Roman Gladiators
Most people know about the Roman Era, how they used the coliseum as theatre with gladiators dueling to the death and Christians being slaughtered. Focus for a moment on the crowded seats of spectators though. Could you call them bloodthirsty? Certainly there was no risk to their life or limb, protected as they were by the walls of separation and their paid ticket to view the spectacle.
Imagine how the spectators cheered, actually becoming part of the event, not just viewing the carnage but cheering on the slaughter and offering an up or down vote on whether the vanquished loser should live or die. Imagine their exhilaration as the up or down vote was followed and the losing gladiator was executed; blood gushing from the killing wound.
Very few of the Gladiators actually enjoyed what they did or had much of a choice about it. And many stories have tried to illustrate the gladiator’s perspective, showing rebellions and their quest for freedom. Few stories place the focus on the spectator and how (gory? uncivilized? bloodthirsty?) they seemed. But when I thought about it, it parallels today’s attitudes about the situation in Iraq.
We have the spectators; those who "support the war," want to "stay the course" and feel very protected in their high offices. We also have those that openly oppose the choices being made and want to end this country’s presence there. It is all too easy to draw a parallel with the troops as the gladiators and this administration as the spectators. But the reality is that we are all spectators! The question is "What type of spectator are we?"
As I see it. . . If we really believe that "fighting them over there" is the solution to this undeclared "War on Terror," if we support this occupation in Iraq, we are the bloodthirsty type and enjoy the carnage and gushing blood. If we believe that the military has done its job by removing Sadam Hussein and "major military action has ended," then we are the thumbs up type of spectator that respects life and says it is right and honorable to re deploy the troops as Murtha has suggested. It is not "Cutting and running."
I wonder if the spectators fought amongst themselves? Can you imagine, "Kill him! Kill him!" While another spectator says, "No. He fought nobly. Let him live!"
And then the Emperor has to decide. . . Party of life? or Party of Death?
Is our discourse similar?
How do you see it?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
I was in a department store the other day;. . . you know, the kind that sells groceries, paint, auto supplies and clothing. I was looking specifically for some painting supplies and found the brush I wanted within a group of other brushes. I made my selection and went to the check out to pay. The brush rang up at a very different price than what it was labeled on the shelf so I questioned it immediately.
The checkout clerk paged a coworker for a price check. The eager coworker showed up then quickly ran to the paint brush shelf and did a price check, returning with the news that my selection had been put on the wrong shelf and the price it rang up as was correct. I chose to make a different selection and returned to the paint supply area.
As I perused the shelves studying the selections and deciding which one would fill my need at the most economical price, I couldn’t help thinking how miss labeling also has an impact in our political environment and spending. Do you recall the "Clear Skies Initiative"? It sounds like we are going to clean up our atmosphere, but in actuality, allowed factories to put more pollutants into the air.
Do you recall the "Healthy Forest" package put out by this administration? It sounds like we are going to clean up our forests and make it healthier for us and the forest. In actuality, it lets large corporations harvest trees on government land and in protected areas.
Here’s another one; the "Prescription Drug Bill." Do you remember it? Labeled as a Drug Benefit for Americans, in actuality, is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t believe that department store intentionally miss labeled that paintbrush. It wouldn’t be in their best interest to do that. But can I trust an administration that says one thing and does another? What is their best interest?
When "they," the administration, explains the above miss labeling, they explain as brilliant political maneuvering by Carl Rove. Is it really? Is it "Political Maneuvering" or outright lying? The department store did not intentionally miss label that paintbrush. This Republican Administration purposely miss labels almost everything it does. That’s lying!
That’s As I see it . . .
What do you think?
The checkout clerk paged a coworker for a price check. The eager coworker showed up then quickly ran to the paint brush shelf and did a price check, returning with the news that my selection had been put on the wrong shelf and the price it rang up as was correct. I chose to make a different selection and returned to the paint supply area.
