LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC COLLUSION WITH THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS

As I write today, 84% of the country say the nation is "on the wrong track." Gasoline prices are far too high; millions of good-paying American jobs have been shipped to cheap slave labor markets overseas; domestic wage rates are mainly frozen or in decline; foreclosures are on the rise; Congress is bitterly and almost evenly divided among partisan lines; the President's job approval rating stands at an abysmally low 26%, and the rating for Congress is about half that of the President. It is no secret there is massive dissatisfaction with government and its failure to deliver for the benefit of the majority of citizens. It would be easy to blame the Republicans and conservatives for the current sad state of affairs, as they have dominated or held power for the majority of the past 8 years. But the Democrats and even some liberals must also share the blame.

To hear many Republicans tell it, the Democratic Party has gone so "far left" it is no longer mainstream. This, however, is an absolute myth. On most issues, notably the economy and security, today's Democratic Party is FAR to the right of where it was a generation ago. There are no longer demands being made for a 32 hour work week at the same pay level as a 40 hour week; there is no longer a push for expanded abortion rights; corporate AND personal tax rates have been rolled back far below where they were 30 years ago (and NOBODY is advocating a 70% tax rate on uppermost incomes); there is no longer a push to vastly expand government programs. The problem with today's GOP and conservatives is that THEY are also FAR to the right of where THEY stood 25-30 years ago. Worse yet, since the "Republican 'Revolution'" of 1994, they have grown increasingly rigid, ideological, and intolerant. To them, anyone not 100% in lock-step agreement with them is derisively rejected and labeled as "liberal", "socialist", "protectionist", "far left", "extremist", "out of the mainstream", or whatever other nasty, negative, scornful nickname they wish to hurl at the moment. Well, they are dead wrong.

There is nothing "mainstream" about rewarding the wealthy minority with huge tax increases. There is nothing "mainstream" about shipping jobs overseas and replacing them with inferior, lower paying ones. There is nothing "mainstream" about encouraging the influx of huge numbers of illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor to benefit big business. So much for the myth of the Republican Party being the "mainstream" or "majority party!"

Since even before the Great Depression, the Democratic Party has traditionally been known as the party of working people, the poor, and the oppressed and disaffected. In practice, it passed legislation to provide more economic balance and fairness, more individual liberty, and more regulation of business to ensure good working conditions and safer products for the people. Unfortunately, significant numbers of Democrats and liberals have joined conservatives and Republicans in recent years on a number of measures and have effectively turned their backs in large degree on their core constituency of working people, the poor, and the oppressed and disaffected. Instead, they have fallen victim to corporate America's and the military industrial complex's lobbyists to support laws NOT for the benefit of the people but rather for the benefit of special interests. And THAT is why the wealthy and corporate America has been thriving (and why the rest of us HAVEN'T), and why there is so much dissatisfaction today.

The Democrats have caved to corporate lobbyists on nearly all free trade legislation since the 1980s. They have joined Republicans in rolling back industry regulations and oversight, lowering taxes for the wealthy, even in approving illegal wiretaps and the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. Great liberals like Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, JFK, and RFK must all be spinning in their graves!

The Democratic Party, and especially its liberal faction, must get back on track to truly represent and legislate for the benefit of their core constituency, who are REALLY the majority of the country! They must no longer wither in the face of bogus conservative and Republican charges of being "extremist", "soft on terrorism", "too far left", or any of the rest of that rubbish. Instead, they must stand their ground and expose the Republicans for what THEY truly are: Too far right, too pro-business, too anti-labor, too pro-wealthy, and too authoritarian. When the liberals and Democrats once again go to bat for their core constituency and abandon their placating of corporate America, they and their government will once again enjoy lengthy and sustainable support.

WAR ON TERROR, OR WAR FOR OIL?

