From Every Mountainside

Frustrating

2010-07-20T10:30:00.002-04:00

It is frustrating to me when someone writes are tells me something they know I disagree with, and do not give me an opportunity to respond.

I recently received an e-mail signed "Your Critic". It had an e-mail address attached, so I responded. Unfortunately the e-mail address was evidently invalid and my response did not go through. I am going to include the e-mail I received here, and then my response. I do try to remain civil in these discussions, though that seems to be hard to find these days. I you know who sent this e-mail, please let them know of my response.

His E-mail:
Subject Line: 4 Restorations are required before jobs will be created.

It does not take a "Rocket Scientist" to determine that there will be no significant hiring of workers until company managers see some stability in their ability to calculate the cost of products and services along with the elimination of constant and unnecessary interference by Government.
1. President Obama and Democrat leaders must stop the verbal bashing of private enterprise in order for employers and their stockholders to believe that adding personnel will result in profitability. Currently, business feels that they are being treated as the wicked enemy.
2. Adding more and more regulations (like health care, energy penalties, environmental restrictions, financial reporting, affirmative action reporting, etc.) must cease so that employers can determine the financial impact on their hiring and expansion plans in order to determine if those plans could result in profitable products and services.
3. Proposed increases and changes to taxes and tax exemptions must cease so that businesses can determine if adding workers could result in profitable products and services.
4. The Government must cease from taking over and controlling industries like the automotive, "big oil" and financial. Forcing financial institutions to make ridiculous home loans, rescuing "too big to fail", subsidizing unfeasible energy industries, bailing out irresponsible "homeowners", etc. merely exacerbate long-term instability.
Sincerely.... your critic,
Big Head

My response:

Big Head Critic,

Thanks for your e-mail and chance to respond to it. It also doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that the policies you advocate, came very close to putting us in a second Great Depression.

It always amazes me how people who agree on so much and want so many of the same things, can look at what is happening and come to two very different conclusions.

The Democratic Leadership is not against private enterprise, and are not 'bashing' it. They simply want them to be responsible. It should not be the cost of the taxpayers to pay for the cleanup of the garbage created by private enterprise while they make millions. In fact, if you check the historical facts, you will find that private enterprise and the stock market has always done better under Democratic policies.

You have managed to confirm what I have been telling folks is my conclusion as to what the "TEA" in Tea Party stands for. I have decided it means, Take Everything Away. They do not want any regulations of industry, they do not want any laws to protect the environment, our safety, or out health, and they definitely do not want any programs that might help someone.

The 'bailout' of homeowners has been very restricted, and only to those who were behaving responsibly. The bailout of the big banks happened under GWB. The takover of the automotive industry was to save it, and the millions of jobs attached to it. Have you noticed that GM has already paid back the money used for them. Ford is reporting profits again, and Chrysler is almost solvent. Not a bad thing to do, seems to me.

I suppose you prefer subsidizing oil companies, who are already making record profits, as we did from 2000 to 2009. We should be in the front of clean and renewable energy sources, but we have been letting China get ahead of us.

You have the right to your opinion and criticism. And I have the right to disagree. Watch what happens and understand there are other ways of thinking, and no one is always right, rocket scientist or otherwise.

Sincerely,
Nelson Thomas

Georgia Governor

2010-01-05T17:24:00.003-05:00

I am glad to know that we will once again change governors of Georgia this year. There have been few things that Gov. Perdue has done to help the state.

However, I have been very disappointed in his record concerning education. His administration has cut around 1.5 billion dollars from the education budget. Yet there was lots of money for "GO Fish Georgia". I am certainly not against fishing. However, most people I have known did not need a lot of encouragement to go fishing. Certainly not a million dollar website. Most just want time and opportunity. Of course, maybe I have a different view since I live in a rural area with a lot of places to go fishing. Thanks to the USFS lands all around us.

We do have the chance though to make a choice that could affect the next several years in our state. We need to make it count. Make sure we choose a governor that looks to the future, supports education, and will work to bring more jobs to the state. Roy Barnes has a history of doing that. Dubose Porter is a good looking candidate, as is David Poythress.

We have almost a year to work for our new Governor. Check the candidates, make your choice, and work hard to get them elected.