As I perused the shelves studying the selections and deciding which one would fill my need at the most economical price, I couldn’t help thinking how miss labeling also has an impact in our political environment and spending. Do you recall the "Clear Skies Initiative"? It sounds like we are going to clean up our atmosphere, but in actuality, allowed factories to put more pollutants into the air.
Do you recall the "Healthy Forest" package put out by this administration? It sounds like we are going to clean up our forests and make it healthier for us and the forest. In actuality, it lets large corporations harvest trees on government land and in protected areas.
Here’s another one; the "Prescription Drug Bill." Do you remember it? Labeled as a Drug Benefit for Americans, in actuality, is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t believe that department store intentionally miss labeled that paintbrush. It wouldn’t be in their best interest to do that. But can I trust an administration that says one thing and does another? What is their best interest?
When "they," the administration, explains the above miss labeling, they explain as brilliant political maneuvering by Carl Rove. Is it really? Is it "Political Maneuvering" or outright lying? The department store did not intentionally miss label that paintbrush. This Republican Administration purposely miss labels almost everything it does. That’s lying!
That’s As I see it . . .
What do you think?
Monday, August 28, 2006
"The Undefeated"
I watched an old John Wayne movie the other night. It was nostalgic. The movie was "The Undefeated" made in 1969. John Wayne played a Union Colonel in command of a brigade.
In the opening scene, the Union Colonel is attacking a Confederate stronghold, routing them and killing many of the soldiers. Several "Rebels" grab their Confederate flag and keep it from falling to the ground as rebels are killed in the battle. Finally one rebel soldier gets hit and falls, wrapping himself in his flag as he dies.
The scene changes to show John Wayne, the victorious Union Colonel astride his horse, surveying the vanquished, rebel camp. A messenger rides up shouting that the war is over. The Union Colonel reprimands the messenger and orders him to report his message. The Union Colonel finds out that the war had ended three days earlier with Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomatix. The Union Colonel looks around at all the dead soldiers and realizes the futility of the battle. He orders a flag of truce and he rides into the rebel camp to share the news that the war is over.
The rebel camp honors the flag of truce and a gaunt Confederate Colonel with an empty sleeve where his right arm used to be comes out to talk with the Union Colonel. The Union Colonel shares the news about the war being over. To his surprise, the Confederate Colonel says he learned of it the day before.
Then the Union Colonel asks a logical question. "If you already knew the war was over, why did you fight this battle?"
The Confederate Colonel says, "Because this is our land and you’re on it."
Our occupation of Iraq is not eliminating terrorists. It is creating fighters against us simply because we are there. It is time to re-deploy the troops!
I watched an old John Wayne movie the other night. It was nostalgic. The movie was "The Undefeated" made in 1969. John Wayne played a Union Colonel in command of a brigade.
In the opening scene, the Union Colonel is attacking a Confederate stronghold, routing them and killing many of the soldiers. Several "Rebels" grab their Confederate flag and keep it from falling to the ground as rebels are killed in the battle. Finally one rebel soldier gets hit and falls, wrapping himself in his flag as he dies.
The scene changes to show John Wayne, the victorious Union Colonel astride his horse, surveying the vanquished, rebel camp. A messenger rides up shouting that the war is over. The Union Colonel reprimands the messenger and orders him to report his message. The Union Colonel finds out that the war had ended three days earlier with Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomatix. The Union Colonel looks around at all the dead soldiers and realizes the futility of the battle. He orders a flag of truce and he rides into the rebel camp to share the news that the war is over.
The rebel camp honors the flag of truce and a gaunt Confederate Colonel with an empty sleeve where his right arm used to be comes out to talk with the Union Colonel. The Union Colonel shares the news about the war being over. To his surprise, the Confederate Colonel says he learned of it the day before.
Then the Union Colonel asks a logical question. "If you already knew the war was over, why did you fight this battle?"
The Confederate Colonel says, "Because this is our land and you’re on it."
