I Know of No Good People

I know of no good people. By that I mean that I know of no people who are intrinsically good, always altruistic, thinking of others over themselves, unselfish, nice in their inner being. Nope, not a one.

That said, I know a lot of folk with high moral and ethical values reflecting the teachings of the great religions of the world and humanistic folk, religious or not. They are moral, I believe, because they have been raised in essentially moral and ethical family and/or communities, subcultures and cultures. And, they have practiced this ethical and moral behavior and a regular basis. And, the more they practice the more moral and ethical they become.

Surround yourself with immoral or amoral folk, and you may likely end up immoral or amoral yourself. On the other hand, surround yourself with moral and ethical folk and you are more likely to be moral and ethical yourself.

In a world where anomie (a state of normlessness) and bottom-line thinking (what’s best for me and mine), it is easy to be amoral, immoral and unethical. In a world that becomes increasingly impersonal, where we and text rather than talk, buy on the internet rather than a store, become small cogs in large machines and the like, again, it is easy to be amoral, immoral or unethical.

That is why I think it is important to surround ourselves in moral and ethical communities. Faith communities are good examples. Of course, faith communities can also be amoral, immoral or unethical as evidenced in the press, but most faith communities know that they need each other as they strive to be, not good, but ethical and moral people. It is why those faith communities regularly in the worship events, confess their sins. They know they are not good and need forgiveness for their selfish and immoral, unethical or amoral behavior. And in those communities, they accept that God forgives their ways and make them new and fresh on a regular basis…and…infuses God’s own Spirit in them to make more and more moral and ethical choices in their daily lives.

Perhaps that is why Christian folk places a high emphasis on coming to the Lord’s Table, the Eucharist, Communion. There they imbibe either the real, spiritual, or symbolic body of Christ (depending upon their various points of view.) They are what they eat in a very real sense and are better for it. And, in community with those around the table, they support each other in following in the footsteps of that most moral, ethical, and in this case, good man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Here’s to the practice of moral and ethical behavior in community.

Do the Presidential Debates Do Anything?

I have watched the political debates with a sense of civic responsibility. I have watched them all in their entirety and plan to watch and next one as well. Though I do not like the rhetoric that usually takes place, I feel it is important to be informed and aware of how the combatants speak and posture. Or, perhaps I’m just being a masochist.

Though Clinton always fares better in the factual department than trump, it does not seem to make much difference to the public. Politifact and other such fact checkers point out that Clinton mainly speaks accurately and Trump lies most of the time. Yet, they remain in nearly equal in terms of supporters. So, can one conclude that truthfulness is not all that important to voters. Sadly, that may well be the case.

What I believe most folk see is that Clinton reflects the status quo and Trump garners the support of folk who want to see change. I think it is true that Clinton does represent the political norm, she also has a long history of solid support for social change for the good of the common folk, while maintaining ties with the power brokers. I would like to see more change on the political horizon that what she offers.

Trump on the other hand, always seems to go for the lowest common denominator. He recognizes and plays to base human instincts and the things we fear. His words are inflammatory and reflect the racism, sexism, genderism, and all the other isms that folk who are unhappy with their lot and the seek a scapegoat on which to place their fears. Trump also is always concerned about himself, narcissistically. He also seems to totally lack a moral compass, no real sense of right and wrong, only what he sees as beneficial to his own well-being. I think he is a narcissistic sociopath.

For the folk who see Trump as an agent of change in the political scene, I would ask them what change do they want? Many seem to want to go back to the 19^th Century, the laissez faire era where the rich and powerful dominated the scene and the common folk barely eked out a living. They romantically envision a future where the individualistic strong man in a white hat can win the day with the fastest gun; but it is a false notion that didn’t work that way.

I want to see significant change in the political scene as well. Instead of blind individualism, I support the change that is based upon the common good. In Star Trek/Spock terms “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or ‘one’).” We need change as envisioned by the Roosevelt’s, Teddy and Franklin, one Republican and one a Democrat, but both progressive. They instituted programs that moved us away from the oligarchical attitudes of the day to the common well-being of a democracy. Since Reagan we have wandered afar from that vision back to a seeming plutocracy where the national debt has exploded and the wealth has been redistributed to the few. We all know the numbers by now; the change that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren embody. Donald Trump would not bring real change to the country, he would just further than wealth and power of the rich over the needs of others. Our country fares far better, socially and economically, when we have a strong middle class. The change Trump wants makes us more of a plutocracy – government by and for the wealthy.

One fears not only about the caliber of candidates today, but also the thoughts and actions of the voters in this nation. We do not seem interested enough to study and reflect upon our political views but more inclined to go with the popular, or emotional pulls to our vested interests. More so, we do not even seem to be able to understand what is best for our vested interests. We seem not moved by great debate but by slogans that feed our prejudices. Perhaps we get the government we deserve by our lack of political depth. It seems apparent to our European cousins who marvel at our lack of vision in a land of plenty.