Goodbye Teddy

2009-08-26T09:15:00.006-04:00

The youngest of the Kennedy brothers has now passed. His life was filled with ups and downs, though there is no doubt of his imprint on our country.

Certainly, today there are those who are pleased that they will not have to contend with Ted Kennedy. Though many republican candidates will miss the amount of money they were able to raise by using his name.

The consensus I have heard is that even his republican colleagues respected him for his hard work and ability to get deals completed. He has been acknowledged by many of them as the easiest democrat to work with. Though you would never know it from how they talked about him.

Even Pat Buchanan has been bragging on Ted Kennedy today and talking of how he considered him a good friend, even as they disagreed on most policies.

Most of my life I have followed politics. My first recollection of a presidential race is that of JFK and I remember staying up watching returns with my dad in 1960 (I would have been 7 years old) and how excited he was that JFK was elected. My mother still has a large framed picture of JFK (that I hope to get from her someday, though I am not sure how I will be able to use it). It was given to her by the state chair of the Georgia Democratic Party.

I am glad the Kennedy boys took a different turn from their dad, and am thankful for their contributions to our country. I will miss this generation of Kennedys. Of the next generation, we have already lost JFK Jr. I have great hopes for RFK Jr. He has already done some great work in the area of helping our environment. Caroline is also now becoming an eloquent spokesperson for the family. Of course, Maria Shriver has been active for years and is currently the first lady of California. I am sure this family will continue to be involved in the political landscape of our country.

Goodbye Teddy. With all your faults and with all your genius, you will be missed. Thank you for your service.

Finally 2009

2009-01-01T07:50:00.003-05:00

I don't like to wish my life away, though I have to admit that I am anxious for Jan. 20th of this year and have been for a long, long time. That is my daughter's birthday which is always a reason to celebrate. This year gives us another great reason.

For over 3 years I have had a key ring that has a countdown clock on it with the words "Bush's Last Day" emblazoned on it. The battery is failing and the numbers are getting hard to see, but the actualy day is quickly closing in. It isn't getting here fast enough for me, though I am beginning to believe we will make it.

There are many in our country that are concerned and unhappy about this change. I can sympathize with them, though I cannot agree or understand their concerns. It is hard for me to understand their worry of change after the policies of the past 8 years. It appears that everyone does not share all my opinions and values. At times, even as we agree on values, we disagree on how to best achieve the shared goal.

Whatever your opinion on this is, I wish you the very best in the coming years. I have a lot of hope.

Thomas Jefferson

2008-10-13T23:06:00.002-04:00

Thomas Jefferson is most closely associated with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. If that was all he had ever done, it would be a great service to this country. Of course, that was only the beginning of his contributions to the nation.

Jefferson has long been recognized as a brilliant mind and hard worker. The more you learn of him, the more amazing what he accomplished and created. All this done at a time without all the easy access to information as we have now.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States. There is much that can be said about him and for him. However, here I simply want to give a few quotes from him. I recommend you study some of his accomplishments when you can, along with those of all our founding fathers and those who followed. We have some great individuals in the short history of this country.

Let me start with the quote that is engraved inside the Jefferson Memorial:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Others to enjoy:

Determine never to be idle..It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing.

Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of the body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

It is neither wealth nor splendor, but tranquility and occupation which give happiness.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.

We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it.

We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.

If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

That is enough for now. Let's remember and move forward. Watch for the statesmen of today and listen for some words of wisdom.

Tax Plans

2008-10-06T16:34:00.010-04:00

This is from the Conservatives for Obama/Biden. It is an easy to read synopsis of the plans offered. It is good to remember that the increases on the wealthy only bring them back to the rates paid before George W. Bush. And they did fairly well under the Clinton administration, as did the country.

Drill what is already leased

2008-09-09T04:48:00.004-04:00

There has been a lot words used lately about drilling. The oil companies and GOP, at least the branch that is in bed with the oil companies, have been pushing and pushing for opening new leases. They want us to believe that it is necessary and will alleve our price concerns soon.

It is possible that part of the reason for high gas prices has been to encouraging and try to convince the public to support drilling in fragile areas. The pressure is on to open ANWR and other pristine areas. Most of those who are in the know will acknowledge that drilling in those areas will not significantly reduce our prices, or even keep up with our consumption needs.

