luther King was assassinated I was of the belief that he was a subversive radical.  I cannot tell you exactly where I had gotten such an idea except to say that my perception was shaped by the society in which I lived.  That society was colored by FBI reports which gave a very negative view of Dr. King to white America.   That small amount of racism that existed in me is painful to me to this day.  But it also tells me of how easy it is to miss the racism in our own person.

Racism in America today is not only alive but thriving as witness laws in southwestern states that allow police officers to question the legal status of a person based on his color, his native language, or his heritage.  This shows me that Americans not only still allow racism, but are willing to make it somehow legally acceptable.  If the blatant use of racism is acceptable how far a stretch is it for much more subtle forms of racism to exist.

Madison Avenue is renowned for its ability to sell anything, ice to Eskimos for example.  They were so good at it that a law had to be passed that outlawed the use of subliminal messages in background music and other forms to get people to buy things.  But that law does not forbid the use of extremely subtle racist language to be used in advertising.  The selling of a president is all about advertising.

America does not want women in the senate, 51% of the population is represented in the U.S. Senate by 17% of its membership.  And although 30% of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is of a minority race, only 12% of the U.S. Congress is a minority, according to Scholastic Magazine.

And so where, you ask, is the racism in this year’s presidential election.  The phrase “Obamacare” is absolutely racist.  While it was Obama who championed health-care reform, it took 535 members of Congress to pass it.  But what opponents of this reform have done is attach this black man’s idea to the negative connotation of welfare, and by extension, blacks on welfare.   It does not matter that the two are unrelated, those opposed have necessarily made a link.  At this point I quote Justice Stewart, “I know it when I see it.”  I see it, and it disgusts me.

Blacks are the original American minority, not of their chosing, but still.  We will at some future date have an Asian American run for president, an America who had parents born in India, born in Mexico, born in Iran.  We Americans really need to get used to the idea that people are going to run for public office who are Americans first but who happen to have a background based outside the United States, and that is the way it is supposed to be in a truly free and equal United States.

by

Perception and Fear: The Deadly Duo


Dr. Phil likes to say, “perception is reality.”  What he means is, whatever a person perceives is his reality.  The problem is, where does that perception come from?  It is only human that many of our perceptions are rooted in our fears, and that is a recipe for disaster.

I was brought up in the “pull yourself up by your bootstaps” era.  We also did not talk about the elephant in the living room.  Those two things are also bad behaviors.  The elephant in the living room is rooted in the belief that we do not wash our laundry in public, and, we fear what people will think of us.  And there it is.

Ever since I can remember I had this conversation going on in my head as to what people were thinking about me, how I was perceived.  The problem with that sort of thinking is, it is usually wrong.  The thing is, it is impossible to know what any other person is thinking until we ask the question.  In the absence of their answer, we really do not know what they are thinking and it is a disservice to that person to impose our thoughts on them.  It is also foolishly selfish because it assumes they are thinking something about us at all when in all likelihood, they are having no so thoughts.  One of my old, and long running thoughts, was that a person did not like me because they were not talking to me.  I got over that many years ago when I figured out they had not even considered whether or not they liked me or not.  And a funny thing happened, when I discovered most people liked me, it totally overshadowed those who did not.   Usually it is irrelevant what another person thinks.

At the bottom of this like/dislike things were my fears.  For too many years I had allowed my fears to rule my life.  I was afraid of both success and failure, not knowing how to handle either.  What I have discovered is that fear exists only as we allow it, and only in the absence of knowledge and experience.  I think everyone has a fear of rejection but the truth is, everyone experiences rejection at some time in their life, and usually on numerous occasions.  Rejection is never a pleasant thing but it is a part of life.  I have found that simply accepting the concept that rejection is going to happen, and, that it is seldom person, I have a lot easier time with it.

