How Did It All Come to This?

Tags

2nd Amendment, gun control, murders, NRA, US, violence, Wayne La Pierre

Yeah, it’s another one of those tragedies. You know. The ones that happen to somebody else’s kids, somebody else’s father, somewhere else.

It’s a shame. It’s awful. Another sick individual who explodes in a rage which for some demented reason includes killing as many innocent people as possible.

And the weapon of choice is always guns. Always. We tell ourselves–at least the politicians among us, that (insert killer of the month) would have used something else–bombs or poisons if guns had been unavailable. Sure he would have. Sure.

And let’s not forget that ever popular slogan “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people.” They just use guns.

I recently saw some numbers. They are simply appalling. There are 90 guns for every one hundred persons in the US. Eighty-five people DIE in the US every DAY due to guns. It is the leading cause of death in the African-American community. There were something like 58 deaths in Great Britain last year due to gun violence. For the YEAR. They can’t even meet our DAILY total.

I grew up with guns in the house. Pistols but mostly shotguns and rifles. My dad was a hunter and we ate rabbit and deer and pheasant regularly. I have nothing against those who hunt for sport, though I don’t really get the “fun” of whacking animals. But I don’t argue that it should be banned.

But I see no need for assault weapons and big clips that allow rapid fire of a hundred or more bullets. Nobody needs that to hunt. And frankly, if you enjoy shooting at ranges, there is no reason why you can’t go and rent a gun for use there. If that kind of thing floats your boat.

Did you go to the mall last week? When’s the last time you took in a movie? Shopped for groceries? Went to a museum, restaurant, or farmer’s market? Are you sure that some sick-minded young man has decided that this is the day, and this is the location that he is going to “even the score” against the world. Can you be assured that your child, yourself, or your loved one won’t be there and in the line of fire?

Well, that is always going to be the case of course. Random acts of violence are part of our world, and that includes everyone I assume. But surely the odds rise drastically if you live in the United States of America. Here your chances are hugely higher.

There’s an interesting article by Ezra Klein on some violence statistics. Violence over-all, along with gun ownership is declining, but we are so far out in the front versus the rest of the world that it’s still a frightening picture. And the statistics show rather clearly that the more the guns there are, the more violence there is, and states with stricter laws have less violence.

Of course the NRA will have none of this. They begin by claiming that any mere mention of gun control is “politicizing” the tragedy. Bull.

Why this lobby has this kind of control is simply shocking. I picked up this twitter post which in fact says it all:

Like Grover Norquist and taxes, Wayne La Pierre has the Republicans and most of the Democrats afraid to open their mouths when it comes to guns. In Wayne’s wacky world, the very fact that President Obama has taken not ONE step toward limiting gun rights, is proof positive that he will abolish the 2nd Amendment if he gets a second term in office. (This is coupled with the insanely untrue claim that Obama is secretly working with UN to have guns declared illegal in the US. This was vaguely alluded to by Willard the Liar in his remarks that he would “never give away any of our sovereignty to the UN” in a speech recently. The average person probably had no idea what he referred to but it is code for the crazy gun lovers lobby. They got the message that Willard was on their side, and their delusions were valid by inference.)

A few Democrats are introducing legislation that would ban the sale of assault weapons and big clips. It will die in committee, as even most Democrats want no part of such “controversy” in an election year. The President remains silent as the Willard.

Soon it will be on to another topic. This awful thing will be forgotten.

Until.

The next one.

And we will start all this crap again, and end in the same place again.

Only the victims will change.

Will you be one?

It’s anybody’s guess isn’t it.

Six Facts about Guns, Violence and Gun Control

America’s Deadly Devotion to Guns

Related articles

• Where Are We Going? (stillananimal.wordpress.com)
• What Makes The N.R.A. So Dangerous (theobamacrat.com)

The Future of Education: From Elitist to Essential

Tags

college costs, education, education costs, US

Beaumont Tower MSU

As most of you know, we are getting ready to move to Las Cruces, New Mexico. The pod was delivered yesterday so we are starting the final push to pack and make final arrangements. Blogging will become sporadic and then I’ll be on hiatus for as long as need be. Hotels with Internet access determine how often I can post of course.

Meanwhile, I and you are lucky to have a guest writer for today.

Her article is on education in the US and I hope you found it as enlightening as I did.

The photo is of a landmark at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan, which is my alma mater and my prerogative to include with the article as the chief of the chiefs here.