On September 11, 2001, radical Islamic extremists under the direction of Osama bin Laden murdered more than 3,000 innocent U.S. citizens with airplane hijackings and subsequent crashes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Immediately, President Bush and Congress correctly and justifiably called for a "War on Terror." The world empathetically stood behind us as we quickly deployed troops to Afghanistan with the stated aim of capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice, as well as destroying his terrorist group al Qaeda and toppling the murderously oppressive Islamic fundamentalist regime, the Taliban, which had seized power in Afghanistan and was providing sanctuary for al Qaeda. In those days, we acted purely in reaction and self defense and were arguably exercising truth, justice, and the American way. Now, nearly 7 years later, bin Laden is still at large, our resources and focus have shifted largely to our occupation of Iraq, Taliban strength is again on the rise in Afghanistan, and world opinion has shifted solidly against us BECAUSE of our Iraq invasion and occupation. What has become of the "War on Terror"? Was it aptly named, or has it become perverted in its evolution? Or, was it just a cleverly expedient slogan used to camouflage our true intention, that being our desire to wage a war for oil and control in the Middle East? Evidence would unfortunately fall on the side of the latter rather than the former.

After a short time, our forces in Afghanistan had removed the Taliban from power and forced them to retreat to the rugged and inhospitable mountains at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We thought we had narrowly missed capturing bin Laden and had maybe even injured him. But we didn't know for sure. We established a new government and set up free elections in Afghanistan, and the pursuit of bin Laden became minimalistic and faded into obscurity. Then, the Bush administration began building its false case for invading Iraq; a short war and lengthy occupation followed, and an active hunt for bin Laden stopped, for all practical purposes.

Several disturbing thoughts are raised by the Bush administration's handling of the "War on Terror" and after it became the war in Iraq in early 2003. For example, if the actual aim of the "War on Terror" was to capture the head terrorists, why have we abandoned the chase? And if an additional aim was to prevent another 9/11 style attack by foreign agents on our soil, why then are our borders and ports as leaky as seives? Our southern border, with rare exception, is easy to cross over by virtually anyone. Rational thinking would suggest that, immediately following a massive terrorist attack, our borders and ports and all incoming shipments would have seen huge increases in inspections and security personnel. Such has not been the case. Rational deduction would strongly suggest in light of this that the Bush administration is not really concerned with potential terrorists entering our country unseen and is instead more in favor of open borders to allow a huge influx of cheap immigrant labor for the benefit of big business. The fact that only 1% of our incoming shipments receive a proper customs inspection suggests that the current White House is not really concerned with dangerous materials entering our ports, but is more dedicated to preventing multinational corporations' imports from being delayed, regulated, or fined. Does it not seem that prevention, awareness, and protection would be proper tools to use in a genuine war on terror? Why then has the Bush administration failed to employ these? Finally, if another stated aim of the "War on Terror" was to overthrow oppressive dictators like Saddam Hussein who were supposedly developing nuclear weapons, why did we not take the same actions of invasion, occupation, capture, and execution of the oppressive Kim Jong Il of North Korea, who already HAS nuclear capability? Evidence suggests we were far more interested in Saddam Hussein because of his OIL, and since North Korea had no oil, we selectively left Kim Jong Il alone.

Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has testified publicly that the Bush administration began plans for an invasion of Iraq immediately after its inauguration in January, 2001, nearly 8 months BEFORE 9/11. Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz had all long advocated an invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, provide the United States with a direct and ongoing presence in the Middle East, and secure our grip on the region's vast oil resources. In the 1990s, these three, along with George W. Bush, his brother Jeb, and a host of other neocon, hardcore right-wingers, were charter members of a conservative think tank/advocacy group called "Project for a New American Century." This group advocated, among other things, pre-emptive military strikes against Iraq, Syria, and Iran to overthrow their leaders and establish our firm foothold there. When this group came to power in the White House, they began to implement their plans. 9/11 gave them the perfect opportunity to build a case against Iraq, rally public support by dishonestly tying Iraq to al Qaeda and nuclear weapons, and then proceed with the military phase of their plan.