There is something else that is not being in talked about enough. The oil companies currently have 68,000,000 acres of land already leased and ready for them to drill on. Almost half of that is in the Gulf of Mexico, or off shore. These lands have proven oil reserves waiting for the drilling to begin. So why all the fuss and moaning about drilling. It appears to be about the money again. Greed is an ugly thing.

I am an environmentalist. I am also a businessman, or at least have been most of my life. I do not believe it has to be an either or situation between the two. Everyone should want to protect our environment for the sake of our health, though many only want to if it doesn't cost them anything. I believe it is worth some time, some effort, and even some money to find a way to produce the goods we need and to keep our air, water, and communities clean.

Don't just take the word of the oil companies. And many of the studies you see supporting all this drilling and claiming its safety are funded by those oil companies who will profit most. Look around and find several opinions, then make up your mind. When you do, contact your representatives and voice you opinion.

Check your Facts

2008-08-18T13:56:00.006-04:00

It is another political season and the e-mails are arriving prolifically. Some will make you mad and others will make you say "See, I told you so." It would be great if the writers of all these e-mails were cognizant of facts and truth. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.

You can be almost completely sure that if a famous name is attached to a list of items, they did not actually write them. Most of these are made up and their name used to try and add an air of legitimacy. Some names commonly used for these e-mails are George Carlin, Andy Rooney, and the Dalai Lama, among others.

I have always maintained that everyone has the right to vote for whoever they believe is best. It may not be my choice, but it is their right to choose the same as it is mine. There are issues on which we will just plain disagree, and there is no way we can all be completely happy. There are other issues that we may very well agree on, but need to have the facts available to us.

One thing I strive very hard for is to find the facts and to learn the truth. It isn't easy, especially when we are talking politics. There are places to look though that will help you. Some concentrate on all those e-mails that you receive in your inbox. Others concentrate on trying to sift out the truth from the exaggerations in speeches and advertisements. Some are easily found to be partisan and will offer their spin along with the 'facts'.

There are some sites, however, that have been recognized as non partisan and have been recommended by people on both sides of the aisle. These include: http://www.snopes.com/, http://www.factcheck.org/, http://www.politico.com/ and http://www.truthorfiction.com/.

As you receive e-mails, or hear speeches that have you saying "I have to pass this on", please consider checking the validity of the claims before doing so. If your candidate or party is worth its salt, then it can stand based on facts. If they must use misinformation, exaggerations, and lies to make their point, then their point must not be very credible. Both sides do this to some degree. It is important to see who is doing it, how often they are, and on what particular issues they are utilizing it most.

Vote for your choice. But please make your choice based on as much truth and facts as you can possibly find. It is our country, our lives, and our freedoms that are at stake.

Party Switchers

2008-03-05T15:47:00.001-05:00

It is hard to have much respect for political party switchers. I’m not speaking of those independent voters who change depending on who the candidates are and what is happening in the world. I’m talking about those politicians who run representing one party and then change to the other.

I believe strongly in the philosophy of the Democratic Party - knowing the real strength of our country lies in the average citizen. Not every democratic politician adheres to this philosophy as strongly as I would like, though they usually do their best to work toward that ideal. We do have a long and effective history in this regard.

Any group that holds power for too long begins to lose some of their initial vision and start looking inward. That is why it is important to have two strong parties. Partisans work within their party to help them stay true to their beliefs. Swing voters and third party candidates periodically balance the power of each.

Several politicians have changed their political affiliation during their lives in public service. Some give compelling stories in efforts to explain their switch, while others have made excuses with little or no merit. A few cite some menial reason that makes them look petty. These changes happen most frequently when the balance of power has changed from one party to the other. So, it appears that most are simply striving to maintain their personal power, money, and/or influence. Whatever excuse they want to give, it is thinly veiled in those circumstances.

While some respect can be given to those who wait until the end of their terms to change and then run on the other party’s ticket, I have no sympathy for those who have who were elected on one party ticket and then changed to the other while in office. In either case, they have used the resources and votes of members from one party to reach a level of notoriety and position before taking that position and giving it to the other side.