Our occupation of Iraq is not eliminating terrorists. It is creating fighters against us simply because we are there. It is time to re-deploy the troops!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
This country we live in, this America, has two levels of government. I am talking not about parties, but about the philosophical and political differences in the parties.
Democrats believe in the strength and survival of the community. Republicans believe in the strength and survival of the fittest and the corporations. [To Republicans, corporations are people in the legal sense and have created laws that have given them that right. Therefore they can take you to civil court and win through attrition with deeper pockets. It is very difficult for the little guy to get justice in this America!]
Democrats believe that survival of a group of people, a community, a village, a city, a state and a nation depends on concern for each other, helping each other and allowing the government to be there to help when only the government can help. Republicans call this socialism. Republicans go further. They call their survival of the fittest philosophy "Individual Responsibility." It is your individual responsibility to provide for yourself in hurricanes, old age, health care and tragedy. If bad things happen, it is through your own lack of planning or responsibility. Republicans believe social programs that protect citizens, prevents "Free Enterprise" and opportunities to make money.
Democrats believe that the proper way for corporations to operate is with regulations. Regulations ensure companies are safe working places, have safe products, don’t pollute our environment and do pay their fair amount of taxes to support the things common to communities. That requires regulation. Republicans want to eliminate regulations; saying that through "Free Enterprise" companies can be more profitable, employ more people and when these things happen, society benefits. That type of thinking is the politicizing of their philosophy. Through these types of arguments, Republicans have removed regulations to the detriment of society. Another way they express it is to call it "trickle down" economics. Every time trickle down economics is tried, it has not worked to the greater benefit of society. Republicans will argue and say it does work. Perhaps they actually believe it, but it only works for corporations and the wealthy. It is in reality, Republican double talk. The greater benefit to society is to regulate corporations.
Society to Republicans is a labor source. Many in society are perfectly fine with being the labor force. But they also want to be treated fairly, know that they will not be taken advantage of and to be told the truth. An informed labor force knows that the company they work for must make a profit. They know that without a profit they will not have a job. When the lowest paid employee is making $5.15 per hour and the CEO is making $5000 per hour, there is a problem with America!
To Republicans, society is the labor force that must be kept busy, poorly informed and unaware of their rights as citizens. In this way a labor is kept strong through ignorance, provides an army for wars of Peace, and maintains freedom through slavery to corporations. If that sounds Orwellian, it is!
Perhaps I over simplify. Here is what we must do to take back our country from the Republicans and the Corporations. Declare corporations as businesses, not persons. Regulate them for the common good. Counter every Republican political phrase with the truth of their philosophy.
If we want to improve our government as a whole we must do three things. 1) Get rid of the lobbyist’s influence in government, 2) Make elections state funded and 3) Amend the constitution so that any bill passed by Congress can only deal with a single issue. Let me address each one in detail.
Get rid of the lobbyist. There have been numerous scandals of government officials being paid off for their votes. Congressmen and Senators have discussed laws and official rules of conduct such as review boards, limiting paid travel and limiting paid lunches, dinners and parties. Some of them actually get passed and then are later modified. Eliminate the money and you eliminate the influence. Congress can not have anything paid for by someone else, period! Then there is no greed, no vote buying and no influence.
Make elections state funded. Congressmen and Senators have to make anywhere from $1000 to $5000 per day while in office to run for reelection. That makes it possible to gain influence by contributing money. Laws limiting certain kinds of contributions from certain kinds of entities do not work. Eliminate the requirement for the money by having the Federal and state governments fund elections. Also make the campaign a fixed length of time. We could also address the ethics of campaign issues.
Amend the constitution. One of the biggest wastes of money and a source of corruption is the deal making that goes on in Congress to get a bill passed. If we eliminate the deal making by making each bill a single issue bill, then the Congress will have to vote on the merits of the bill. How they vote will become apparent to the voters and the voters can select the people they want to represent them based on how they vote or promise to vote in Congress.
