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.

Which Is It? Balancing Power or Abuse of Power

What is the difference in the balance or power or abuse of power?

The balancing of power is a horozonal view based upon separate functions, but equal distribution of power. Balncing power means that the separate branches of government are protected from conflicts of interest. Jefferson moved the Supreme Court from the Capitol building for this very reason. Balncing power is about democracy, and human rights, while abuse of power doesn't maintain that power is equally distributed. Power just is. And  unchecked power, or power without any limits makes for the "abuse of power".

Abuse of power is about hierarchal view of organizational structuring of society, or government. Such is the  Republican form of government that America was founded upon. The principle of leadership, that is
representative. We are a government "by and for the people".

Power is about money, position, influence, information, and knowledge. And such aspects of power are useful to protect the individual from those that might be unscrupulous in their use of power. Power can be represented by groups or an indivdual. But, groups that have collective influence, inside information and money, are the foudations of corrupt government. Corrupt government do not represent "the people", but themselves, in insider trading, protecting each other's backs and outright pay-offs and bribery.

In America, we have laws that protect "the little guy" from such corruption. Our very form of government is the "rule of law". We are  "a people" that is ruled by law and not a King/Divine. And the law is equally binding on every individual. It is what protects all of our interests, when we value "the rule of law" and its protections, because the law is to balance power and prevent "abuse of power".

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!

Upton Sinclair Quote

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Such is the problem with corrupt, good ole boy systems in government!

The Difference Between Our Founding Revolution and Today's

America was founded to establish a different environment for human flourishing. This environment allowed for religious freedom, as well as self-interested "gold digging". There was to be no Divine Right of Kings, meaning that no one was above the law. All were created equal and were given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leaders were no different from "Peasants" in our country's estimation! We were equal AND free!

Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.

Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.

Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?

Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".

Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?

Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.

I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?

"Commoners" for the "Common Good"...

My husband told me tonight on Glenn Beck, he disclosed that the way the redistribution of wealth will occur is using the stimulus money and re-defining poverty...

The stimulus money, it is reported will be used within the White House "councils"...possibly in the charge of one of the czars...I imagine. And the definition of wealth will be what one is able to buy, versus what another is not able to buy. So consumerism will promote prosperity with equal distribution, but at what costs?

Do those that have worked hard, bought second hand cars, and saved, deserve to be punished by such a policy? Maybe I don't understand what the total picture is, but it seems to me that creating personal wealth is forbidden UNLESS, one is part of corporate greed, that is.

Do NOT get me wrong. Corporations are not wrong in and of themselves, but when they play politics with policy of the American people, then our democracy suffers. And the people are left with little recourse but to "foot the bill"!

Corporate greed will play into the hands of stimulus monies this way so that consumers consume so that they will not be punished by punitive measures to alleviate class envy. And the religious will "call on the virtue" of their parishioners to "give blood" to the cause of the "common good", while the blood-letting will go on behind the scenes. And the end will be the alleviation of the "economic" crisis through ploys of manipulating public opinion through temporary "fixes" until after the election cycle.

So, instead of workers uniting, maybe us "commoners" should unite to protect our liberty before it is sold to the highest bidder and we have to pay for it.

Bribery and "Indiscretions" at the Height of Power

It seems that what was to be a 'western alliance" to defend liberty has become a defender of "peace at all costs".

The article was printed from "Antiwar.com". The address is: Article printed from News From Antiwar.com: http://news.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/26/is-london-conference-becoming-a-taliban-fundraiser/

Has bribery become the standard way to "get things accomplished" today? America has prided itself on being a country ruled by law, where individual had civil liberties and were not dominated by others whether through oppression from above or from money below. I guess the love of money IS the root of all evil".

America sees her government being corrupted by lobbyist that "buy" special regard and priviledge and the "common man" has ceased to care. The aristocracy could care less because it furthers their power and control to "do as they please".

And now, we see that worldwide "law" does not rule but money, power and position.

Last Night's Movie

Last night due to our son's recommendation, we watched 'The Changling'. It was about a single depression-era Mom loosing her son, and her attempt to recover him.

The experiences that she had with law enforcement officers reminds one of corruption "methods" wherever they are found in the world. The innocent suffer because others seek to protect thier reputations, "pad their pockets", or circumvent their "mistakes". In this case, it was the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department).