Bush and Cheney are both former oilmen. The price of gasoline has more than tripled since they took office in 2001. Oil companies' profits continue to set record highs. Cheney's former company, Halliburton, has received BILLIONS in numerous NON-BID defense contracts since we first invaded Iraq. What began as an honest "War on Trror" has morphed into a war for profit and plunder. Since we have basically abandoned the hunt for bin Laden, left our ports and borders open to invasion by anybody, and left other oppressive dictators in power without toppling THEM, I repeat my question: Are we conducting War on Terror, or war for oil? The evidence strongly suggests the latter rather than the former. By definition then, we are engaged in unlawful imperialism, and we should GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ!

NEXT WEEK: LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC COLLUSION WITH THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS

THE FAILURE OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM

American liberalism has failed America in recent times. Its goals and policies unquestionably mirrored the values and benefitted the majority of the country at one period, but it became corrupted by years in power. This process led many to turn away from it as a political philosophy, and caused the growth in appeal for conservativism, culminating in today's disastrous neo-conservative Bush administration.

Liberalism came to power and blossomed as a result of conservative Republican mismanagement of the economy leading to the Great Depression. Then as now, conservative Republicans believed that government should have little or no say in the workings of the free market. So, they sat in office and did virtually nothing as people suffered, lost homes, starved, and jobs and savings disappeared. Their belief was that the economy would eventually straighten itself out on its own and that prosperity would return. But it didn't. By 1932, with the unemployment rate at nearly 25% and wages supressed, voters finally had enough of the conservatives' steadfast clinging to purist economic principle while the rest of the country suffered, and they threw the rascals out of office in a landslide.

FDR was elected President, with a huge Democratic majority. Liberalism had come of age and quickly began to exert power through huge reforms. This "New Deal" program, as FDR called it, established a wide array of government sponsored and operated programs for the benefit of poor and working Americans. Government employment/public works programs like the WPA and CCC came into being. Workers were finally given the legal right to organize labor unions to bargain and leverage themselves to obtain better pay and working conditions. The 40 hour work week and overtime pay were established. Unemployment benefits were created, as was Social Security, and welfare benefits for the poor. Conservatives shook their head in horror, screaming that the country could not afford to have the government aiding the people in that fashion. Then as now, they believed the only truly justifiable government expenditures were for the military, police, schools, and postal service. But the electorate reveled in the bonanza of benefit, hope, and opportunity the New Deal was bringing to them. And the electorate was correct. Liberal programs had found a way to help nearly everyone in the country, not just the rich and powerful. With the advent of World War II in Europe in 1939, the government began building a defense industry to cope with demand for guns, tanks, and planes by besieged Allied countries. This helped spur the economy tremendously, and, with our entry into the war in 1941, this economic activity showed exponential growth. The liberals stayed in power and all the liberal reforms were kept in place by popular demand. Liberal power had been a success, as they had truly delivered for the public.

Liberal dominance of the government and economy continued almost uninterrupted after the war, except for a brief period in the very early '50s. In the 1960s, the liberals again delivered benefit for a large segment of the country with the passage of Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and many other bills. But liberals, with strong conservative urging, also involved us in the civil war in Vietnam, both sides mistakenly seeing it as making a stand against Soviet and Chinese communist expansion. This, along with several other factors, caused a split in liberal ranks which cost them the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections and led to a long decline in their power and influence.

By the 1970s, American liberals had enjoyed nearly uninterrupted control of Congress for decades. Their Congressional leadership began to become influenced and corrupted by lobbyists, special interest groups, big business, and big labor. The measures they proposed and passed did not seem to resonate so well with increasing segments of the population. This is when I believe their failing the country began. For example, in an effort to forcibly achieve integration in public schools, they instituted a wildly unpopular system of busing poor and minority students into wealthier and whiter schools, and vice versa. Though their aims may have been noble, the practice was heavy handed and impractical and led to racial disharmony and backlash. During this period the liberals also began to turn their backs on churches and the faith-based community. This population segment had always been an ally for social and racial justice in previous decades. By prohibiting the free expression of a person's religious beliefs in schools and public institutions, liberals not only deprived these people of their constitutional rights but also pushed them over to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. By trumpeting very loudly support for controversial issues like state-funded abortion and gay rights, the liberals gradually found their appeal narrowing considerably and eventually lost power to a newly dominant conservative plurality. A final liberal miscue was how liberals gradually became the anti-military party. In reaction to excesses of the Vietnam War like the My Lai massacre, congressional liberals became harsh critics of our military and wanted it pared down. This has led them to become labeled with the not-entirely-true monickers of "soft on communism" and later "soft on terrorism." But worst of all, in later years, while pandering to special interest and splinter groups, liberals (and their main organ, the Democratic Party) have apparently neglected and/or abandoned their main original constituency: Poor, needy, and working Americans. They have allowed conservative Republicans to steamroll all over these people and engage in illegal imperialistic war. This is perhaps liberalism's biggest failure.