This may seem like an over simplification. But I believe that solving the greater issues of this country starts with these three principals.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
Democrats believe in the strength and survival of the community. Republicans believe in the strength and survival of the fittest and the corporations. [To Republicans, corporations are people in the legal sense and have created laws that have given them that right. Therefore they can take you to civil court and win through attrition with deeper pockets. It is very difficult for the little guy to get justice in this America!]
Democrats believe that survival of a group of people, a community, a village, a city, a state and a nation depends on concern for each other, helping each other and allowing the government to be there to help when only the government can help. Republicans call this socialism. Republicans go further. They call their survival of the fittest philosophy "Individual Responsibility." It is your individual responsibility to provide for yourself in hurricanes, old age, health care and tragedy. If bad things happen, it is through your own lack of planning or responsibility. Republicans believe social programs that protect citizens, prevents "Free Enterprise" and opportunities to make money.
Democrats believe that the proper way for corporations to operate is with regulations. Regulations ensure companies are safe working places, have safe products, don’t pollute our environment and do pay their fair amount of taxes to support the things common to communities. That requires regulation. Republicans want to eliminate regulations; saying that through "Free Enterprise" companies can be more profitable, employ more people and when these things happen, society benefits. That type of thinking is the politicizing of their philosophy. Through these types of arguments, Republicans have removed regulations to the detriment of society. Another way they express it is to call it "trickle down" economics. Every time trickle down economics is tried, it has not worked to the greater benefit of society. Republicans will argue and say it does work. Perhaps they actually believe it, but it only works for corporations and the wealthy. It is in reality, Republican double talk. The greater benefit to society is to regulate corporations.
Society to Republicans is a labor source. Many in society are perfectly fine with being the labor force. But they also want to be treated fairly, know that they will not be taken advantage of and to be told the truth. An informed labor force knows that the company they work for must make a profit. They know that without a profit they will not have a job. When the lowest paid employee is making $5.15 per hour and the CEO is making $5000 per hour, there is a problem with America!
To Republicans, society is the labor force that must be kept busy, poorly informed and unaware of their rights as citizens. In this way a labor is kept strong through ignorance, provides an army for wars of Peace, and maintains freedom through slavery to corporations. If that sounds Orwellian, it is!
Perhaps I over simplify. Here is what we must do to take back our country from the Republicans and the Corporations. Declare corporations as businesses, not persons. Regulate them for the common good. Counter every Republican political phrase with the truth of their philosophy.
If we want to improve our government as a whole we must do three things. 1) Get rid of the lobbyist’s influence in government, 2) Make elections state funded and 3) Amend the constitution so that any bill passed by Congress can only deal with a single issue. Let me address each one in detail.
Get rid of the lobbyist. There have been numerous scandals of government officials being paid off for their votes. Congressmen and Senators have discussed laws and official rules of conduct such as review boards, limiting paid travel and limiting paid lunches, dinners and parties. Some of them actually get passed and then are later modified. Eliminate the money and you eliminate the influence. Congress can not have anything paid for by someone else, period! Then there is no greed, no vote buying and no influence.
Make elections state funded. Congressmen and Senators have to make anywhere from $1000 to $5000 per day while in office to run for reelection. That makes it possible to gain influence by contributing money. Laws limiting certain kinds of contributions from certain kinds of entities do not work. Eliminate the requirement for the money by having the Federal and state governments fund elections. Also make the campaign a fixed length of time. We could also address the ethics of campaign issues.
Amend the constitution. One of the biggest wastes of money and a source of corruption is the deal making that goes on in Congress to get a bill passed. If we eliminate the deal making by making each bill a single issue bill, then the Congress will have to vote on the merits of the bill. How they vote will become apparent to the voters and the voters can select the people they want to represent them based on how they vote or promise to vote in Congress.
This may seem like an over simplification. But I believe that solving the greater issues of this country starts with these three principals.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
Friday, August 04, 2006
"Senate halts minimum-wage bill
Friday, August 4, 2006; Posted: 7:56 a.m. EDT (11:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican election-year effort to fuse a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates with the first minimum wage increase in nearly a decade was rejected by the Senate late Thursday.