The person who says he does not experience fear is a liar.  Everyone does.  It is a normal and natural part of the human experience of life.  Fear is a defense mechanism that was devised way back when we were mainly hunter-gatherers and living in caves.  Every fear I have today exists because I lack the information necessary to bring about comfort.  One of the best cures for my fears has been talking about them, even at the risk of serious embarrassment to myself.  By sharing my fears with someone else, I have found that almost without exception I have the very same fears as many many other people.  There is a lot of comfort to be found in that.  But also, these same people give me ideas, and sometimes answers, to overcoming the fear, regardless of what it is.

I was once told that fear is really an acronym that means Face Everything And Recover.  That is, if I face my fears head-on, if I do not avoid them, I can get past them with a lot less pain that I would otherwise experience.  I identify what my fear is, what is behind it, and what I need to do to recover from its negative effect on me.

When I allow perception and fear to occupy too much space in my head, I am in trouble.  Perception is fine as a starting point, but I always need to either verify or disprove my perception with the facts, the truth.  The truth is not always fun or pretty, but it beats the hell out of unfounded perceptions.  Fear also has a place in my life but it cannot either rule or control my life, my actions.  It is my job, on a daily basis, to accept any fear I have as a temporary reality that needs to be replaced by knowledge and a plan to keep moving in a positive direction.

by

Who Hijacked the Republican Party?


The Republican Party can trace its roots all the way back to Washington.  While it is true that Washington and Adams both were Federalists, they were also the conservatives of their generation.  Jefferson, who became president in 1801, was the first “liberal” and his was the Republican Party.  The party of Jefferson, however, disappeared with the Whigs only to return as the party of Lincoln.

None of our first four presidents were religious men.  There is continuing discussion among historians as to what, if any, religion Jefferson truly ascribed to.  But it was a very conservative Adams, and equally conservative Madison, who made a point of distancing the federal government from any form of religion.  Their reasoning was simple and clear.  They remembered the heavy-handed dictates of the King of England insisting that his subjects be members of the Church of England.  It was this absolute separation of church and state, as much as anything, that brought the original settlers from England to America.  The second part of the first amendment is an affirmation of that fact.

Mitt Romney is a very conservative evangelical Christian.  His running-mate, Ryan, is a very conservative Roman Catholic.  The irony of those two being on the same ticket is that each of their chosen religions was a huge detractor of the other during the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries.  Each religion based itself of certain absolute ideas and ideals over which they were unwilling or unable to find any middle-ground with dissenters of that particular belief.  In the late-20th century, at least one Mormon tel-evangelist referred to Catholics as evil in no uncertain terms.  To be fair, and having been brought up Catholic, we were led to believe that the only true Christians were Catholics.  I believe Romney is crafty enough that he realized such a division could be brought up during his campaign for president, hence his drafting Ryan.  To many, the charismatic Marco Rubio was a better choice of running-mate, but that would have put two evangelical Mormons on the same ticket.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, evangelical Christians, lead by Jerry Falwell, formed what they called “the moral majority” and started a systematic takeover of the Republican party.  To be sure, they were conservatives all and well-financed.  But the “moral majority” fell apart when Jim Baker, and other prominent far right-wingers, were found guilty of marital infidelity and other such things.  But the Falwells were simply the figureheads for well-monied ultra-conservative Republicans.  They quite simply set an agenda and required all Republicans to buy-in or see their campaign funding dry up.

Not all Republicans have toed that line.  I do not believe that Scott Brown, a Republican US Senator from my own state, is of the ilk although I do think he has found himself in the position of voting for positions that are unpopular with his constituency rather than risk becoming a pariah.  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has also shown courage of conviction to buck his party’s line.  Unfortunately, he is far from being a centrist.

The “Tea Party” has a hand in all this.  It is the answer to the Libertarian ideas of Ron Paul.  But unlike Ron Paul, it has a close alliance with evangelical America.  While Ron Paul takes a very pragmatic approach to reducing government, the Tea Party seeks quick draconian measures that would basically kill the middle class as it increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

I think everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they desire.  But I do not want their religion, or mine for that matter, being used as a basis for public policy and law.  Religion is one of the most personal things that exists.  Even among the most conservative group of people of a same religion, you will find differences in their beliefs.  And while these difference may seem minor, they are important to each individual.  How do you dictate what, religious in content, a country should hear, should have as a part of its public policy, and worse, a part of its law?