Public disenchantment with neocon military adventurism, as well as neocon economic mismanagement, has given today's liberals an opportunity to reassert themselves. But if they ever hope to achieve massive influence again, it is vital that they get back on track to launch programs and policies beneficial not for big business or special interest groups. They MUST again deliver for the poor, needy, and working citizen. And they must stop treating the religious community as if it was a group of aliens from Mars. Liberals and churchgoers share many common social values. They pared up for many beneficial reforms in the 1950s and 1960s, and they can and MUST do so again! There are signs and faint stirrings of this activity beginning to be slowly shown by Barack Obama and a number of other Democrats. If liberals are to overcome their recent failures and return to success, it is absolutely essential this trend continues!

NEXT WEEK: WAR ON TERROR, OR WAR FOR OIL?

THE METAMORPHISIS OF AMERICAN CONSERVATIVISM

Today's American conservative has changed markedly from those of previous generations. Still present is the paranoia I described in last week's blog, and there is still firm support for the fundamental tenets of a strong national defense and minimal governmental involvement in the free enterprise system. But, oddly enough, the movement has morphed to now include some of liberalism's beliefs and practices.

The so-called "Republican Revolution" of 1994 brought total legislative control to the Republican Party for the first time in 40 years. As the conservative wing of that party had gradually grown stronger and stronger since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, it now controlled the party completely. When conservative George W. Bush ascended to the presidency in 2000, this meant total power for the conservative bloc in both the legislative AND executive branches. These new conservatives differed from those in the past. Accordingly, they became known as neoconservatives, or "neocons."

Neocons demonstrated early on their cohesiveness and their intolerance for opposition. The halls of Congress and the rhetoric coming from both the White House and the GOP became bitterly partisan. Democrats were given far less input in Congress and in helping to shape public policy than had the opposition party in previous times. Compromise and even prolonged discussion of legislative agenda became tremendously reduced. The Republicans began to enjoy the trappings of power which they had not experienced for so long, and they became corrupted by the desire to hold onto and even increase that power. This led them to alter some of their long held beliefs and practices and explains the reasons today's conservatives differ from their precursors.

Conservatives in both parties have long opposed massive deficit spending. As modern Republicans soon learned, it is not easy to hold onto or increase power and reach by saying "no" to expenditures for certain constituancies. Thus began a gigantic growth in earmarking, the practice of adding special spending allotments to bills late in a legislative session so they will easily pass without much scrutiny or fanfare. That is how $200 million Alaskan "bridges to nowhere" are created, and that is how key contractors and/or campaign donors get their rewards. The downside, of course, is that we taxpayers inevitably fund the bill and foreign governments like China and Saudi Arabia underwrite our government's deficit, giving them increasing say and involvement in our internal affairs. (I must add that today's GOP did not invent this earmarking practice, but they greatly accelerated it). So, to maintain power, the neocons have forsaken the long held tenet of fiscal responsibility, to the detriment of the entire country.