The GOP strategy put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Either they could vote against the bill -- thus rejecting a minimum wage increase -- or they could vote for it -- thus agreeing to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Most rejected the bill, blocking a GOP victory months before the election."
This is perfect example of what I have been talking about! This was a Minimum Wage Bill with a tax cut amendment. The minimum wage portion would have given a $2.10 increase to the Federal $5.15 minimum wage over three years. The tax cut was for the wealthiest among us to get an inheritance tax cut. Republicans call it the "Death Tax" and Democrats call the attempt to cut inheritance taxes the "Paris Hilton Tax cut."
It is obvious that the two parties can not agree on the issue of who should pay the highest or lowest taxes, but that is not the point of this blog! My point is how Business-as-usual affects We-the-People and getting the work done in Congress that we want done.
Republicans have a majority in Congress but could not get the bill passed because it required 60 votes. Democrats are forced to choose between voting against the Inheritance tax cut or against the Minimum Wage increase. Tough choice!
The other factor in the vote is the upcoming election. Republicans want to appeal to voters saying that they tried to raise the minimum wage. Democrats will have to explain why they voted against a minimum wage increase. Then the election becomes an accusation-fest and turns people off to paying attention. Very cleaver! And both sides do it!
But that is not the way our government should run. If each issue is presented as a separate bill and Congress votes on each single issue, then voters can see and decide how their representative votes and if they want to have that person continue to represent them. That’s a REAL choice and how America should be run!
That’s as I see it!
Friday, August 4, 2006; Posted: 7:56 a.m. EDT (11:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican election-year effort to fuse a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates with the first minimum wage increase in nearly a decade was rejected by the Senate late Thursday.
The GOP strategy put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Either they could vote against the bill -- thus rejecting a minimum wage increase -- or they could vote for it -- thus agreeing to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Most rejected the bill, blocking a GOP victory months before the election."
This is perfect example of what I have been talking about! This was a Minimum Wage Bill with a tax cut amendment. The minimum wage portion would have given a $2.10 increase to the Federal $5.15 minimum wage over three years. The tax cut was for the wealthiest among us to get an inheritance tax cut. Republicans call it the "Death Tax" and Democrats call the attempt to cut inheritance taxes the "Paris Hilton Tax cut."
It is obvious that the two parties can not agree on the issue of who should pay the highest or lowest taxes, but that is not the point of this blog! My point is how Business-as-usual affects We-the-People and getting the work done in Congress that we want done.
Republicans have a majority in Congress but could not get the bill passed because it required 60 votes. Democrats are forced to choose between voting against the Inheritance tax cut or against the Minimum Wage increase. Tough choice!
The other factor in the vote is the upcoming election. Republicans want to appeal to voters saying that they tried to raise the minimum wage. Democrats will have to explain why they voted against a minimum wage increase. Then the election becomes an accusation-fest and turns people off to paying attention. Very cleaver! And both sides do it!
But that is not the way our government should run. If each issue is presented as a separate bill and Congress votes on each single issue, then voters can see and decide how their representative votes and if they want to have that person continue to represent them. That’s a REAL choice and how America should be run!
That’s as I see it!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Earmarks; Good for Americans or Good for Congress?
The following is a direct quote from a close personal friend and conservative. "I think I'll pass on the political comment for now, except to say that instead of fighting for single-issue bills through congress, which will never happen, that I think energy should go to stopping/curtailing/public awareness of earmarks. I'm not sure I understand everything I should about earmarks, but I know I don't like what I've heard."
Ummm; How to respond to that? Did she really mean "...stopping/curtailing public awareness?" In other words, the public should remain in the dark and unaware of what Congress is doing? I don't think so. I know this person and she is more level headed than that. I think she meant that the public has become aware of "Earmarks" and that they (Earmarks) need to be stopped! I agree with that. The interpretation is in the last phrase, "I know I don't like what I've heard."