My political point of view is primarily the outgrowth of my theology; my religious training and reflection. Christianity and most other religions, do look for the common good and emphasize care for our neighbors; all of them. The teachings of Jesus call out to us to look our for the needs of others, to accept responsibility for the care and nurture of nature; to be concerned for the common good and to assume the roles of servant leaders. From this standpoint, it seems clear to me that Clinton far surpasses Trump as a leader for our country. And in the future, I would like to see the progressive leadership and envision by Sanders and Warren.

Whatever the future may hold I would hope that we all will discern that we are to be the caretakers of each other, servant leaders holding onto the model of Jesus and others, working for the common good.

Socialism vs. Social Democrats

Listening to folk and reading blurbs on the Internet, it occurs to me that a lot of folk have difficulty distinguishing between socialism and being a social democrat, such as Bernie Sanders. As we learned from Sesame Street, “one thing is not like the other” similarities perhaps but not the same.

Some definitions from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, measures for income redistribution, and a commitment to representative democracy.^[1][2][3]   [italics ^[mine]

There you have it; in socialism the government owns the means of productions – companies, in a social democracies companies are privately owned but government works to ensure that there is an economic justice applied to the income derived from these companies through various ways. Perhaps it is best just to compare Russia to the Scandinavian countries. Russia is a socialist country that only recently has seen fit to use a bit of capitalism. The Scandinavian countries are social democracies that have successfully provided a high standard of living for all their citizens through social justice means.

In a recent Des Moines Register a poll showed that 43% of Iowans consider themselves to be socialists. Say What? Socialists? But they really aren’t socialists; they are social democrats like the Scandinavians and other European cousins. They want the wealth redistributed more equitably than it is now in our country.

Now, where are our presidential candidates in all of this? Bernie Sanders is easy. He clearly states he is a social democrat, and from the above definition we can now understand what that means. He is not a socialist, despite what name-calling takes place by his opponents.

Hillary Clinton calls herself a progressive democrat. Is that just another word for a Liberal?  David Sirota explains the difference between the this way; he says, “there is a fundamental difference when it come to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional ’liberals’ in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A ‘progressive’ are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.” Hmm, sounds a lot like a social democrat doesn’t it.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real differences between Hillary and Bernie, there are. Bernie want a single payer medical system (socialized medicine), Hillary doesn’t; she wants to keep those insurance companies private.

What we have in this country and have had for a long time is a mixed economy. We combine capitalism, socialism, and social democratic ideas. We want free enterprise but we also want socialized medicine for retired folk and those of ill health. We want life insurance companies but we also want social security programs maintained. Most Republicans want that, so, in that sense they are social democrats.

There are a lot of folk today who profess that they really want to go back to frontier days and have as little government as possible. I find that a bit romantic and also naïve. The country has just changed too much over the years to go back to a pioneer type government. We are a big country and we need a big government to take care of the needs of citizens. Strangely I find that Republican administrations have grown the size of government and Democratic ones reduced it. Look at the numbers of recent administrations. But I wander off.

What I am interested in here is understanding what we mean when we throw terms around. Understanding the terms we understand who we are better and what our political concerns are. I suspect that most folk in the country want the social justice that a social democrat like Bernie Sanders promotes, but they may not support the name. So, if you ask them if they are a social democrat they will say, ‘no way.’  But if you lay out the programs a social democrat advocates such as minimum wages, higher taxes for the wealthy (progressive taxes), health care for all citizens, equal educational opportunities for all citizens and the like, they are for those things.

As for me, I’m a Communal Populist.

Our New Coffee Table

We recently found ourselves in need of a small coffee table in our new digs and thought of this old wood crate; when and where it was acquired no one remembers.

I got a 4x4 and cut off 4 4" chunks and made some legs and lo and behold, we have a new coffee table. We rather like it.

remember good old cracker jacks?

Now, what were ribbon corn confections?

The Obama Presidency: One Man’s Perspective

The Obama presidency, I feel, will be regarded historically as quite successful. I don’t think his administration has touted his success very well, and I don’t think the media lifts up his successes well either; that doesn’t sell as well as negatives, but let’s look at his record so far.

   

 During his term the Iraq war has ended, the country has been pulled for a very serious depression, the auto industry was rescued, Osama Bin Laden was eliminated and the biggest accomplishment – a Health Care Reform Act was passed. That’s impressive.

Other accomplishments include: ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other civil rights issues, improved fuel efficiency standards, more children were insured (4 million – SCHIP), we have improved student loans, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created and Wall Street reforms were passed, the torture programs that began under Bush were stopped, our image with other countries were vastly improved, the START treaty with Russia was created, educational programs ie. Race to the Top Incentive Program was implemented, sanctions on Iran were made, support to veterans wee significantly increased, two Supreme Court Justices were appointed, significant investments in green energy were made and the list goes on. For a big list, 319 documented accomplishments, you can go here .

It is tempting to compare the Obama presidency to the FDR presidency and from that standpoint, I don’t think Obama would fare well. His progressive agenda is not as extensive and not nearly as deeply systemic as the reforms made by FDR. Let me take two major examples, health care and education.