One begins to understand what some suffer due to those in power whose characters leave something to be desired. In fact, this movie shows to what extinct those in power will seek to protect themselves, while condemning others. A mother and son's relationship is one that most can identify with and Angelina Jolie and the rest of the "stars" did a fantastic job performing their parts.

The scary thing is, that this was a true story. The corruption of those who were meant to protect is not experienced by most Americans. And I will not spoil the movie for those who might want to see it, in describing how justice was served. But, it was something that makes the heart soar to see "right" win.

Today's Sermon and the Sociological

Today, I was researching sociological terms such as functionalism, neo-functionalism, conflict theory and intereactionism...Although I am just beginning to skim the surface of this knowledge base, it did bring much to light in my understanding and in my coming to terms with how I want to understand or approach ethics...

This morning my pastor's sermon was on stewardship. Stewardship is more than just tithing and coming to Church on Sundays. He did not formally use, but was using Romans 12:1, presenting one's body as a living sacrifice...stewardship is using one's gifting for "god's service" and seeing all of life as given and gifted by God, who is deemed to be worthy to recieve our offering of "life".

While I do not have anything against his message generally, I have written that stewardship can be an inverted greed, if one approaches one's "needs" and "grabs" what one can get. One wants to "save", so one consumes. Every virtue can become a vice. My pastor did reference boundary maintenance as one aspect of stewardship. This was a good balance of judgment in community.

Sociology is the study of social institutions and how they should work or function. Functionalism sees roles and functions as a necessary ingredient to proper order and maintanence to the structure. Religion is useful to maintain these structures through social sanctions and control. Functionalism deals with the social structure, but dismisses the distinct aspect of the individual.

Conflict theory understands that social structures will have conflict because of different interests of individuals or groups. This is understood to be a necessary part of social change. While functionalism would label individual difference as rebellion, conflict theory and neo-functionalism would affirm the importance of the individual difference.

While conflict theory could be understood within a functionalist frame (at least it seems to me), interactionist theory is more dynamically understood or oriented. This understanding is affirming the individual differences as symbolic interactions, where meaning making is an important communication "tool" in coming to terms with negotiating the different understandings of the parties involved. These understandings are due to a difference in conceptualizations.

My pastor's sermon was understood as the Church's function of bringing meaning out of individual life, through stewardship of that life in reference to God. God is understood as the means to attain one's fulfillment and purpose in life. I think that God is a useful means to maintain social control and organzational structuring for the end goals of those who have undestood their role or function as leaders within the organizational structure of the Church. But, being called to stewardship, does not mean that one uses their gifts within the Church's structure, as this limits seeing all of life and the world as God's domain. Therefore, whatever your hand finds to do, do it with gratitude toward god.

Personally, I am growing weary of the terms and usefulness of god as a means or an end. God has given and has gifted, but this should not be understood as special or directly interventional. No, God works within the natural systems of the world in government (leaderhsip), but that does not mean that the system is free from corruption or evil. We are called, as my pastor said, to work to see the corruption and evil taken out of the system. We are to work against any corrupt or evil systems. This is what goodness is and does.

O.K., So I Am A Slow Learner About A.C.O.R.N.

Our "favorite" Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has long term ties to A.C.O.R.N.

Obama became affiliated with this community organization, which helps distribute federal funds and ransom monies from big corporations, to poorer communities. They bring relief to the poor in housing, educational material, minimum wage reform and welfare reform. But, they also priviledge themselves.

Obama pressured banks to loan at subprime rates and this was how we begun to slide into this mess of a bail-out. It was reported that until monies that were allocated to A.C.O.R.N. were taken out of the bill, Republicans resisted voting for the bail-out. More, I'm sure is to come.

Because there is no governmental oversight in the distribution of these federal monies, almost 1 million was pocketed by the brother of the founder in 1999 and 2000, but everyone looked the other way, until a whistleblower in 2008!

They have also been involved with voter fraud. In Washington, 1800 voters were registered and only 6 were valid registrations. A couple of the voter registrators said that they sat in the library looking over records and recording the names making up the social security numbers. One said he sat at home and smoked "pot", while he thought up names!!!

This organization has been defended as a defender of just communities!

Whoever might read this blog, please goggle A.C.O.R.N. and find out what type of person is running for the White House!