Prior-era conservatives also believed that government should remain small; that states' rights should take precedence over the federal government's, and that the state has no right to unduly regulate or inhibit citizens' individual freedoms or enterprise endeavors. Earlier conservatives also strongly believed in the separation of church and state; that the state shall not impose its own religion on the people, and that people were free to choose to believe as they wished or not at all. Many of these ideas have been modified or discarded altogether by these neocons, still firmly in control of today's Republican Party. With Bush's massive Medicare adjustments and expansion of Homeland Security, today's federal government has grown tremendously, a fact no classical conservative can be proud of. The influx of the religious right into political conservative ranks has also led to a demand for the government to regulate social behavior. Indeed, their influence has become so strong that today's presidential candidates are now subjected to a de facto litmus test of their religious (Christian) beliefs. Neither Abraham Lincoln, nor Teddy Roosevelt, nor Richard Nixon, nor any other candidate prior to this generation was ever subjected to such a thing. Some neocons are even pressing for government involvement in fostering Christian values and education, tenets of theocracy rather than democracy, and a blatant violation of our Constitution. These radical new conservatives even insist that Supreme Court nominees must conform to their belief structure. Whereas in past times, these beliefs and duties were spread and performed by clergy, today's neocons wish them to be part of and performed by government.

Lastly, earlier time conservatives believed in minimal involvement in other countries' affairs and believed America should only involve itself in war in cases of attack, not intervention against unfriendly governments, or due to fear of attack. George W. Bush and modern neocons trashed that notion altogether in 2003 with the unprovoked attack on Iraq. The "justification" for going to war in Iraq was that it's leader, Saddam Hussein, was developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons for use against the United States and that he was working in harmony with the terrorist group alQaeda. This involving of the U.S. in a pre-emptive rather than reactive war was a major breach from practice of all previous American history, and a dangerous one at that. It has cost us half a TRILLION dollars as of this writing and has seriously damaged our credibility and relations with the rest of the world. Related activities, such as the suspension of habeas corpus (the right to a fair trial, something King John gave the western world in 1215 and has been in practice ever since until Bush did away with it), plus illegal abduction and torture of SUSPECTED terrorists, are practices now true conservative could ever support.

MODERATE Republican Dwight Eisenhower warned us as he left office in 1961 to beware and resist the rise of the military industrial complex, that group of ideologues and industrialists who support nonstop American military intervention all over the world, and who, worse yet, profit from it. He was drawing on very wise and pragmatic conservative doctrine in issuing that warning. In the midst of today's neocon White House and GOP presidential candidate sabre-rattling against Iran the same as Bush did against Iraq, it would be wise for us all to reject the neocon mindset and its candidates altogether! The neocon element which controls today's Republican Party is far removed from classic conservativism and from the mainstream public as well. Its agenda will be disastrous for this country and must not be supported.

Next week: THE FAILURE OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES' PARANOIA

Since the end of World War I, American conservatives have undergone some important changes in both belief and practice. Yet one recurring characteristic of those professing to be conservatives has been constant: Paranoia. When they have held governmental power, this has often led to abusive persecutional practices on their part. Many of these practices have made unnecessary victims of innocent people. I shall explain.

By its very nature, conservativism wishes to preserve law and order and all that which has been already established. It wishes to protect the population from outside harm and also from what it views as moral decay. It resists change for the sake of change, and it fights any challenge to the established order or hierarchy. So far so good, from the standpoint of preservation. But when conservatives have allowed fear and emotion rather than concrete analysis to shape their thinking and formulate their policy, time and again they have employed political persecution against those who don't see eye to eye with them. That is where they have repeatedly broken the boundary of acceptable practice.

Near the end of World War I, the Bolsheviks gained power in Russia and established their communist state, the Soviet Union. This sent chills up and down the spines of many American industrialists, manufacturers, and even some members of the press. Small time criminals and professed anarchists were rounded up and imprisoned or executed, some of them deservedly so, but some perhaps not. All it took was the label of "anarchist" or "Bolshevik" to turn public and judicial opinion against an individual and ruin his standing or career. American conservatives applied this labeling technique with great zeal.

