The Basis of America's Cultural Wars and Civility in the Public Square..

Much has been written about civility and I believe it is necessary to emphasize civility in today's culture of "war". America has always valued it's diversity, but whenever one side thinks their side speaks or should speak for all, then there are gong to be problems. "God" can be dangerous in this cause.

The evanglicalfundametalsts believe that scripture is inspired by God and that its contents are to be followed, as instructions God would "will". The presuppositions to such belief is that God is personal. God has a will that He wants everyone to know and serve. And that "He" controls and governs all of life.

Such a view cannot help but propitiate a passion that is virtually virile in what should be a rational and civil discussion about our society and its future. Whenever one believes that God's Kingdom, purpose, plan or value is absolute and that that is to be served unilaterally, one is condoning intolerance, discrimination, and "war".

Leaders of societies have used civility to "read" the pulse of the public and direct policy around those passions, so that society could remain civil without inciting "war". Such was the view of the Founders of our country. They did not believe unilaterally that God intervened directly, but that there was a order or structure that society should function 'under", which was created by our Constitution.

Today, with the knowledge that psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, and biologists are gaining about humans, it seems that our emotions also influence our thought, choices and values a lot more than previously thought. Law does not take into consideration these "unconscious" needs, values or responses/reactions. How does a civil society, such as Western culture take into account such things? Should we take into account such things? These are questions that our Founders didn't address because their culture was not filled with the diversity that we experience today. So, should we limit diversity, if it challenges the foundations of "law and order"? Human needs go beyond what is seen, but also what is "felt".

Those that are seeking a resolution to the "universal" that binds all together must look more to the human experience of tragedy or joy, because other than that, there are no similarities, it seems. And those similarities are what the "secular", as well as the "sacred" value. That is all that needs to be addressed...

Healthcare and "Local Politics"

Conservatives are known to be "localists". They believe that the local government knows best about what its people need, or want. Liberals on the other hand believe that government must be centralized for there to be a unification of purpose.

Isn't it interesting that Obama believes in universal healthcare and communitarian service? These seem at odds, but perhaps, it is only the localists that will be called to re-distribute our wealth.

This morning Newt Gingrich was on NPR. He said that he would propose several smaller bills to improve the system, as otherwise, a large monstrosity, such as this one, would lead to "buying votes". And "buying votes" always leads to "pork barrell spending".

It will be interesting to see what happens to healthcare.

What Do You Do?

What do you do when someone 'knows best" or "better for you" than you do yourself? Although we all need support and 'another set of eyes" to see at times, others are not omniscient or omnipotent.Those who think this way are dangerous. These think that their understanding, the way they see things, is all there is, because they are "omnipresent". Time nor boundaries have no meaning to them, because they disregard history. These tout 'supernatural revelation", or knowledge, insight, or experience. Their experience is universal.

I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..

In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?

It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.

On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.

I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.

There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.

What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.

What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.

Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...

I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.

A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.

The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.

Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?

Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.

Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.

Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.

The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.

The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".

(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)

Do You Hear?

Hearing takes time. The time to listen and weigh. Judgment is made according to how one assesses the "need". And needs are various and many.

What should be the ultimate concern and value of America? Some think that America should boil down their distinctiveness to "commonality". I think not.

Our distinction is what has made us 'great'. America's distinction is our freedom of conscience. And freedom of conscience has nothing to do with "common concern".

"Common concern" has to do with forming what is to be addressed. But, before anyone can address "common concern", there must be an awareness of what all the "concerns" are.

It seems to me that the political climate has not allowed "free exchange" of "concerns". Our leaders have not heard our voices, as we and they have assumed that our "concern" has no value.

I am heartened that many have made their voices known in the town hall meetings over the issue of healthcare. The anger is evidence that people are "concerned" and are aware of how their leaders are not hearing them.

Americans are concerned for their way of life and their country's very existence, as a distinct nation. But, leaders are only concerned for making sure that their "position" is protected by the "images" they "present".

Where is the Real leader, who takes to heart his contituency? Public servants are to serve the "public interest", at the public's bequest.