So without further ado, I give you Sofia Rasmussen and her article:

We’ve all heard it: “Why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper?”

Far too many young people are convinced that the cost of higher education, both in terms of money and commitment, exceeds its value. For many, the desire to make money, no matter the wage, is more appealing an option after high school than enrolling in college. Many figure that they can do distance learning, maybe someday earning a top online PhD and earning all the prestige for less money. For families to whom university tuition is financially prohibitive, two-year community colleges offer lower expenditures at the cost of a stronger curriculum.

The decrease in university enrollment for high school graduates is somewhat analogous to the rise of college tuition over the past decade. That the annual increase in tuition has exceeded the rate of inflation in recent years is a legitimate concern for would-be undergrads. But the problem, which is partially addressed by funding for grants in President Obama’s budget, is merely the final straw for students and families already heeding negative portrayals of American universities and the educational loan system.

Right-wing factions that portray education as an elite rite of passage for the rich and powerful have waged war on higher education in the media with accusations of bad science, particularly in the realm of global warming, and a focus on potential corruption in education lending. For people who entertain such rhetoric, the crisis of American education is a battle of perception rather than facts.

Perhaps most importantly, students coming from families where college education is not honored simply don’t understand the positive outcome of committing to university. These issues must be the foundation of a discourse on education in America today—one that engages young people and their families.

The National Center for Education Statistics establishes significant gains in earnings for college graduates over high school grads. In 2009, those aged 25 to 35 with a four-year college degree earned an average of $40,100 per year. High school graduates in the same age range earned an average of just $25,000. The gap is exacerbated later in life, when those whose education is limited to a high school diploma are looked over for promotion opportunities in favor of candidates that hold degrees.

Wage versus salary isn’t the only argument for attaining a college education. High school graduates who fail to matriculate at a university have a much more difficult time finding any work at all. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9.2% of high school grads with no college credits were unemployed in February of 2012. Comparatively, 4.3% of those holding bachelor’s degrees or higher were unemployed in the same month.

Aside from the measurable, practical benefits of a college education, studying at a university exposes young adults to experiences, people and concepts they might not otherwise encounter. This often results in an expanded worldview, a sense of personal fulfillment and even a happier marriage.

A 2011 study by the Pew Research Center confirms the widespread sentiment that American college education costs more than it’s worth, with 57% agreeing to that statement. According to 75%, tuition is too expensive for most Americans to afford. However, 86% of college graduates reported that higher education was a good investment for them, personally. That is definitely a statistic worth noting – those who have actually gone through the system see its value.

America’s fastest growing job markets—computer science, medicine, engineering, and biological science—demand higher education. At the present time, America’s best PhD candidates in these fields often come from other countries. For the benefit of America’s future, we need to stress the importance of education for our own. We need to make scientists, software developers and engineers the rock stars of the 21st century. To do that, the price of education must come down.

***

“Sofia Rasmussen is a freelance writer and aspiring graduate student looking to study education and communications. Feel free to drop her a line if you ever have a question about an article or think she said something silly.”

“THE American People” Think You Are All NUTZ

Tags

Constitution, government, political philosophy, representation, US

We hear it from all quarters: “The American people. . .” We want and don’t want tax raises, we do and don’t want universal health care, we do and don’t believe in global warming at the hands of ourselves, we do and don’t believe in creationism, evolution, this or that war, this or that light bulb.

It’s enough to make you wretch.

The fact is, it’s pretty unclear whether anybody speaks for me at all, most of the time. I seem to be yelling out my instructions and positions to a mostly deaf government.

We have individuals who believe they have a mandate to do X simply because, often by only a few thousand votes, a minority or bare majority has voted them into office. They seem to believe that everyone voted for the exact same reasons. They shrug off concerns for minority opinions (which our Constitution was developed exactly to protect!), and pontificate about what they are going to do, giving it that stamp of imprimatur every few sentences, “The People of the US want us to . . .”

Which of course begs the question. What do we have a right to expect? Should our representatives run on a platform and then if elected, even if only by a plurality, set about putting it in motion? Or should they be forced to “compromise” to include their minority position. At what point does an individual “win” be so overwhelming that the minority can be ignored? Are there moral considerations that make this wrong on some issues no matter how small that be?

Of greater question is just what type of representation are we expecting? Was that different at the countries political inception than now? Should it change? Why? For both Houses or just one?