Good government and good government policy can only be built upon the absence of religious belief.  It is not unpatriotic, for example, to be an atheist, although ultra-conservative Republicans will have you think that so.  I demand freedom from your religion, as you should demand of me.  My First Amendment right says that will be so.  I do not, however, believe that is the plan of evangelical Republicans who have found a leader in Mitt Romney, and who have kidnapped the once proud and pragmatic Republican Party.  Please give back the Republican Party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, and of Dwight Eisenhower.

by

Obama Has Disappointed Me But Romney Scares Me


Most people, when they think of Massachusetts, would categorize it as a liberal bastion.  In one sense they are correct as the state house is dominated by Democrat senators and representatives.  But in another, they would be wrong.  For the past two years the state has had a Republican U.S. Senator, and over the past 20 plus years it has boasted more Republican governors than Democrat, Weld, Romney and Celucci among others.  The residents of Massachusetts are more centrist than most of the nation would believe, and I feel they prefer balance far more than one-sidedness.

I remember when Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts.  The state’s Democrat Party brought into question his legal residence, saying he actually lived in Vermont while maintaining property here in Massachusetts.  But through a legal technicality, the elections board was forced to allow his residency as meeting the standard.  It always bothers me when someone gets by on a legal technicality.  It makes me wonder about their ability to be entirely honest and forthright.  It makes me question their integrity.  Romney did an all right job as governor, not spectacular and not bad as his Republican predecessor Paul Celucci had done.  But it was obvious that he was only interested in placing himself of a national forum as he was a one-term governor who did not try to serve a second term.  Such action makes me question his commitment to the state he served as governor.

When Barak Obama came into office he made many promises, more than any politician should, and certainly more than even he knew he could keep.  Washington politics, being what it is, seldom allows any president to “rule the roost.”  FDR came the close to being able to do that and then Reagan pretty much had his way.  And so when Obama took office he said he was taking a page from FDR’s presidency when it came to helping the economy to recover.  Except for the government’s largess, his recovery program failed to come close to FDR’s vision.  FDR started named government programs, most famous being the FRA (Federal Recovery Act).  Others, the civil conservation corps (CCC) later declared unconstitutional, the Tennessee Valley Act, the Rural Electrification Act, and other programs put a name on his program and gave the general public something to look towards to measure success.  All the programs, even the CCC, were hugely successful.

FDR’s success came largely because he kept the Federal Government in charge of its investments with the states acting as expediters but not overseers.  Obama did the opposite.  He meted out the money to all the states, with certain provisions attached, but then mostly gave up federal government oversight.  The results were mixed at best.  Obama would have been better served, as FDR did, by saying a certain amount of money will go towards rebuilding America’s highways and roads, possibly naming it the Infrastructure Recovery Act, and then putting heavy requirements upon states as to how they used those dollars.  His focus on the use of the money should have been seeing that as much of the $780 billion went towards labor intensive work as possible.   Inner city revitalization would have been another opportunity, although this seems to have been missed entirely.  To be sure, America’s “Rust Belt” is no better off today than it was 4 years ago.

It is my belief that lack of federal oversight allowed too much of “Recovery Act” dollars to end up in the pockets of well-placed and highly influential individuals who did little to help America recover from its worst recession since the Eisenhower administration.  To his credit, Eisenhower did his part in putting America to work with his vision of the Interstate Highway system that he fathered.

What scares me the most about Mitt Romney are his very conservative religious views along with those of his running mate.  Let me be clear, when it comes to abortion, I am even more conservative than Romney as I do not believe in it regardless of the situation and have felt so since I was a teenager.  But, I also recognize that abortion is an issue of conscience and I have no right to  insert my beliefs as being superior to any other person’s beliefs.  And that is why I believe in the absolute right of each individual, in the case each woman, to make her own decision of conscience.  If I can influence her towards not having an abortion, great, otherwise I have no right to dictate to her what she should do.  This to me is purely a First Amendment issue, the part that refers to religion, and nothing more.