It is my contention that all public servants have the right and duty to vote in whatever way they feel will best serve their constituents, district, state, and country. They are not bound to vote on anything just because their party leaders are supporting it. However, they have an obligation to support the party on whose ticket they were elected.

Our country deserves men and women of integrity running on both sides - those who believe in the best ideals of their party and will support that in their votes and actions. Men or women who switch their loyalty to maintain a position of power obviously have not set the bar of responsibility and truth telling very high. If they cannot be truthful in this regard, how can we count on them to do what is best for our country when it may threaten their personal position.

Signing Statements

2007-12-12T16:38:00.002-05:00

It is amazing to me that the American public has shown so little outrage at many of the things that have happened to our country over the past 6 years. I suppose some of it has been due to the constant rhetoric on many 'news' stations and talk radio speaking of 'war on terror', 'post 9/11 world', 'terrorists want to kill us', and other such sound bites. These stations, people, and efforts have covered up many of the acts that are destroying our rights, our historic position in the world, parts of our way of life, and altering the constitution.

What has happened to our media? Why are they not leading the masses in rising to oppose these outrageous instances. It has become increasingly biased, promotional, and definitely not liberal. There is very little real investigative journalism as most news organizations are more interested in providing entertainment than real news or hard facts. Most use the same news feeds to get their information, and are most often not sending their own people to get the story first hand.

Signing statements are one area that must be looked at closely. During the terms of the first 42 presidents only about 600 signing statements employed. Ronald Reagan used 95, George H.W. Bush around 121, and Bill Clinton around 220. George W. Bush has so far utilized this method to get around the laws he signed over 1100 times. That is almost twice as many as all previous presidents combined. (He has also borrowed more money from foreign countries - with the majority from China and India - than all previous presidents combined. But that is another story.)

Presidents during the 1980's and 1990's used a line item veto, which allowed them to strike through part of a law and veto only that section, while signing the rest into law. The Supreme Court struck this down as unconstitutional.

Signing statements are written statements the president or his staff writes and attaches to the law which says that he will follow or enforce one part of the law and ignore another. This appears to do the exact thing that the unconstitutionally declared line item veto did.

There should be outrage over this abuse. Perhaps the reason for a lack of it is that these statements have been kept under wraps for the most part and the American public have not known they were being used. The public saw the laws passed, heard they were signed, but did not hear about the signing statement. We need demand our congressmen find a way to stop this activity. These statements have the effect of changing the executive into the legislative. Congress must protect their powers that were bestowed by our constitution.

Habeas Corpus et. al.

2007-06-11T23:54:00.001-04:00

Nothing is more central to the rights of the citizens of the United States than habeas corpus. The actual term is well known, though I suspect many do not really know the meaning. If they did I believe they would have been raising bloody cane when the administration effectively removed it from our Constitution with the passage and signing of the Military Commissions Act.

Habeas Corpus literally comes from Latin and means 'you should have the body'. This writ is specifically meant to protect us from unlawful imprisonment. It is the fundamental right that protects us and guarantees the other rights in our constitution. It is the particular guarantee that we have the right to know the charges against us, the right to counsel, and the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. So how could we ever concede letting that right be taken from us?

Certainly, the Constitution includes a clause on particular times that the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended. Our founding fathers based this on the common law usage in England. This clause states 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when is cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'. We are not, and have not been, in a state of rebellion or invasion.

It is possible to think that this was necessary to insure our security and that it would not be used against our citizens. That would be wrong to do so however. There have been at least three US Citizens arrested on US soil and designated by President Bush as enemy combatants. These citizens were taken to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and held for up to three years without any contact to counsel or even knowing what their charges were. We are better than this as a country.

How many rights must we give up to protect ourselves. Habeas corpus? The right to privacy? We must raise our voices in unison and in union to make sure our constitutional rights are restored and protected. It is OUR republic and it is up to us to safeguard it from threats from within and from without. Those threats do not always appear to be frightening, and some of the most insidious are those that make us think they are for our own good.

When we give up our rights, what will we be fighting to protect? When we act like those who would terrorize us, how can we say we are better?