Following World War II, communists gained control of China and the Soviet Union began its strict control of the smaller countries of eastern Europe. Worse yet, it began to export revolution and even developed its own atomic bomb, an event which shocked and terrified the entire U.S. In 1950, with Russia's backing, communist North Korea attacked capitalist South Korea and nearly overran the whole country before U.S. and United Nations forces pushed the North Koreans back. Before long, wild allegations and accusations of hidden communists in our government betraying secrets began to circulate and were spread with reckless abandon by conservatives. One notable conservative, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), claimed to have a list of active communists and "fellow travelers" (those unwittingly or naively aiding communists) working within our State Department. Paranoia spread like wildfire as McCarthy and his fellow conservatives began making allegations of communists under every bed. The Republican Party began a campaign of trying to paint all Democratic opponents as being "soft on Communism" and therefoore a threat to our national security, using this charge as a tool to get elected. While there WERE a very small number of spies in our government at the time, most of those accused had been active much earlier, in the 1930s and 1940s, and by the 1950s were out of government. Many of those accused were innocent, and nearly all were blacklisted from jobs and suffered terrible economic losses because of wild and reckless allegations made by McCarthy and his conservative allies. When McCarthy next accused the U.S. Army of being full of communists, he was finally exposed for the demagogic fraud he truly was, and his and the conservatives' influence waned. But by then, their paranoia and persecution had wrought untold suffering.

Today, we are once again seeing much the same fearmongering and paranoia being exhibited by American conserevatives as in the past. Instead of anarchists or communists under every bed, they are now finding "terrorists" under every bed. Those publicly disagreeing with the conservative political stand now find themselves wiretapped or unable to board airplanes. Their patriotism is questioned. In extreme cases, some being suspected of having "terrorist ties" have even been yanked off of foreign streets and flown to foreign interrogation and/or torture centers without being charged officially. Some have even ended up prisoners in Guantanamo, and all have been unable to defend themselves. None have received a proper trial. This represents an outright repeal of habeas corpus rights which were first establ,ished in western law by England's King John all the way back in 1215! The victims of these excesses by the current conservative Bush administration have even included two wholly innocent foreign nationals. Once again, conservative paranoia has crossed an unacceptable line, and again, it is high time this paranoia be replaced immediately wuth reason and justice.

Next week: The Metamorphisis of American Conservativism

REMEMBER: JUNE 4-JULY 4, DO NOT BUY ANY CHINESE MADE PRODUCTS! (See my first blog).

OUR BROKEN COUNTRY AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT! (II)

Our seemingly madcap, self-indulgent obsession with materialism has caused us to neglect many other important aspects of our society. In pursuit of wealth, we ignore current events and resort to excesses to procure that wealth. Businesspersons routinely cheat on taxes and many laborers steal from their companies. Our moral compasses appear to be broken. This is disturbingly evident even in the behavior of our churches and especially in some of their public postures. In the case of the Catholic Church, there have been a huge number of sexual abuse cases which have come to light. Worse yet, the church's bureaucracy for many years ignored these and tried to cover them up. There have also been numerous cases of sexual misconduct and even pedophilia among ministers in fundamentalist churches, and blatant profiteering engaged in by other churches. Still other churches have embarked on a course of near persecution of certain groups such as gays and those choosing abortion. Churches are broken when they engage in activities like this, and especially when they ally themselves with political parties or groups to forcibly impose their biases on the population at large. Much of this activity contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who taught that people should hate the sin and forgive the sinner. According to the Bible, God declares homosexuality to be an "abomination" but nowhere does He urge the persecution of or discrimination against its practitioners. Jesus said countless times to watch over and take care of the poor. Not once did He ever advocate war on behalf of His church, nor did He ever preach that more should be given to the wealthy or that the poor should be shunned and neglected. Yet many fundamentalist churches in the modern era have espoused war and have allied themselves with political movements blatantly favoring the wealthy while looking down on the poor as lazy and undeserving. This appears to be a harmful contradiction between scripture, values, and practice. Churches should provide moral guidance to their flocks, not political directives. They are at their best when dealing directly with their congregations, not becoming enmeshed in or tainted by political parties or movements. Church congregations must influence their leaders and remind them of this, or churches will become hopelessly compromised and failures as institutions.

