WAR Between the Classes Is More Than Economic

In Novemeber, there was an article in Time that intrigued me. The article suggested that there had been and now is a wide gap between what Time called "the military class" and "the Political Elite". And this is what got me thinking today, as I was thinking about class warfare and its usefulness for political manipulation.

The Times article suggested that the military class was becoming ingrown, as more and more children of military families volunteer for military service. These understand military culture, which values duty, honor and country. And such an ingrown culture is not unlike that of elite academia, which until recently didn't allow ROTC into their university environments. Such a condition can't help but alienate "the Academy" from "the military class" and it widens the gap of understanding between the military and those that work in other areas of government. When such alienation happens, it is no wonder that each talks "past each other", because they have different goals and foci.

While the military has been gathering a more ingrown culture, the political class has forgotten the military's major reason for existing and their duty to protect the citizenry against foreign powers under the protections of a Constitutional government. The "academic elite" are those that usually get into political office these days. Those that serve as "Commander in Chief" aren't required to serve in the military, and as a result, humanitarian emphasis has become as important as our nation's political interests. Humanitarian interests sometimes conflicts with the public interests and the public trust of the elected official and national security issues. Should the elected official do his duty of serving his country as elected or seek to implement a change that is not limited or accountable to the people or other branches of government?

Yesterday the Washington Post had an article about the rising costs of campaigning and how limited the average person is in running for office and having an ability to win. Today, the wealth accumulated by our elected officials has furthered the gap between the citizen and the political class.

Such gaps of wealth accumulation further propitiate a "ruling class" where their personal business interests become a consideration when overseeing public affairs/policy deicisions. Where is the ethics of a Congress that can grant exceptions and exemptions to their political allies? Croynism becomes the culture of corruption and leaves the little guy wondering what is happening to his own material security.

Our society if fraught today with many Wars. The culture war between faith and the political; the class warfare between the rich and the poor; the political class and the military; and the ruling class and the peasant. Is it any wonder why the French revolted when their country used public trust and public funds to help other countries, while their own society disintergrated into desolation? Is it any wonder that those that play on political chaos for ther own political gain have the makings of dictators that have no sense of boundary regarding their office? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupiers have expressed various concerns, and why the political class isn't interested because they don't really have to be? They are unaccountable and well equipped to take care of themselves without considering what their own self interest costs the nation. Whenever government and its officials become a "law unto themselves", then the rest of us had better be prepared for some rough waters ahead.

When the "We" Makes an Insignificant "Me"

Ayn RandThe word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages. Anthem, Chapter 11

All humans live amongst others, but their attitude about life and what makes for meaning is what makes for the differences. Some see the "We" as an attitude of "Comaradie", "Team", "Care", which make for "society", "company", and "organization". But such thinking can enable, as much as enoble, when individuals are not taking their own responsibilty for and about their life. Instead, they compromise, or ignore their own values so that others might not be "left out". But, in doing so, they loose their own distinctiveness. And soceity suffers for it.

The other night we watched a movie about a woman that pursued a Pulitzer by publishing a story about another mother in her child's school, who was a CIA agent. In the process, she went to jail for not revealing her source and lost her marriage. Her lawyer suggested that she could "go free" if only she would hold the "traitor" accountable. One wondered during the film why she didn't take his advice, but understood she was standing on the principle of "free speech"! She didn't want to set a precedent against "free speech".

Where do the lines lie in "free speech" versus "national security"? These are questions that concern Contitutional Law.

Should she have gained her freedom and hold the informer accountable? Or should she have held to her ultimate value for her journalism career, of "free speech"?

If this character had been "the concerned citizen", or the "soceital moralist", then she would have had a "focus" on the "we". This is all well and good, but there were more important issues in her mind to uphold for the nation and for the media, in general. Freedom of the Press is of pivotal import to maintaina free society!! So, I applaud her courage, determination and conviction!!!

The Movie, "The Source Code" and Issues of Bio-Ethics

This past week-end our son told us we might like the movie, "The Source Code". So, we went to see it Friday. It was a move about how the State used the new "brain science" and "quantum theory" to protect national security. The ethical question was one of where or when life is valued and for what purpose and who owns their brain or minds?! The story left one with unanswered questions about where to define the limits of science, and the State.

The science experiment was done with a knowledge of "parallel universes" in quanturm theory where 8 minutes of overlap make for new information about the past. A local terrorist attack on a Chicago metro had left the military community on "alert" to another terrorist threat in the center of the city, where many lives would be lost, unless they found the culprit of the 'metor explosion".

The soldier who'd lost half his body, but not all his brain was left in an incubator for the purpose of taking advantage of the 8 minutes to investigate who was responsible for the bombing of the metro. The experiment kept putting the soldier back into the same "past reality" so he could investigate more fully or differently to find the terrorist, in hopes that the terrorist would be kept from another attack with larger reprecussions.

