Individual Interests, and Society's Welfare

Ludwig von Mises Institute‎"Man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare." Ludwig von Mises (1949), Human Action


Those that believe otherwise put society before the individual. Society is made up of individuals who act within a social network. Such societies are free societies that so not seek to circumvent the individual's desire to prosper in all areas of his life!

American Values In a Global Climate

Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.

Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.

The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.

One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.

When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?

 The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.

The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.

This Is the Way I Think....

 E.M. Forster said, “How can I know what I think till I see what I say?” I read this on another's blog and I like the comment because it is true for me, too.

Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...

So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?

Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.

Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.

I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.

When We Get to Write Our Own Story

Children are known to love fairy tales. But fairy tales are not "fairy tales" to them. "Fairy tales" are real. Little girls envision the day that they will become a Princess. But, then, their little hearts are broken on the 'hard facts" of life. Life is not a "fairy tale", unless you believe in liberty.

My grand-daughter is just such a little girl. She dresses up and loves to watch for the "happily ever after". Just recently, she was the flower girl in my son's wedding. I couldn't help but notice how she was looking up at the bride. She was mesmerized. Her eyes were glowing and her little mouth was slightly smiling. I realized she was envisioning the bride as a "Princess". I wondered what she was thinking. Then, I learned that my daughter had told her that this would be a "Princess Day"! She readily accepted that rhe reality in her head, was the reality standing before her. They corresponded and confirmed to her little heart that "fairy tales" do come true.

Humans have a need and capacity to imagine, dream, hope and envision. They long for "a better tomorrow". This tendency can be a good incentive for future goals, or a passive longing and hoping for a "fairy godmother" to show up, always longing for "the grass on the other side".

America is known for making dreams possible, because we believe in individual liberty. Walt Disney took human nature and enlarged its dreams with color,. image and myth-making to make billions as this is the "stuff dreams are made of".

Self-interest is not a vice, but a virtue, because the individual is "the king of his own ship". Liberty is the ultimate value for human flourishing, otherwise overlords or rulers destroy the making of individual dreams and take away human desire to initiate. Liberty means one can write thier own story. And most of the time they succeed with a "happily ever after".

Selfishness Wins the Day in America!

Hurrah for the recent decision by a Reagan appointee about the universal healthcare mandate! His argument was right from our Revolution! America was founded on the understanding that power must be balanced in government. Absolute power without accountability to the people will run rough-shod over liberty and justice.

His argument was about Britian forcing the colonies to buy tea, an illegal tax, because it was done without representation. And he correlated that argument with mandating individuals and their choice about healthcare.

I imagine this seems to be so immoral to those that are alturistic. But, our country was not founded on alturistic claims about men, but based on knowing that human nature needed accountability and responsibility. Americans were to be self-governing. So, government was to be limited, not the overseer of virtue!~

Government will grab as much power as the people will allow. And this is NOT good for America or the People! Long live liberty!

Man's Reason Is the Reason for Good Government

Good government is based on its limitations upon itself and others, so that the individual can have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual's reason alone is to be responsible for the values that are to be held most dear. And these values are formed within the contexts of the individual's life, not the tribe, or State. Both the State and the tribe err as to authority. The tribe errs on the mystical, religious, while the State errs on another's reasoned "program", "Production" or Purpose". The individual himself is the ultimate end, not the State, the community, the tribe, or society. The individual's life is his own.

Without good government that allows freedom of thought and freedom of action, then there is no development of reason. Reason is stymied, suppressed, or subverted. Students must not be spoon fed, but be given a good dose of academic freedom to pursue interests that might prove to be a "life calling". Otherwise, students are "formed" or "shaped" into whatever the propaganda delegates as the necessary "need" for/of the moment. The intellectual elites are those that have such agendas. And those so duped to follow mindlessly into the trap of alturism, are being sacrificial "lambs" on the altar of a liberal agenda.

Good government is like good leadership; less is better.

Jazz, an/as/and the American Ideal

 Jazz is original American music "type" that origninated in African American communities. The origin of the word jazz is one of the most sought-after word origins in modern American English.^{[citation needed;WiKi, Febuary 2010]} The word's intrinsic interest—the American Dialect Society named it the Word of the Twentieth Century—has resulted in considerable research, and its history is well-documented (WiKi,). I believe that Jazz is loved because it represents in musical form, American ideals.

