Entitlements, and Expectations.

The news is filled with the price of oil, which may go up because of the Middle East crisis. And the concern over who will be ruling these country's and if we can believe that they will consider our interests, as well as theirs. It seems like survival of the fittest, or all out "war" (using the term metphorically). Should these people have a right to "free themselves" from oppressive government?

Then the news on the housing market going down again. Where will it leave those that can't sell their house to move to take their new job? How will they afford another place to live? And will those that took advantage of loans given to those that had not proved their responsibility, rest on the shoulders of us all? And why? Because some "do-gooder" thought that a large stip-end might help the less fortunate, as always the case with "do-gooders". Does such an attitude promote entitlement mentality? Do the poor not have a right of existence, just as the politically oppressed in the Middle East?

Entitlement means that one can expect something. Entitlement means that someone else will give you whatever it is you want because you deserve it. Why would anyone think they deserve somethigt for nothing? But, then I had to quesiton myself.

I grew up with my grandfather. He has written me into his will. And even though I have not felt that I deserved it, as I was not his natural child. In fact, I wasn't even his natural grandchild. I had always been grateful to him for including me. But, this is just the problem. His inclusion of me is not based on a "felt earning of RIGHT".  My "place" in the family was tenuous, or at least that was what I "felt". Not that he has given me that impression. No, he has always welcomed me.

But, recently I was having a conversation with a couple of childhood friends, expressing my fear of being excluded and rejected by others because of my place in my grandfather's heart. They assured me that I was fearing something that I had a "right" to, as I had grown up with him.

Then, I started thinking about my feelings, and I found that I really do feel entitled, not to more, but to equal treatment, because I had a place in his home. And my constant struggle to believe that I was just as entitled and then battle with the feelings of not "being worthy or valued enough" to have equal treatment, in speciific instances.

Why do humans feel entitled? Is it our society? Should humans feel entitled to fair and equal treatment? . Where is self-responsibility and a sense that what one earns, one deserves? Don't most people believe that work will equal a salary? And just what is a "just and fair" wage?

Union discussions in Wisconsin and those that make demands that their employer cannot meet are making Wisconsin and it citizens feel resentful and/or entitled, but to different things, because there is different needs. The children and parents want the teachers to teach, while the teachers have to make their 'ends" meet and make their jobs and time worthwhile with negotiated pay. What is one to think or do? Isn't Indiana's "right to work" a fair policy? Or is there to be some standardization to equalize the playing field where no one can have more than another....

Money and its meaning is a complex issue. One thing is for sure, one cannot take money lightly, because money signifies something of value. Entitlements must have to do with expectations. But, just because someone has expectations, doesn't mean that everyone will agree that those expectations are valid ones. Ones that need to be considered as "just' or fair.

 TheTea Partiers are tired of the taxpayer picking up the tab for items that were not represented by their representatives on the campaign trail. The taxpayer feels entitled to equal representation as corporate interests or the Union bosses seem to have a special place at the table to our Representatives. The expectation in our society that we will not be politically oppressed, because of some "Big Whig" taking over and demanding that our hard-earned money be their "pork barrell"!

I think false expectations should be faced, not supported and encouraged, otherwise we enable the poor in their state and their expectations of a "hand-out". I don't think this is good for society or for the poor. And I think that political oppression needs accountability to "the people". Otherwise, those that abuse power will trample our expectations of a fair and just system under their feet and they won't even look back!

Economic and political justice are on the forefront of headline news. Both are volitile issues that must be addressed if the world is not to "go up in smoke" with another atomic bomb.

American Government and Power

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."


-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
 
American government was created to protect its citizens from abuses of power. Those that hold positions of power are accountable to "the people" and the checks and balances in our government. Our Founders understood that men were limited and were not always to be trusted when it came to power. Lord Acton's quote was probably in their minds when they formed a "more perfect union". "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Power was understood in the public domain as service, not priviledge. Priviledged positions were not viewed apart from their responsibility of representation. Public officials understood that good leaders, "do not lord it over" their contituencies, but protected and represented their interests.