The soldier did his duty, but under the controls of the State, until the person in charge of direct command started seeing the soldier as "a person", who had had traumatic experiences and thought it better to let him die in peace, as promised, rather than continue to use his brain for further experiments. Even though "the greater good" would grant using the brain of a disabled person in such a way, the ethical questions were obvious.

It reminded me of the Karen Quinlen (sp?) case where a brain dead girl continued to be hooked up to a respirator. The question in this case,  is "life" defined by "the brain" alone? What makes for human life? Surely, we in the West believe that all aspects of the person, the brain, the body, the mind, the personality, the family, the community, the nation, the WHOLE is responsible for fully functioning Personhood.

What America Might Consider as a Solution

America is great because we believe that NO ONE is "above the law". The law is the leveler of position, power and prestige. But, in practice, this is not reality.

While I don't believe that the government should control the market, because the market benefits society through competition and rewards, I do believe that money does undermine "equality under law", as to one's ability to afford good lawyers to defend the average guy's interests! Corporate money and the wealthy have not only connections that corrupt our "ideal system", they also have money to get the best and brightest to defend them against criminal, or unethical activity! Should Americans look the other way when justice isn't done, and just "sigh" and say to ourselves, that that is the way things are, and no one can change it?

Those in political office should not be serviced by undue exposure to power indefinately. These positions should have term limits. Otherwise, the empowered have the position and connections to undermine "equality under law". Power can be corrupting and give one a "god-like" feeling against "all odds" at beating the system. A "god-like" sense of being "above it all", is the beginning of a downfall, whether it is in one's personal or public life. Destruction is on the heels of such invinciblity! Invincibility is the feeling of teens when they do foolish things, because they think they will never get caught! Though this might not be the overt intent or goal of a particular individual, one must always be on guard to what can happen, if one is not careful and serving for the public's interest and not one's own.

Government was never intended to be the "patron saint" of mankind, but a overseer of proper behavior regarding others and their boundaries! We must never forget that the individual and his liberties are guruanteed only as long as the government (those that serve in these positions) are seeking to promote the interests of the nation. National security should be of concern and importance to those serving the American poeple!

Israel and the Nuclear Summit

It is reported that Israel will not be represented at the nuclear summit here in Washington. What would be the possible reasons?

My speculation is that Israel understands the danger of total nuclear disarmament. These people have experienced what it was like to not have a way to protect their own. They were the ones who suffered under the "Nationalism" of Nazi Germany. They do not want to propitiate that scenario again, by trusting in the "better natures" of mankind, especially of authoritarian regimes that are accountable to no one.

History has proven that man's better nature is not forthcoming when there are no checks and balances. And nation states are a good way for power to be negotiated. Diverse interests should be confirmed as ways of negotiating around differences concerning self interests and security. And nation states can protect by regulating their 'enemies' through sanctions. This is the way that nation states have protected themselves for the last 50 some odd years, with nuclear weapons.

Science has produced other alternatives for the Pentagon in our own country, but those countries that insist on building their nuclear arsenals cannot be dismissed or ignored without national security being compromised, even though the 'ideal world" would hold "peace and goodwill" toward all. This is not the real world, but the "idealized ideology" of Marx, where all nations are equal and all people are living at peace. The problem with Marxism is that there is no limit on government control. Do we want to be at the mercy of those whose arrogance through government control holds no limit? Liberty will suffer. This is what globalism will do.

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!

Human Rights, Individual Freedom and Social Order

Globalism is not an option in today's world. The question facing the world is where are the boundaries to lie? Do nation states have a right to exist as separate entities? Does every human deserve respect and be given dignity, irregardless of behavior or culture? These are the questions of internationalism, internationalizing Nation States, and the "rule of law". I know I do not have the answers, and probably don't understand all the questions, but it is one that interests me and that I think is of utmost importance for all concerned to address. I am learning.

People are concerned today about relgious freedom, in a world that is wondering about radicalizers of faith traditions. Do humans, no matter their faith practice, deserve "equal protection under the law"? Or does their undermining of the "social order" deny them such protections? Civilized society believes that criminals are to be given a right to trial, but are not given freedom without investigation. The question becomes national security versus international law and human rights. Which is of utmost importance? And how do we know what is of utmost importance?

People are also concerned about how the "rule of law" applies in international relations where it concerns economics. Where do business interests usurp culture? Or does business "do business" within a cultural paradigm? How does business "do business" with those who do not adhere to the same cultural standards when it comes to the "rules", 'traditions", and the formal laws of different nation states? What are the responsibilities of citiziens to protect national security and national interests, at the costs of business interests? And do all nations deserve equal opportunity in regards to information that would possibly be used in a dangerous way? Are citizens granted more protection than anyone else?

These are questions that educated persons (and even, those that are in the learning curve) will disagree on, so it becomes a matter of conviction and commitment to the "most important and imperative" need to address. Needs of people will always conflict with different interests and goals. One must assess where they find the most fulfillment, in a world that is "imperfect" and will not become a Utopian "ideal".