For years presidents have been trying to pass health care reforms. We certainly have models for good healthcare reforms in European countries, especially the Scandinavian countries. During the Clinton administration Hilary Clinton tried to get a more progressive health plan passed and failed. So, kudos go to Obama but it really does not solve the problem of the cost of health care. It does provide health care for more people as it should but the ridiculously high costs remain to the delight of insurance companies. We need a single payer system for these to come down. Obama, I think is a realist, he got what he could get in today political climate. It was not great but it was a step forward.

The same is true in education. More has been done in education, especially higher education than most people realize. There is a lot of money available in government programs for college education that is not applied for. But the real problem, like health cares remains, the incredibly high costs of education. In years past, as when I was in college, anyone could afford to go to college. You could work your way through or take out moderate loans that could be paid off without undue duress. Today’s costs are making college education something available only to upper classes.

The problems of the Obama presidency are the problems of our society. Obama is a realistic and has tailored his presidency pragmatically to our times where the wealthy essentially control the economy and the political arena. He has worked around that oligarchical system to produce some progressive movements, but they are not long-term solutions. We still have an infrastructure that is falling apart and an educational and health system that best serves the wealthy. We have a system that creates a crumbling middle class and poor folk in dire straits with little hope. People are mad, but manipulated media bought and paid for by the wealthy they often are mad at the wrong folk and do little to improve their own lot.

One hopes that the populace will become sufficiently well educated to seize control of the structure of a democracy and make a progressive agenda that works for the people viable again. That was what happened during the time of FDR. The vision of social reform was laid before the people, the political vision was shared, it was fought against, but it won out and the country flourished and grew. It is a vision best captured and shared today by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren isn’t running and pundits say Sanders can’t win. Can it happen again? One can hope.

  

Pro Anti-War

“The world is starving for American leadership. But America has an anti-war president.” ~ John Boehner at Capitol Hill press conference March 26, 2015

I would hope that most folk would find that statement by our Speaker of the House very odd. He was trying to demean the president for being an “anti-war” president. Shouldn’t all presidents be anti-war? Shouldn’t all members of the government be anti-war representatives? Shouldn’t all members of the armed forces be anti-war? Shouldn’t all citizens be anti-war? If we are not I think we are in big trouble.

In fact, that is one of the most prominent problems we faced in international relationships. A lot of countries see us as a nation that goes to war all too easily. We are seen as a war mongering nations rightly or wrongly.

We certainly spent enough on war issues. In 2012, according to the War Resisiters League, we budgeted $673 for the military, then we added $166 military expenses by other parts of the government. Added to this is about $440 billion in interest on past military expenses. So, they come up with $1.3 trillion in military expense 50% of our general budget.

Recently I have heard more such statements by political figures, which causes me worry. For example, Senator Rand Paul encourages his colleagues to decrease spending (social services) but also advocates increased military spending to the tune of $190 billion in the next two years (see his amendment to the budget.) He is joined in this outlook with Senator Marco Rubio, also seeking the presidency. He also wants to increase military spending.

I would hope that most folk are anti-war.

                                                                   =  =  =

"As far as I am concerned, war itself is immoral." --U.S. WWII General Omar Bradley 

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. " --James Madison 

"I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind." --Thomas Jefferson

"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." --George Washington

"There never was a good war or a bad peace." --Benjamin Franklin

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." --Dwight D. Eisenhower

"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it." --Martin Luther

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." --The Mahatma Gandhi

DON’T BITE ME

Before giving the cats their morning treats Meugh announced to them, “Ah me wee cats I have something to say to you before you get your morning goodies and I want you to pay close attention as it is very important.”

The cats all gathered at Meugh’s chair and peered at him giving the indication that they were seemingly paying attention.

Meugh continued, “Lamont, Pawline and Patchtricia, you are not to bite me or scratch me or by any other manner draw blood upon my person for the next week.”

Lamont, Pawl, and Patch, watched him very intently seemingly hanging on every word that their human servant said, much to Meugh’s delight.

“You see my fine felines,” Meugh lectured. Next Tuesday I am going to a hospital to have a large kidney stone removed surgically. Since I am the hospital, a place known to have sick people in it, and therefore laden with all types of germs, bacteria and various other microorganisms that can do bodily harm it is important that I have no gaping wounds, scratches or bites upon my person. Is that clear?”

Patch with her typical expression of questioning then asked, via telepathy obviously, “What is a pital?”

“Huh.” Meugh said a bit dumbfounded. “Pital?”

“Yes, pital,” Patch messaged, “I know perfectly well what a house is, we live in one of those.” Gazing at an obviously confused Meugh she continued. “You said you were going to a housepital, so I ask again, what is a pital.”

Meugh just sat there in his chair looking confused. So, all three cats put their psychic brains together and verily shouted into Meugh’s cranium, “Treats. Give us treats. Give us treats now!”

At this point Meugh reached over and began handing out the treats to Patch, Lamont, and Paw. After they had their treats, then Lamont crawled up into Meugh’s lap and bit him and then jumped down to the floor and left laughing a sneaky little cat laugh. Paw and Patch laughed too, they thought that was very funny.

Meugh heard a meowing voice in his head that said, “Bite me!”