Philosophically, there have been two general ways of representing one’s constituents. In the first, the elected official, by way of town halls, questionnaires, office hours, and such makes every attempt to discern the general desires of the majority of his district or state. He or she then acts according to those perceptions. Kind of like a referendum on every issue approach.

This probably worked pretty darn good in the 1800’s when we weren’t so darned diversified by occupation, religion, ethnic background and all that. Today? Is it truly possible to know? Are you not simply gauging the “very very interested” who participate in polling, questionnaires and town halls and e-mails?

Is there anything special about the representative? Does she have some greater knowledge on issues, or at least certain of them, that make it unwise to trust in the mob?

This brings us to the second method. This theory claims that implicit in the election is the acknowledgment that the official is in fact specially informed, and thus is in a rare place to make the “best” decision for the “most” people. And certainly only she has the special knowledge reserved for “high clearance” information and certainly the relative merits of tradeoffs with other representatives. Shouldn’t this count?

This also worked pretty darn well in the 1800’s where your Senator might well be the rancher on the spread next to yours and a person you might reasonably share similar interests with.

So it all comes down to what do we expect? Do we know? When is the last time you had THIS discussion with yourself or anyone else? Does it matter what the answer is? If is doesn’t then heck, I’ve just wasted your time. If it does, then we are wasting our time arguing until we determine just how many believe what.

We haven’t even got to the question of K Street and it’s influence. We pretty much all agree it shouldn’t exist. I think we do at least. If our politicians are owned already by another entity, than what kind of representation we believe in is pretty much a dead issue, until we have plucked off the parasite clinging to our elected official.

I have no answers. I seldom do. Do you have an opinion? Let it fly.

Related articles

• A Congress of Wimps (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Representatives not eager to hold August town halls (dailykos.com)

Just Another Day at the Races

Tags

Campaign financing, Dana Milbank, evolution, fiction, Fox News, Glenn Beck, GOP, lifestyle, medicine, neuroscience, Nicaragua, nonconformity, OneNation Rally, Paul Krugman, the arts, US

Morning!

There is a new post over at Walking in the Shadows should you be interested. I’m keeping more of the religious stuff there rather than here, unless I think that the posting is of interest to all. This latest one, is I guess, but I posted it there anyway.

I’m back to using Foxfire Mozilla again, and finding it works fantastic. The issues I had with it and my blog are gone, as well as my reader issues. On top of that, it solved problems that were so bad on FB and Twitter, that they were getting virtually unusable for me. So hurrah!

Don’t know how much time you had to devote to the OneNation Rally this weekend. I had precious little, but I gleaned a few things: Fox gave it a lot of notice, figuring I assume that they could spin it in either direction. A big crowd = tons of progressives unhappy with Obama, or a small crowd = the progressive movement is puny.

So far, I can get no reliable numbers, but most seem to think that the crowd was smaller than the teabagger picnic. In any case, the pictures are dramatically different. Teabagger rally = old and white, while OneNation = all ages and diverse ethnicity.

***

New definitions of “ugly American” are emerging as we find out how actual military doctors from the US of A, conducted human experiments on Nicaraguans during the 40’s. All that talk about Hitler mind you was going on at the time. I just can’t think of why so many folks in other countries hate us, can you?

***

Head over to MotherJones in general and peruse. They have article after article on who gives the money, what groups give the money, what candidates are spending the most, where they get their money, who they defend on Congress and so forth. There are probably 8-10 articles in all. Worth your time to take a look.

***

A really not-to-be-missed post by Paul Krugman on the insidious and blatant take-over of the GOP by a very few ultra-rich families, including our own favorite Foxy Noise. No pretence here, just power grabbing. And the ones who are being duped? The poor teabaggers of course.

***

Sharron Angle is one of those alleged humans who just amaze you that they can walk upright. I mean the woman has the brain of a slug. Sad to say, Harry is so despised, that she still manages to hang on in the race. But really, just how much ineptitude can Nevadans tolerate before they bite the big ugly and vote for Reid? She’s caught on tape trying to talk fellow teabagger candidate Scott Ashijian to back out.  Nothing terribly wrong here, just amusing, as she touts O’Donnell and Scott from Alaska as people she thinks are “real.”