No one person and no one party loves this country, it's constitution, or it's institutions more than the other. There are individuals that are more passionate in their beliefs than others, and there are those that are more ambitious for personal glory than others. This isn't a party position. It is an American position.

Look at the results of what has been done and correct it. This is the greatest country known in history. Let us resolve to keep it so.

CEO Pay & Perks

2007-05-23T11:19:00.006-04:00

The subject of CEO pay is something that I hope is going to get a great deal of scrutiny over the next few years. And it will be for good reason. While I am certainly not against CEO's and believe they are hardworking individuals. However, the amount they are receiving as compensation is far out of line with the actual work they are doing, especially when compared to the average workers in their company.

There are many talented and productive CEO's in this country. I have had the privilege of meeting a few of them, at least in the medium sized corporations. There are also many that were in the right place at the right time, or had the right contacts to get them where they are. That doesn't mean they are not smart and capable. However, it may show that they are not so smart and capable that they have an ability far above many others. In fact, there are many working under them who could do as good a job or better if given the opportunity.

That said, I do believe that CEO's are deserving of extra pay and perks. They, for the most part, have to spend an inordinate amount of time on the job. They must give up much of their 'free' time to make sure everything is going right for their company. Often when they appear to be off the job, they are still on the job. Again though, the amount of their pay and bonuses have gotten out of line with their actual worth.

In the 1960's the average CEO was paid about 65 times the amount of the average worker. That has exploded to be almost 400 times the pay of the average worker today. In addition, the CEO has a wide array of extra perks, including huge retirement bonuses or severance packages. One that got a lot of press about a year ago was the CEO from Home Depot who was fired for poor performance and still walked away with over $200 million in severance. There should be responsibility for performance and these huge bonuses and pay packages should not continue simply because someone holds a position. There are times when a loss cannot be controlled by a CEO, then his performance must be evaluated on how he managed the company through that crisis.

The pay and perks are one aspect, but not the only one. There is also a subject of end of year, and sometimes end of quarter, bonuses. These have become so common that many CEO's that are managing companies losing millions of dollars are still getting huge bonuses, which only adds ot the losses of their company. They are doing this while cutting the pay and workforce of those working under them, at a much lower wage. Many times the foregoing of the bonus would have allowed the company to keep the workers and in turn help the economy continue in a better fashion.

These same CEO's that are being paid millions, being awarded huge bonuses, and losing money hand over fist in their business are often trying to say the problem is with the workers or just the times. They will say the workers are not producing enough and are being paid to much. If there is a union, then it is their contention that the union that is the problem. I suppose that they have been on on this gravy train so long that they have decided that they are entitled to this exhorbitant pay. That they possess something that is worth much more than all those people who are actually producing the product or service that is providing his or her salary.

Unions are not without blame completely, but they are also not the biggest problem. Unions were very necessary when they began. They were able to win a fair wage for their workers, and even for many that were not union members. They also were able to guarantee a safer workplace. As pay and safety increased they reached a point of needing to justify their existence. At this point they began to demand more than they may have actually deserved in many cases. However, that time has passed and the unions are once again needed to step forward and protect the worker and their jobs.

The safety and pay standards over the past few years have once again eroded to the detriment of the American worker. In addition, so many concessions have been granted to the huge multi-national corportations in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and more that we have lost most of our manufacturing to foreign countries. Many of these same American companies are still reaping the profits, but much of those profits are not taxed in the US and our workers are having to take lesser and lower paying jobs in an effort to survive.

We have much work to do to even the playing field again. We are getting back to the same type of economy that was characterized by the robber barons at the end of the 19th century. Only this time we haven't found a Theodore Roosevelt to break them up. And our most recent administration is helping them along.

There is a need to reign in the CEO pay and to return jobs to America. While CEO pay isn't the sole problem by any means, it is a symptom as well as an actual problem that needs addressing. We need manufacturing here as well for our long term security. This is an economic and security issue and one we must address as a nation.

This cannot be accomplished by one person or one party. It will take someone standing up and saying what is right for our country however. He or she must be willing to take the abuse they will receive while they are convincing others to join and save our jobs, our companies, our economy, and our way of life.