Americans love the ideals of individual liberty, and, love their country because of it! Jazz has a unity in diversity musical form. Various instruments are allowed  expression, sometimes in solo performances. This is how American society "works". We are free-forms and free thinkers. We are creative spirits that have experienced liberty in our form of government and expressed that liberty in pursuing our dreams that  have resulted in various technological inventions, as well as artistic expressions. Americans love the free market, because it allows the individual the right to pursue material gain. American love to be independent.  Baroque music would be jazz's "opposite.

I believe that the human spirit is made for and desires freedom, altho some may fear it. When the slaves came to America and were sold and worked, they created a means of expressing themselves in this art form. Their human spirit sought a "way out" of their dire circumstances. While they waited for "salvation", they made music.

Jazz was initially viewed as a "low class" or "anti-class" type of music that represented "whore houses", and sexual promiscuity. But, jazz soon became accepted by mainstream society.

Jazz has no defined definition, as Jazz is as diverse in musical style, as it is diverse in muscial expression.

I like jazz.

When Liberty Should Be Limited

Liberty is limited by law in free societies, as law defines and determines what is illegal or criminal behavior. But, what "Should" be limited?

Government should be limited according to our Founding Fathers. Governments intrude upon individual liberties. Therefore, governments should limit by law, what should be protected.  Government should protect indivdiual values to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is to be protected. Property is to be protected. And privacy is to be protected. Whenever these protections are ignored or devalued, then we devalue individuality.

Murder, theft, and privacy are crimes against individuality. The individual has a right to own his own life in Western society. And this is why so many seek to come to our shores. We value opportunity for the individual.

Neither Church or State

I believe that neither Church or State should have authority, or pre-eminence over the individual and his life choices.

Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.

Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.

All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.

Providing Papers and Protection of Ordered Liberty

Many that are crying out against such injustice as asking those in our country to provide papers to prove their citizenship, or legal immigration status do not seem to see the irony of government requiring the American citizen to provide papers about having insurance coverage!

American citizens must do what their government demands, while their government dismisses their responsiblity of upholding the Constitution and protecting our borders! So, our laws are being re-defined, slowly but surely, to those that are unawake!

Does it seem to anyone but me that government's requirements upon their citizens are becoming more and more demanding, while theirs is ignored, dismissed, or rationalized? Where are our leader's obligation to support their Constitutional duties toward those who are protected by these laws? The American Citizen!

Why I Like D.C

My husband and I have been a "part" of the D.C. area since 1983. It is familiar territory for us. It is "home" in many ways, because "our" lives began there with our children. And we have gone back there every year for at least several weeks, to serve on 'active duty'. D.C. holds many memories that have become a "part" of "us".

The memories of D.C. are of its diverse culture, which allows freedom of thought and life. It is the center of our nation's 'power', which I have come to cherish. D.C. is a cultural hub where one can have learning experiences of all kinds. And D.C. doesn't "care" whether you exist or not. It has the atmosphere of "city life".

D.C. has become representative of 'our values': diversity, challenge, stimulating, culture, and the center of our government. As our children have grown up, and now, with Nate gone, we do not have our family dinners around the table, as much. And when we do, Nate isn't there anymore. Rebekah has her own family and Daniel has recently married and has integrated into his wife's family. So,these are all values that bond my husband and myself these days.

Rights and Relationship

This morning while talking with a friend, I realized that if we base our nation's values on individual rights, then the homosexual has the right to a civil marriage. Some find that this does not dissolve the issue between the Church's "place" in society, but still allows the homosexual person to have "citizen" rights. This view defines a separation between Church and State in a definate way.

Others believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will affect our society in such a way that it will "conform society" , which is the Church's job. I wonder which is of most importance; separation of Church and State and individual rights, or a re-definition to our understanding of the Church's place in society, in regards to "forming society's" future.

On the other hand, if we don't base our nation's values on individual freedom, then where does that leave the young Muslim girl? Does this young girl have a right to develop differently than her parent's religious tradition? Is tradition important in the development of children? in society? And what of a young adult's maturation? Don't humans develop apart from the definitions of cultural standards? This is an important part of growing to maturity, in evaluation of one's ultimate values and convictions.

So, will individual rights have to be defined more specifically than is granted in our Constitution? These issues have always confounded lawyers, professors, philosophers....So, I am not about to "solve' the problem :)! But, it is of uptmost importance.

But, these issues define our society. And whenever the laws define our society differently than what we have been used to, we have to change. This happened during the civil rights movement. I wonder how the definitions will affect our future?

Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Should States have a right to define these issues, themselves? If so, how will that aleviate people from "doing what they want" and going across State lines? Should the decision be decided as a nation? So, that we can enforce these issues under the "rule of law", irregardless of State? Then where do cultural differences lie?

Whatever the Supreme Courts decision will be, we, the people, will have to abide by it. And that will ultimately be played out in our courts, in various cases.

The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court

I heard today that the Supreme Court will be considering how our Bill of Rights will support our individual liberties, and how the State and Nation will define the boundaries of these rights.

They are also considering the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms.

Religious freedom has been important in our nation's history. But, where do ethical violations over-ride religious freedom? Relgious freedom should never allow abuse of a citizen 'under law, as doing so would subvert justice. The individual is of primary importance, when it comes to institutions that prey upon individual liberties.

One wonders what the Supreme Court will decide. Will it be in favor of religious liberty in regards to Church, or individual protection? I think individual protection is of utmost importance to the furthering of our society's values of "the rule of law", because otherwise, the State supports the Church in circumventing one of the gurantees of the Constitution, religious conscience. Whatever the Court decides, it will set the standard for future "rights", whether these be defined by individual conscience or group freedom.

I think of the situation of the young Muslim, turned Christian, who situated herself with an evangelical family and did not want to go back to her family of origin for fear of reprisal. Her family appealed the Court's decision. What will result in similar cases? Will we allow Sharia to have protection over individual rights, just like the U. N. did on the universal human rights declaration?

It will be an interesting debate, which I hope will be covered by some of the news sources, as it is being debated. That would be interesting.

Abortion, Pro-Choice, or Anti-Life

Abortion divides our country down the middle between the conservative and the liberal, or so it seems.

I was glad to hear on the radio today that someone understood that one can value the right of choice, without affirming an "outcome" (abortion).

Abortion is the actual procedure that dissolves the possibility that the woman will have the child. A "D&C" is a medical procedure that "cleans out the uterus" and is used for various medical conditions. It helps the woman to stop bleeding, and is used for other diseases of the uterus.

Pro-choice is the right to choose to abort. This right is the individual right to decide for themselves whether they want or will to have the probability of a child.

Anti-Life is an attitude toward life that denies life, not just its physical existance, but its quality. Life should be about more than quantity.

The conservative views life as given by God. Some believe that God actually "causes" the life to come into being, as a product of his intervention in history and they use Psalm 139 as "proof" of God's view. These believe that God directly directs a "special creation", in the human child. God is a personal God.

Others take a more moderate view of life as a gift, whether directly "caused" or not. These believe that life, even as an evolutionary "product", is the result of a Creative Being. These can be Diests, Intelligent Designers, Theistic evolutionists or agnostics (leaning toward statistical probability).

And still, other believe that life is the product of chance, a mere product of physicality. These people believe that life is valued not because of any innate nature, or divine gifting, but only as the quality and function of life, as human life is no more than any other "life form".

Why is this debate important? I believe it is important not because of one's view of God's intervention in history or how life got here, but how we view human life as "different" from other life forms and the responsibility of government in respecting that difference. It has a lot to do with how the government will decide medical decisions, if our healthcare becomes "universalized".

Even, if our healthcare is not universalized, we must face the fact that we must come to understand some kind of ethical standard and value for human life, so that human life will be protected and valued. These are pivotal decisions that probably will impact us in one way or another through family members, friends, or neighbors.

I believe that the radio talk host was correct in describing a moral imperative to "life", which is choice. Choice must be valued and affirmed in every way possible to maintain a free society and to affirm the value of a "higher life form". Choice is the only difference between human life and any other form of life. We should not be intruding into other's lives and evaluating their decisions. These are personal issues of faith, personal responsiblity and conviction.

Pro-choice does not have to be "anti-life", for if one does not have the freedom to choose, then is life of value? If a life is only carrying out another's "will", whether political (Hitler) or religious (Taliban), then is a particular life "owned"or valued by its owner, as well as the larger society? Self responsiblity for one's choices, is the first freedom that a free society should guarantee its citizens.

And because life is valued for its quality and not its quantity, Americans "fight" for freedom.

Religious Terms Have Material Meaning

Religious terms have material meaning, if they are considered "real". In certain Christian circles,
where a separation or holiness message is important, the term "circumcsion of the heart" or "sanctification" is used. Although the term "heart" is used, the emotional reality of pain, is just as painful as Islam's physical circumcision of their girls.