The balance of power and accountability were what protected those in leadership from becoming short-sighted and narrowly focused on goals that might end up usurping another's right of liberty. Liberty was of utmost importance to American principles of "good government". Limited government meant that government was to "check" its own over-bearing nature, not just the people's.

Bush's Interview

Last night my husband and I watched Hannity interview Bush. In between commercials, we flipped to the other channels and were curious and amazed at what the commentators on these news shows were saying. Did they hear Bush, himself? Or had they already established their view without hearing him? Had their ideology trumped his "defense"?

No matter what your political persuasion, one could not question the integrity or the concern with which this President "did his duty". He took the job seriously and talked about the "human side" of being the President and making the decisions that impact lives. He admitted in so many words, the feelings of limitation, and his questioning of his decisions, when all the information "was not in".

He had thought that the airplane that went down in Pennsylvania was due to a "command" he's given to the Air Force for protection. I couldn't imagine. Then, there was the scare that he and his staff might have been exposed to biological elements that would've killed them. I was impressed with his fortitude.

Hannity read a letter from Bush's father, President H. George Bush Sr., and one could visibly see how it impacted George, Jr. The connection of his humanity was what struck me. This "ideal" and representative Person was a real human being. I felt like I had had a chat with him myself. But, while in office, he respected his position and weighed heavily what to say and what not to say, in regards to our security. He wanted to protect the American people and the American people's "way of life".

I gained respect for the "man", George W. Bush by watching this interview. And I valued his commitment to our nation in service.

The Superbowl, Free Speech, and 'Political Correctness"

Free speech is again in question. It seems that some think that it is inappropriate to feature an ad taken out by "pro-lifers". The question posed to Palin tonight was; Was this appropriate? Was the Superbowl the place to feature a "controversial" ad. Palin, of course, was supportive and definite in her commitment to the right to "free speech".

I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?

I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.

On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.

Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.

I'm listening, but there is little explaining.

Representative Government

Representative Government is what we need today. We, the people, are to be valued. We are not a theocracy or a democracy, in the proper sense.

When we represent someone, whether a lawyer in the courts, or a Congressman in the House or Senate, these are to be servant leaders, not arrogant or self-serving in their interests in public office. The people vote because of their confidence in a particular candidate. They believe in the campaign promises, and value the platform the candidate represents.

But, all too often, our representatives are bought off by Big Interests, Special Interests and slough it off as a necessary "gain" for the public interest. The public thinks it has been hoodwinked and it is a recipe for damaging the public's interest in their government and civic duty, at large. There is no end to the news about public officials and their indiscretions when it comes to their public trust.

I wonder, since history has borne out that our Founders, or any of those who we "idealize" have feet of clay, just as our present day politicians do? What we want to remember are the "ideals" that we value. But, because of the public's intense interest in private life, biographies have been written that expose such indiscretions of past representatives. And these books sell. Does America want to be ambivalant toward their government and their Representatives in public office?

Representation is known first in one's family of origin. Psychologists have known that children get their view of "God" through their family, the father, being an important imprinter of the child's value.

In ancient societies where the peasant class had no say about their life, other than to serve their patrons, or slave-masters, "God" was know to be represented by leadership. This was how the peasant class came to formulate their understanding of "God". If an unjust ruler ruled, they deemed that God was "above" or "over" that unjust ruler. Theirs was a passive state of submission to the dominating culture.

Enlightened societies have understood that all people should have a voice and have a sense of empowerment when it comes to their government. This was our Founder's "formula" in the Declaration of Independence. Government was no longer to represent "God", or the "King", but the people.

In the light of limited power and limited government, I wonder if limiting terms in Congress would be a good idea? Would limiting terms to 6 or 8 years, and rotating state elections, where there would always be someone in power that has "been there", and had the experience to "inform" the "freshmen", who are new in the "halls of Congressional power". Would it not only limit Congressmen from building 'empires", legislating laws that promote their own personal interests, and get more people involved in serving their country?

Maybe I need to read up on the reasons why Congress was set to serve with unlimited terms of power. Is it a possibility that what has transpired today was never imagined in the past?