Our nation is facing the biggest challenge to remain solvant. We should not be talking about healthcare, when we cannot take care of our own. "Concern" for our own existence must be our focus, otherwise, we will not have any means to continue to further our democratic ideals abroad. And that would be the height of tragedy.

Politicizing and Politicing

I have become a skeptic that anything happens apart from politics. This brings me to the point of questionig the present political situation and policies.

Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?

Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?

I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.

Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?

We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".

Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".

I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".

Bad Attitudes, Good Attitudes in the Media and Healthcare

I have to admit that I haven't been engaged with the discussion on healthcare, as I am not open to government taking over that part of my life, no matter what their "greater good" arguments are. I recognize that my husband's employer, as well as many other employer's are probably most interested in this discussion, as many foot much of the bill. But, I have listened to some of the discussion. What stikes me is the press!

We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.

I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?

Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!

Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?

Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.

I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.

Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.

I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!

Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!

Do We Have a Right to Exist?

Much has been promoted in the media about "social justice", humanitarian aid, and "moral concern" for those without opportunity. Although these are ideals that most people assent to, is it practical? The real world must define itself. And definitions are not inclusive, as diversity limits one's ability to exclude. Without boundaries, no individual, group, or nation can exist. Therefore, definition is important.

Social justice has been suggested for "all people" or humanity at large. But, while liberalism promotes inclusion, it limits the boundary of definition and dissolves difference, which practical policy issues demand.

One of the major areas of policy facing our nation for the last decade has been the issue of immigration. Should immigrants have the same advantages that a citizen does, in the name of "human rights"? Where does a sovereign nation deserve the right to discriminate in making policy decision based on the best interest of the nation? And where do national interests, such as national security trump expediency, outcome and limitations to resources for our own people? And where does national security trump "human rights"?

These are not easy questions to resolve, in light of our nation's ideals and beliefs about natural rights.

It seems obvious if we give healthcare to those who have not shown a desire to "bear the burden" of our countrie's interests by becoming a citizen and learning the language, then we, the people, bear the burden alone. And we are dooming ourselves to subvert our cultural interests of freedom.

While in Europe, the European Parliament held elections. The Dutch, who are known to be the most tolerant of all countries, voted Gert Wilders into office. He respresented the "Freedom Party" which promotes Dutch national interests. As a whole, all European nations were swinging back to conservative policies, at a time when globalism is trying to 'win the day'.

Gert Wilders has spoken out aggressively against the immigration of those whose culture is undermining his own. In fact, he was invited and dis-invited to the British Parliment to present his film concerning Islam. Our country invited him to present his film before Congress, which I hope has made an impact and impression about the costs of tolerance.

Last year, my husband and I went to a science and religion conference in Madrid. The conference was on Choice, Free Will, and Tolerance. How does a culture that adheres to diversity (tolerant) allow choice and free will to the intolerant?

Policy demands answers and solutions to real problems. Policy problems do not solve themselves. We must address these issues theoretically and practically, if we want our nation's interests to survive an onslaught of exclusive religious claims! Otherwise, we WON'T have a right to exist!

When Politics Drives Policy

My husband and I are in Colorado attending a scientific conference. Most of the information has been exciting to him, but tonight he wanted me to join him in attending a talk(s) on how science affects society and policy.

We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.

The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.

This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.

C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!

Politics, Ideology, and the Nation State

I have real concerns about some of Obama's actions recently. I have mentioned how he has treated our allies, but how he has treated our enemies baffles me. Perhaps, he is trying to befriend these enemies, so that the multi-cultural postmodern mind-set will win the policy debate. He has said that we should use diplomacy and not military might.

But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)

We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.

Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.

The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.

Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.

Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.

We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!

A Continued Thinking on Individualism and Collectivism

Collectivism and Individualism does not just "run" our understanding of government, or policy, but also theology.

How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.

Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?

Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?

All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".

Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.

I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?

Questions Concerning Priorities

One wonders this morning about what matters most, when the Market has fallen to the lowest point in 12 years, and the unemployment rate may reach 8% by the end of the day, and the President is "concerned" over our healthcare!