Our public education system is broken today too. Roughly half of inner city blacks and barely over half of inner city Hispanics or other minorities finish high school. Across the board, reading, math, and science scores are down. Relative to other countries, we are slipping downward and this trend must STOP and REVERSE. Teachers must be given the legal authority to impose and administer discipline. And PARENTS must spend time with their children after school, helping them with and seeing that they do their homework, each and every night. This means not watching that particular TV movie, sitcom, or sports game on occasion. Helping our children grow in knowledge can be every bit as entertaining and far more beneficial than time wasted on mindless babble in front of the TV screen. This is absolutely vital.

With a record number of single-parent families today, many kids are not getting the TLC and parental input they desrve. Given today's economic hardships, it is not easy for parents to tend to all aspects of their child's development. Nonetheless, children need direct input and supervision from their parents on a daily basis, particularly regarding their education. Many parents are working two jobs and this makes it even tougher. But direct quality time with each child is an absolute necessity. Simply sticking kids in front of a TV screen for babysitting isn't good enough. Fortunately, most schools and churches offer invaluable programs for kids outside of school ranging from religious instruction to community aid to athletics. These activities also provide for needed socialization and should be pursued whenever possible. They can provide much-needed moral and educational background necessary for well rounded growth.

Yes, our country is broken in many areas. But our situation is not hopeless. I have outlined a number of problems and possible solutions these past two weeks. Undoubtedly, you can find many others. But the essential and universal element for success here is benevolent, other-directed ACTION on OUR part. We can no longer afford to pursue only self interest or self fulfilling activities. We must start to act for the public good; the more we go the extra mile for someone and something other than ourselves, the sooner we'll see things start to turn around and mend. And the better off we'll all eventually be. But it's up to each of us. What are you waiting for? Take a step, get a move on, and ACT! :)

OUR BROKEN COUNTRY AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT!

Our country is seriously broken. Not irreparably, but seriously. Our government is broken (that should surprize nobody). Our churches are broken. Our schools are broken. Our media is broken. Our economy is broken. Our corporations and major institutions are broken. Our FAMILIES are broken. It seems that everywhere you look, you see things not performing as they should or as they once did. It is no wonder that a recent survey revealed a whopping 82% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. It is, and that is a shameful indictment on the culture and times we live in. Yet we are not powerless; we can and should be able to right many of the wrongs we see. To do so, we must first examine the causes of our problems and then take action to correct them. We CAN do this, and we MUST!



The United States was once the unchallenged and unparalleled leader of the world. Our education, work ethic, standard of living, and products were the envy of the globe. Much of this sheen has dulled or disappeared in recent years. We can and must get it back.



How have we reached our present state of affairs? There are, in my view, a number of causes which have individually and collectively gotten us off track. First, we are awash in a pervasive materialism today. We have as a nation always strived for new and better products. But today, this striving has corrupted our values and permeated our national psyche. We MUST have the best clothing, cars, electronics, homes, furnishings---and we must have them NOW! Cheap and easy credit has fueled the fire of our desire. This compulsion to buy, buy, buy at all costs has led us as individuals into record levels of debt and personal bankruptcy. Worse than that, though, it has led our country into massive foreign debt. 25 years ago, we were the world's largest lender. Today, we are the world's biggest borrower, and those to whom we are indebted may not truly be our friends. China is using the huge amounts of cash we are giving them every year to build up its military. Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC states are siphoning off our money in an ever rising and unbelievable rate. Our debt is an ever-tightening noose around our neck, and it is lowering our standard of living. We are stealing from future generations and dooming them to a liftime of indebtedness, as they will be the ones eventually paying for our comforts and excesses of today. I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up being a rickshaw puller for wealthy Chinese tourists in my old age, nor do I want to be a servant to visiting Arab sheikhs! When severely shortsighted and misguided politicians give tax breaks to the wealthy and increase government expenditures through corporate welfare, this only adds to and accelerates the problem. And when politicians award multimillion dollar earmarks to businesses within their communities, that, too, compounds the problem. The root cause of this excessive materialism is plain and simple selfish GREED. For, unlike in years past, when we carefully planned for the future and thought of the big picture, today we look almost exclusively at the here and now and of our own personal wants. Sadly, at some lost point, we drifted off the road of common sense into the ditch of me first, and everybody and everything else second. This is a disastrous route to follow, and we have to change our behavior and mindset. Think about it: The next time you reach for that credit card to buy a luxury item you can't afford at the moment, put that card back in your purse or wallet. The next time you're tempted to buy a big-ass, gas guzzling SUV for the sake of status, buy a smaller, more practical and fuel efficient vehicle instead. You're effectively stealing from your kids and grandkids if you don't. And the simple fact remains: If you don't have the money to pay for something now, you don't need it that much, at least not right at that exact moment! AVOID UNNECESSARY DEBT! When we start to follow this practice religiously, and then DEMAND our politicians do so too, we'll start to climb out of our economic ditch and back onto the correct road.