***

There’s a new book about Beck, by Dana Milbank. It might well be worth the purchase. Milbank documents how Beck uses his favorite boy Hitler to attack everyone. This time it’s Gore and the UN. Oh, I’m gonna try to get this gem! Read more from Milbank here.

***

Chris Guillebeau is a blogger and self-styled non-conformist. Read about his take on life and whatever in this 3quarksdaily interview. You can visit his blog here. He has visited 151 countries in his quest to visit them all. Lots of strategies to living your life your way.

***

Why do we like art? No, not like. Why does our heart soar, our breathing change, our pupils enlarge, why do we lose track of time? All this when something hits us deeply? Why are we captivated by a story? A song? Why did we and do we spend time, energy and money on that which is fiction? We wouldn’t do it unless there was some evolutionary benefit you know.

***

Related Articles

• Dana Milbank Says Glenn Beck Is Dangerous (newsbusters.org)
• Glenn Beck’s Hitler fetish (economist.com)

The Ugly American?

Tags

American Exceptionalism, foreign policy theory, neoconservativism, Puritanism, US

I became interested in the political philosophy known as “American Exceptionalism” a few days ago. I had a short post tucked away in my saved items in my reader, thinking that I’d get to it, and run off a post with my brilliant thoughts and dust off my hands and move on.

Of course, things seldom turn out as planned. As I perused this post, that led to another, then another, and well escalation happens. Moreover, the subject is nuanced, which it about the antithesis of blog posts. This is serious research stuff, and needs pages to explain it properly.

Wait, before you click off, I’m not going to do that. I will attempt to generally state the idea, give my views and then give you a good strong list of materials you can read at your leisure should you be interested enough to continue.

This started of course when President Obama had the audacity to mention the word “arrogance” in relation to the US while overseas. The asshats of political punditry from the right, started fainting dead away:

Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Obama’s speech was evidence that “he harbors deep resentment” of America. The right wing continued its hysteria over the weekend and today:

KARL ROVE: There are ways to make the point that he made without running down America.

SEAN HANNITY: I am tired of Obama pandering to what I consider to be the worst instincts of those who hate this country.

NICOLE WALLACE: I think at his core he does not seem to believe in American exceptionalism, the way more Republicans define it.

Actually the phrase “American Exceptionalism” was coined by one Alexis de Tocqueville on his tour of the 50-year old country, claiming that it was so by virtue of it’s being a country of immigrants and being the first modern democracy.  

It received a different though important impetus from religious circles, starting with the Puritans who saw America as that “light on the hill” the land where a Godly nation could be constructed. It was a special gift of God, this land called America.

Some have attached a natural resource component to it as well. We were a nation blessed ( for some at least) with nearly unlimited land to expand within, resources both broad and deep, a climate favoring agriculture and then manufacturing, and a political and economic system favoring the use of all this.

Sometime after WWII, the term was actually brought forth, this time by the new movement known as neoconservatism. It in a sense blends these various components into one. We are favored by God, favored by our location, size and resources, and favored by our political system to be the leader, the best in the world.

It seemed to have taken an ugly turn in the Bush Administration to mean that additionally since we were the military might of the world, and the moral leader, we were in a sense above international law. Worse, it became our job to export democracy, at the point of a gun if necessary.  This has led, as anyone can see, to a growth in hatred for the US, mostly defined as the Government of the US.

Interestingly, President Obama was asked if he endorsed this concept of American Exceptionalism:

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

“And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

“Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

“And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.”

 

Obama, I think, strikes the proper balance. At least as far as I can see. America is without question, a blessed nation in terms of its natural resources, its unique federalist political system, it’s broad immigrant past. But one is sheer luck, the other an amazingly lucky happenstance that such a group of brilliant men located within it, and the third is, well obvious, if one excludes the poor Native American population which was pushed out of the picture.

Those things, and the a number of historical accidents, principally WWII, worked to place the US today in a unique position of having the most military might and at the baseline, arguably still the strongest economy. Yet at one time arguably Rome had much the same, yet it managed to destroy itself.

I especially dislike and reject the notion that God has somehow offered America some special grace. I found that unpersuasive in the Old Testament as regards the Hebrews, and find it more unpersuasive today in regards my own land.

But, hey, I reject intellectually the rational for individual nations anyway. It is a stupid and counterproductive manner of organization, and one which results in haves and have-nots by virtue mostly of resources. It’s guaranteed to start fights, and does.