The President suggests that our economy is at an all time low because of healthcare costs! With no support for the Secretary of the Treasury, and little talk of Wall Street's concerns, it is obvious to most that this adminstration's philosophy of government is at odds with the "private sector". People have lost money in retirement investmensts, universities, charities, and other investors have lost in their endowments. The future is not focused on business interests, as GM struggles to remain afloat as many have already declared bandruptcy.

I'm sure those in Congress, and others in power are not concerned over this economic crisis, as they do not have to worry about their "daily bread". Hopefully, Obama will choose to see those who he promised to 'protect" under the Constitution and veto this stimulus bill.

I don't write this because of personal interests in investments, as that is not my or my husband's job concerns. But, I do write it as a concern for the discussion and balance of the philosophical positions that play out in our policy.

Obama and His Cabinet

I was so pleased to hear several comments by president elect Obama. He spoke of having strong personalities on his team and open ended debate, with his decision concluding the discussion!!! I think this is good leadership. He has chosen to keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense to provide continuity during two ongoing wars. He is also going to appoint the U.N. ambassador to a Cabinet position, as Clinton did during his presidency. In my opinion, the things he has envisioned and spoken about are promising...

He is open to appoint people in position across party lines. He called for unity of national identity. He is open to others who are strongly opinionated about issues. I find this promising in that he doesn't feel threatened by those who have strong opinions, but at the same time, recognizes that ultimately, he will make the decision. To me, this means a strong sense of who he is and what he believes. He has the courage to take responsibility for the decision he will make, as he used "the buck stops here".

He and his cabinet have many challenges ahead of them. I wish that we (my husband and I) were closer to the top to feel a part of these changes. The auto-makers will again approach Congress about bailing out the auto industry. Many have already taken early retirement, but those who are under the age of 65 will find it hard to manage healthcare costs and will not be eligible for Medicare. Some may loose their pensions. This is definately an important history making time.

We need to applaud these ventures into new avenues of making a difference in the world at large. I find this heartening for our values of life and liberty. May we all be grateful for living in this great country and understand that we are much better off in many ways than other parts of the world. But, at the same time let us be understanding of what needs to be addressed by our country, as it concerns other countries. I think our president elect has a "world awareness" and will bring a new "hope" for all of us. At least, this is my hope.

China and Wall Street

Tonight, as most of you have heard, Congress could not come to terms with an agreement on the bail-out of Wall Street.
It disturbs me that this crisis is being politicized. But, it is an election year...just a few days short of election day.
McCain intially bowed out of the debate Friday so that he could help with this crisis. Obama's camp claims that they were not fully informed of this matter and said they were going to be at the debate. Later, it was reported that McCain was having second thoughts and might show up after all.
I could see that the Democrats were playing alongside a president they have been highly criticizing, while the Republicans wouldn't touch this legislation with a ten foot pole. Isn't it hypocritcal of the Democrats to criticize the Republicans for being in the same party as Bush and go so far as to try to identify the party with Bush. And here they are playing along...what do they really think about Bush and his policies? Is it that the Democrats see a political advantage in painting a picture of cooperation with the president so that our economy will not "go under".
The Republicans may not know what to do, as if they go along and support the legislation, they will be painted as supporting big business. And if the plan fails for some reason then they will hold the bucket to mop it all up. The Republicans' resistance to come to an agreement could be painted as deadlock and they will be blamed. So, they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I feel sorry that his has happened at a time when the election is so close.
The Republicans are being cautious, I believe. I agree that we should move very slowly before implementing a plan that is half shod and so expensive with no garuantees that the plan will be sufficient long term.

While our domestic world is struggling for a solution, the Chinese are now sending up space-craft with our technology. Many were on the news talking about the danger of their espionage to our country's security. Several have been convicted of selling or giving our secrets away. What will we be seeing in our near future? We are oblivious to our need to maintain secure borders, and ignore the the signs of domestic crisis. How much more do we need to experience before we understand the implications of our choices and our disregard and disrepect for our nation?