The problem with earmarks is that they are "business as usual" for Congress. It is a deal made with other congress men and women to give a vote and get a vote. "You ensure that I will get this funding and I will make sure you will get your funding." Let's rephrase: I vote for your pet cause if you will vote for mine. Vote swapping!
Where's the integrity? Where's the keeping of their oath. Wikipedia; Oath of Office; "It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."
This is the oath of office taken by all congress members. " I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Where does it allow for Earmarks? Where does it allow for deal making and vote swapping? "..true faith and allegiance to the same;" Doesn't that mean supporting and defending the Constitution? "...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" Doesn't this mean to be true to the oath? "...I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Doesn't this mean that they will do what they promise and keep their word?
How can deal making and vote swapping be an action of faithfully discharging the duties? Don't you get it? "Earmark" is just another word for deal making or vote swapping. The solution to the problem is to FORCE congress to deal with just one issue; one bill! Then the issue being voted on is the issue! Not a swap! Either you vote for it or you vote against it. You, the Congress, are the People's voice. We did not send you there to make deals! We sent you there to look after the People's Business! We sent you there to be loyal to the cause of governing! So Govern!
If "We the People" want to "focus our energy" on something worthwhile, focus it on single issue bills in Congress. Write your representative. Tell them how you feel about their conduct in Congress. Tell them you don't care for the deal making and vote swapping. Tell them you want a response from them explaining how they feel about the issue. Tell them you are watching their performance.
Do you want business as usual or do you want to help take back this country? If you don't get involved, aren't you just conducting "business as usual"?
That's as I see it!
Please read my previous discourse on "Single Issue Bills."
The following is a direct quote from a close personal friend and conservative. "I think I'll pass on the political comment for now, except to say that instead of fighting for single-issue bills through congress, which will never happen, that I think energy should go to stopping/curtailing/public awareness of earmarks. I'm not sure I understand everything I should about earmarks, but I know I don't like what I've heard."
Ummm; How to respond to that? Did she really mean "...stopping/curtailing public awareness?" In other words, the public should remain in the dark and unaware of what Congress is doing? I don't think so. I know this person and she is more level headed than that. I think she meant that the public has become aware of "Earmarks" and that they (Earmarks) need to be stopped! I agree with that. The interpretation is in the last phrase, "I know I don't like what I've heard."
The problem with earmarks is that they are "business as usual" for Congress. It is a deal made with other congress men and women to give a vote and get a vote. "You ensure that I will get this funding and I will make sure you will get your funding." Let's rephrase: I vote for your pet cause if you will vote for mine. Vote swapping!
Where's the integrity? Where's the keeping of their oath. Wikipedia; Oath of Office; "It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."
This is the oath of office taken by all congress members. " I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Where does it allow for Earmarks? Where does it allow for deal making and vote swapping? "..true faith and allegiance to the same;" Doesn't that mean supporting and defending the Constitution? "...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" Doesn't this mean to be true to the oath? "...I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Doesn't this mean that they will do what they promise and keep their word?
How can deal making and vote swapping be an action of faithfully discharging the duties? Don't you get it? "Earmark" is just another word for deal making or vote swapping. The solution to the problem is to FORCE congress to deal with just one issue; one bill! Then the issue being voted on is the issue! Not a swap! Either you vote for it or you vote against it. You, the Congress, are the People's voice. We did not send you there to make deals! We sent you there to look after the People's Business! We sent you there to be loyal to the cause of governing! So Govern!
If "We the People" want to "focus our energy" on something worthwhile, focus it on single issue bills in Congress. Write your representative. Tell them how you feel about their conduct in Congress. Tell them you don't care for the deal making and vote swapping. Tell them you want a response from them explaining how they feel about the issue. Tell them you are watching their performance.
Do you want business as usual or do you want to help take back this country? If you don't get involved, aren't you just conducting "business as usual"?
That's as I see it!
Please read my previous discourse on "Single Issue Bills."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)