I do not like politics in the extreme, right or left.  I fear Romney is all about doing the bidding of the far right as that is where much of his campaign funding comes from.

American politics today, most unfortunately, seem to be like a scene from The Wizard of Oz.  We should all be wondering who the man behind the curtain is.  We have the man out front, Obama and Romney, but we must know who is pulling the strings behind the curtain.  Who is it exactly that most influences these men and what is their agenda?  More importantly, does their agenda align with the desires of 80% of the American public?  I fear the answer to this last question is a resounding “no!”  That is not just conservative politics,  but liberal as well.

I think it the job of every American voter to ask the candidates one simple but tough question.  Whenever one of them states that something is true, that their particular way of doing things is best, or any other boast, ask them to show definitive proof of their claim.  Ask for details, facts, and deny them elusive or vague rhetoric.

by

I Do Not Understand “Gay,” But I Accept It


With all the problems that exist in our country today, why is there such an uproar over what gay people do or do not do.  I cannot stand the visual thought of two men kissing, but I do not condemn it.  The religion I was brought up in thinks it is an “abomination.”  For the life of me I cannot understand why this should be true.  Is it because of some poorly translated texts from ancient, and by-the-way not original, documents say it is so?  It is difficult to understand how any thinking person could think such a thing.

For many years I was in one of the most testosterone driven organizations in the world which was openly anti-gay, the US Army.  There were plenty of gay men in the arm, a couple of whom served under me.  I never had a bit of trouble with them. They were outstanding soldiers.  I never had or heard a single complaint in all my years about any of the gay troops, that their lifestyle was somehow corrupting us or interfering with our mission.

Now gay people want to be legally married.  So what?  Conservative Christians claim it is some sort of attack on the sanctity of marriage, and upon the family itself.  They fail, however, to explain exactly what that means and worse, they fail to show the slightest bit of evidence to support their contention.

Gay people, to the best of my knowledge, are asking that each state respect the civil union of same gender couples.  They have not, again to the best of my knowledge, asked anyone to allow them to be married in all the churches of the United States.  I do know that certain churches do conduct same-sex marriages in states where such unions are allowed, but is that not their own private business?

My wife was, at least in part, reared by a gay man, her uncle.  And that was because her natural father had deserted the family.  My wife is 100% straight and very well-adjusted.  Her male role model, her gay uncle, was a very intelligent, strong, kind and good man.  He taught her a lot.  He also lived with the same man for 25 years, a feat many heterosexual partners find difficult to achieve, I being among those.

I heard, and saw, a man who professed to be a conservative minister of some evangelical church contend that God hates all gays.  That stunned me.  I considered for a long time what God’s response to such a statement would be and I think, and truly believe, that God spoke to me and said, “How dare you question my love for any person!”  Now that is in perfect harmony with everything Jesus Christ ever said.

I think it high time everyone stopped worrying about who loves whom, and start worrying about how dangerous our city streets have become; or how difficult it is increasingly becoming for the average middle-income family of five to survive on their present wages.

The truth is, gay marriage is not going to hurt a thing, certainly not the marriage.  What hurts marriages more is poor communications between couples, money and the lack of it, sex, selfishness, lack of honesty, lack of commitment.  Any attack upon any marriage, or the entire institution, is purely an inside job done by those who have yet to clean up their own side of the street yet before complaining about what someone else wants or does.

Marriage is truly a first amendment right.  Are we now selectively going to deny that right to people whose life-style we disagree with?

by

I Am Actually Going to Live to be 110


Yesterday’s little rant was one of those “you are getting older” moments.  In truth, about 12 years ago, maybe longer, I decided I am going to live to be 100.  I made that decision in all seriousness as a response to a dark mood I had been in for far too many years.  Just how do I plan to complete this feat?  One day at a time, and a goodly amount of exercise.