Much like going around proclaiming that your faith is better than mine or Susie’s, it does nothing but engender distrust, resentment, and the desire on the part of others to take the breast beater down a peg or two. It places a target squarely on the back of the American Eagle. We are all, sorrowfully too aware of that.

I can but imagine what it must feel like to be in any other country knowing that in some manner, large or small, my fate depends on what is occurring in the US.  It must have been truly frightening during the eight long years of pure stupidity this country engaged in. It must make the blood boil to watch  illiterate rednecks and arguably insane sideshow punditry bloviate about how America is bigger, better, best, and if you don’t like it, well too bad.

Frankly it shames me. I know that most of America is not like this. Most of America recalls its immigrant roots all too well, and knows that those back home are decent, thoughtful, bright folks too,with skills and abilities every bit as grand as any that any American can produce.

We are more lucky than exceptional. Until we eradicate hunger and homelessness, provide health care for all, provide education on par with increasingly large numbers of other countries, and on and on, we have no claim to exceptionalism whatsoever. We are lucky that we can speak openly,  with only the reactionary right to call us traitors and unpatriotic. We aren’t being round up and arrested, though we came close during the Bush years.

So I stand as one who says, no to American exceptionalism. I stand and say yes to equality, and a willingness to embrace the contributions of my brothers and sisters across the globe. We are one family, whatever the jerks in our governments may say. And in the end, I believe we will overcome all this bigger, better, best crap, and move on to create a world of peace and goodwill, and then we all will be the “light on the hill.”

For further reading:

American Exceptionalism: Carl Schmitt and the Neoconservative Justification for the Sovereignty of Politics, by Stale R. S. Finke, Professor of Philosophy, University of Trondheim.

American Exceptionalism, Wikipedia

Far Right’s New Talking Point: Obama’s Remarks in Europe, Proves He Hates America,  Ali Frick, Think Progress.

Neoconservatism and the American Mainstream, Zachary Selden, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

American Exceptionalism, Steven Benen, Political Animal, Washington Monthly.

Obama Too is an American Exceptionalist, by Michael Scherer, Swampland, Time.

Democracy Shimocracy

Tags

Bush, democracy, federalism, foreign policy, government, political theory, representative democracy, US

I just read that the American people think that Congress is doing a good job to the tune of 9% of the populace. (The Contrarian always points out, that those folks all exclude their own congress people from the mix however.) That is some figure. Bush no doubt feels that somehow that must mean he’s in pretty good shape. I don’t think so, but it kind of fell into line with something I’m reading at the moment.

Jeff Sharlet has written a book called The Family. I’ll be reviewing it for you probably next week some time. Something he said at one point has stayed with me and I’ve let it rattle around for nearly a week. This poll seemed to bring it to a head and I thought I’d share my thoughts with you.

Mr. Sharlet opined that America found itself reaching for (or having it thrust upon it if you insist) imperialistic power long before the country had worked out its own democracy. What he was referring to, is that we started “exporting” democracy before we had a very clear idea of what exactly we had involved into. The more I think about what he said, the more I think he is correct.

Now many will quibble from the start, pointing out that we were designed not to be a democracy in the tradition of Athens, but a representative democracy, based on a federalist system. I recognize that and that is not really my point.

When we look at the Federalist Papers, by all accounts, our best reference book on what our Founding Fathers intended, we see that within that framework of “representative” democracy, there were two main threads of debate. Neither was adopted as it were, and in truth, there was no need to adopt either one perhaps. What they reflected was two very different ways to look at what it means to be a senator or representative of the great people of the US.

The two sides were defined thusly:

• I am elected to serve the interests of my constituents. I determine to the best of my ability what they want, and then represent them in Congress accordingly, voting as they would have me do.
• I am elected to serve the interests of my constituents. They elect me with the express purpose of looking deeply into all these issues that they don’t have time to, and expect me to vote my best conviction based on my expertise.

Now, to some degree this was accomplished by the design of the two Houses of Congress. The person who is elected to the House, represents a smaller constituency, likely more homogeneous and more susceptible of having their actual desires discerned. So House members might be thought to represent the actual desires of their actual constituents more closely than the Senate. The Senate, given a longer tenure, and representing a much larger constituency, needs its members to balance more diverse desires and vote their considered opinion of what they think best.