In "Infidel", Hirshi Ali tells in painful detail about her physical circumcision. Muslims believe that 'purity" is of uptmost importance, so to "protect" their young women from intercourse before marriage, they sew up her vagina area, as well as circumcise her clitoris. The circumcision of the clitoris is to "prevent" pleasure in intercourse. "Pleasure" is considered an "evil".

The "protection" of the Christian believer is no different, as the "circumcision of the heart" is considered to be necessary to "purify" motives and desires. God is to be the only desire and pleasure. Just as the cutting away the clitoris, the "sanctified believer" cuts away every pleasure and desire that his heart is set upon, other than God. Both circumcisions forbid a basic human desire; pleasure in this world.

Pleasure in this world is viewed as "evil" and "fallen". The desire of the heart is to be focused only on God's will and purpose. Although I agree that one cannot be addicted to any one pleasure, there is strong question as to the creation order itself in affirming this understanding. Since these believers believe in the "creation order", why did God take the time to create such diversity in the world? Why do we see in color?

In Sunday's sermon, Timothy was used as an example of the "need for circumcision". Timothy is known in the Christian Scriptures as a disciple of Paul. Since he was born of Greek and Jewish parents, tradition tells us that Paul commended his circumcision, so that he could "reach the Jew" with the "gospel".

Hirshi Ali tells about her Somalian "tradition"'s training and her eventual escape from a planned marriage and the struggle she had in the West. Her sheer will-power to overcome such obstacles, both real and otherwise, are inspiring to read. I admire her for her determination, courage and commitment to seek a way out.

There is something sinister about another person determining another's life. In our country, we are not allowed that determination, as we believe in free moral agency. But, this was not the majority's view in our earliest Founding.

The majority held to various religious viewpoints, but the Founders wanted to base our government on freedom first and foremost, as without freedom there is determination. And America is not a caste society, not by man or by God.

What in the World?

This morning it was reported that there is a crackdown in China against the Muslims. Riots were shown on TV. Yesterday, in Church it was reported that an island off the coast of India is persecuting the Christian population, which is 1%. Just recently, Korea shot missiles to show the world their power. What in the world is happening?

I think that the nationalizing of our healthcare is a power grab as well. Some of our companies cease to be privately owned and the government has gotten involved in mortagages for the poor.
A.C.O.R.N. is not being investigates, as John Connally, head of the Judiacary Committee reports that he was stopped. BY WHO AND WHY? Americorps and World Vision has been caught in power grabs. There seems to be no end to the way that power is exerting itself against the "common person". Privitization is being dismissed as selfishness. But, is it?

One of our Founders warned that when government starts stealing, undermining or federalizing the Treasury, then we will become slaves! Is this to be our future?

It seems that since many in the American population have been squeezed because of the recent economic downturn. Those who have lived off credit, live in expensive areas, or lived for money and power are dismayed. Some have given up hope altogether and committed in ultimate hopeless act of taking their own life.

Is such hopelessness causing us to feel helpless, so that we will not care anymore about our government and what the Founders set in motion to protect private property? Liberty of conscience, the private and the publice, the Church and State were set at "odds" to one another for a reason. It was the allowance of individual freedoms and rights. Today we hear of 'public interests", the "public or common good". Where are private interests? Where are human rights?

The ethical can never dissolve the individual without undermining liberty altogether. Is the government "stealing our lives", so that we become enslaved to government's power to "help". We have no other resource. We will be a people of entitled dependence!

I am truly disturbed. I am grateful for a few brave voices that hold government accountable. But, we should all be doing whatever we can to prevent government's corruption throught absolutizing government power.

I am afraid that when the American people suffer, they are too caught up with their own personal pain to be concerned about the real public interest and public good.

Life or Liberty?

Happy July 4th!

Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.

Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.

These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.

Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".

Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".

Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.

Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!

Liberty and Marriage and Parenting

Marriage is a social structure and a social contract. Social structures have functions in society, but are not necessarily to be understood as static, as any healthy relationship grows with the people involved. Social contract is the communicated and agreed upon expectations about the marrage.

I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.

Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.

I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.

I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.

Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.

Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.

And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.

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!

A Call to Uniformity?

I had the radio on, while I was doing some "chores" today and heard an "annonymous" call to consider the social /communal, instead of the individual. This irked me, because it "calls others to the table, when the table is already set". Predetermination is not a value of American ideals in individual liberties of conscience. Paternalistic and patronizing ways of understanding one's social obligation and concern "rub me the wrong way", because it is presumptive of what "should be" of ultimate concern to the individual!

What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.

Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?

The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.

I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.