This impulsive, reckless, and self-centered behavior referred to above doesn't stop with our spending practices. It is also evident in our current lack of civility in politics, interpersonal relations and even on our highways. We have become so impatient and rude we have lost the art of compromise, and no civilization can last long if it doesn't agree to work together to solve problems. Rather than try to work with politicians of the opposite party for the common good, we routinely try to discredit or character assassinate them.That is not free speech. Rather, it is a free-for-all we can ill afford.Think about this the next time you're tempted to forward a vicious or personal attack email about a political candidate. You know the type: So and so is really a Muslim, or so and so's endorser hates Catholics, therefore so and so must too, or if so and so disagrees with our foreign policy, so and so must be an appeaser. Absolute nonsense! The best and only way to convince others of flaws a particular officeseeker may have is with FACTS and ISSUE POSITIONS, not with innuendo and distortions and outright lies. (SIDEBAR: If you ever want to verify the truth or falsity of something, go to http://www.snopes.com/ and key in the claim or statement. You'll see in a hurry there's a ton of deceitful and untrue statements and allegations out there). We are so quick to shout down and condemn, to honk horns, cut across lanes, and run red lights. We never think of the harm we could be doing. We need to slow down and THINK before acting sometimes. Above all, we need to THINK BEYOND OURSELVES. The world does NOT revolve around any one of us, and we need to remember that always.

As we see so many broken institutions around us, our natural reaction may be to ask: How in the world did this ever come about? It's easy to understand when you think of it: Our media has been feeding us shallow, incomplete, and slanted information for years. We no longer get complete, factual analyses on our network news. Instead, we get limited, he-said-she-said arguments (even though many issues are more complex than a mere two-sided argument and may have three or more viable successful alternatives), abbreviated sound bytes, and PR masquerading as spin . Networks have decided for us that it is more interesting for the viewer to watch conflict rather than discussion. Repetition is king on cable news networks: They deliberately repeat stories over and over and deliver them in the shortest staccato fashion possible. There is usually little breadth or depth in the typical news story. When several commentators are gathered to discuss a topic, the presentation is usually done in a confrontational manner. You can always count on the moderator to step all over the other speakers, cut them short, and steer the course of the "discussion" a particular way. This is neither news nor discussion, and we are being shortchanged as a result. Then too, today's media is obsessed with entertainment and entertainment figures. You don't get news stories anymore. Now you get sensationalism and "segments" which are preceded and succeeded by "what's up next" previews and the inevitable run of commercials. If news talking heads would cut down on the cutesy silly talking banter among themselves and the "what's next" previews, far more time could be devoted to actual NEWS and we would be far better informed! And then, there's the steady parade of the misfit celebrity of the moment. Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears---NONE of these crazies are newsworthy, but we get a constant diet of them on TV and in print. By depriving us of depth and breadth, the media is severely shortchanging us. No wonder we elect so many idiots to public office, and with disatrous consequences! We MUST demand better and less frivolous news coverage! Write or email the networks as I have done and let them know you want them to stop force feeding us conflict, sensationalism, and irrelevant garbage! Tell them to raise the bar instead of constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator! With the problems we face today, we need all the background and facts we can get to dig our way out of this mess!

END OF PART ONE. Sorry for the lengthiness. I'll try to be briefer next week.