But in reality, there was never any sharp division, and assuredly members of Congress feel differently about what their responsibilities are. What seems to have happened is that most decided that they knew best most of the time and have voted accordingly. We cannot know all the intricacies and deals that must be struck to attain the “greater” good. It may appear that they are on the wrong side of a particular issue when in fact they are not. So they say at least.

What we have essentially is a small group of people, elected or not, who have power, or who have great access to power, and most of these folks think they know what is best, best for us they mouth, but mostly better for them or at least their personal world view.

No one in this country would claim that it is a good thing to give armaments to horrid military dictators who murder their citizenry indiscriminately in order to solidify their power. Yet America has done so more times than you can count on all your fingers and toes, mostly in the name of counterbalancing “Communism.” You can look all over Africa, Indonesia, and Latin and South America and find all the evidence you wish. No, or at least very few Americans would sanction this type of thing. Yet it’s done, for our own good, because we can’t see the “big picture”  as they can.

Once it was done on the basis of manifest destiny. We had a “right” to the continent, but then, I would argue, most Americans actually did agree with that policy. I’m talking about not acting like a democracy. Depriving other peoples of their rights because we had “needs” that must be met. Of course all kinds of justifications are always made. In the long run, we claim, it’s in their interests too, those that survive  that is.

It’s happening again in this “war on terror.’ We are compromising our stated philosophy of human rights and self-determination, in the interests in our security. Of course, once again, we tell ourselves that it is their security as well, again to those who can survive us and our present policies. It’s called ends justifying means, and we do it more often than not.

The Bush administration has begun to gut our civil liberties. At the same time, it has turned every regulatory agency in the US government into a industry apologist. Congress seems paralyzed to do anything about it. Why?

Because they too are busy doing what is best for us. Bush gets a good deal he actually wants because all this wheeling and dealing keeps getting in the way. “We had to cave in on this, because it’s tied to this, and we really really want this.” I have to get elected, so I can’t step too harshly on the toes of X industry, it contributes too much to my campaign. I have to get elected, because I know what my people need, even if they don’t. This is just what I have to do.

A good deal of it is a good deal more sinister than what I’ve related. There are quite hidden agendas out there. Some of them are sick. They all seem to revolve around the idea that those in power have a right to set the agenda. Us little folks are just the fodder for the war machine and the economic rape they continue. We can’t understand, and even if we could, we don’t count, because we don’t have power.

And they are right. The power of the vote? Well, okay, there is some of that. But not really. Much as I will continue to hammer everyone to vote for Obama, I’m not stupid. He is not a radical. And neither are any of the others. We are not going to wake up Christmas morning 2009 and find universal health care, an end to the Iraq war, safe medicine, fair wages, a sparkling environment, two dollar gas, and a whole host of other things we are being promised. We are voting on center to right versus center to left. You might have to turn sideways to get between ’em. It always seems like a lot more, but at the end of every four years, precious little has been accomplished.

You can look at FDR, a most savvy politician. He had to lead us carefully into WWII. He had to coddle us to it. He knew it was inevitable, but being re-elected was essential (no doubt to the world he told himself). And so he had to take us step by step, so in the end we would agree. And guess what? They pretty much knew what Hitler was doing to Jews for a couple of years before we got in. How’s that for morality in action?

But times have changed. Republicans, at least of the neo-con variety, no longer even bother to give lip service to the people. They KNOW we don’t really matter. They can and do do exactly as they wish. As I pointed out several times, Cheney responds with a “So what?” to queries about how the American public doesn’t support their policies.

If you think any of this is lost on the rest of the world, you are deluding yourself. They see in stark reality the difference between what we preach and what we do. Especially this is not lost on those nations who have suffered at our hands when we propped up vicious dictatorships to protect our “interests in the region.” It’s not wonder we are hated so far and wide. It’s not wonder our “exporting” of democracy is not welcome.

We can have all the rights we claim of free speech and free assembly and all that. Until we make the government respond to our desires, we have nothing at all but empty rhetoric. It’s one of the reasons that this despicable thing we call a media makes me sick. Our first line of getting out the truth is failing us all miserably. The bloggers on the internet are the last line of defense.

The bottom line is simple. We cannot honestly and truthfully impact all the moderates out there in the Muslim and “other” landscape until we start living what we preach. It’s time to BE a democracy instead of talking about it. When and if we do that, we might find a more listening world. Right now all they respect is our “given” ability to bomb the hell out of them. That’s not going to be enough in the end.