Spin

2007-04-26T11:01:00.000-04:00

Spin is what we once did with a top. Many of you remember the little toys we grew up with. Some were those mechanical ones that we pumped a little handle on the top until it was spinning fast enough to stay up on it's own. Others were small toys that we used a string on and threw it in front of us and on the ground to get it spinning. We also used to spin or twirl on swings and ropes as we would wind them up and let them spin us as they unwound.

Lately spin has taken on a completely different meaning, especially in the political world. It is a method of taking any information and spinning it to sound positive for your side. This is often done without regard for truth or accuracy, which is probably why it is called spin. It is practiced on both sides of the aisle, and everywhere in between it seems.

I'm not sure where the term 'spin' as used in our political discussions comes from. I could probably do a search and find out, or at least find two or three explanations. The one that comes to my mind is the old saying we had about 'spinning a yarn'. Of course, that came from the use of spinning wheels to take wool or other fibers and spinning them into a yarn to use in materials. Well 'spinning a yarn' means to take a basic idea or fact and embellishing it with all sorts of other information (true or not) and making a story out of it. This is good for entertainment, but not so good for a country that should base its existence on truth and freedom.

There isn't a lot of "The Buck Stops Here" mentality anywhere in the country anymore. Many will say it, but then there are no consequences for what happened. They don't change and it just blows over. They say the buck stops with them and then spin the discussion to explain why there wasn't any real wrongdoing.

I am not naive and know that there have been many cases in our history that required some embellishment to sway public opinion in order to take actions necessary to our existence. And I don't believe that we have to know every detail of things that are best left behind closed doors. However, the use of spin has become too much of an art used to promote a person, a party, or a single idea instead of doing what is best for the country as a whole. We seem to be only interested in what is good for me and not what is good for the country.

It has gotten to the point of protecting our own, no matter how heinous the offense. Only when overwhelming evidence is proven can any actions be taken to correct a situation. This is a country wide problem and happens from the bottom to the top. However, the higher up it goes the more people it affects. No matter what your party affiliation is, you should want unethical and criminal behavior to be stopped. And it should not matter whether they or one of 'our own' or not. If they are a member of our government, they are one of our own. We are all Americans and US citizens on both side of the political aisle.

Individually, we all have a desire to look good to others. We want to be seen as intelligent and capable. There is nothing in us that desires to be corrected for a mistake. Winston Churchill once said, "I am always ready to learn. Though, I do not always like being taught." So this desire to look good translates to actions to cover our backsides. We do not want to admit mistakes, much less take actions to correct them. Yet that is what should be done for the good of our parties and our country.

All sides need to take a hard look at what we are doing to the country. We need to stop dividing on every little issue. Choose the battles for the ones that are necessary and work together on the many that we already agree on.

I know that spin isn't about to stop. It will be used for good and bad for a long time to come. I would be happier if we could at least get the media to stop repeating the spin and start reporting on the facts.

Partisanship

2007-02-21T10:27:00.003-05:00

You have likely gathered that I am a partisan democratic voter. I believe in the platform and basic philosophy of my chosen party over that of the other.

Many people tell me they vote for the person and not the party. I respect that position and consider it a good philosophy in many instances. What I have trouble understanding are those who never vote. It is my opinion that the country needs a strong, two party system. One in which the power fluctuates and is, to a degree, shared. That tends to keep both parties more honest and responsive to the people. Too much power often corrupts even the best intentioned among us.

The balancing of power between the parties requires that there be partisans to keep each party running and swing voters who switch party votes depending on time and situations. State and national elections especially lead me to support my party. Even though our nominee may not have been my first choice, he or she has ascribed to the philosophy and platform of my party.

There are cases where candidates have ran for office in one party and switched while in office. That is anathema to my beliefs. I consider those people to be liars and (in some regards) thieves. They have taken money and votes from the supporters of the party in whose name they were elected to office, then changed affiliation while there. I would never vote for anyone who has done this, no matter which way they switched.

Partisanship has reached new highs in the last few years. While I am partisan, I believe in bipartisan governing. It pains me to see our elected representatives oppose good legislation simply because it was presented by the other party or support bad legislation because their own party developed it. Senators and congressmen/congresswomen need to look at all issues in light of how they affect our country and citizens. They need to govern on the basis of what is best for the country in the long run. It should not be based on which party presented the proposal or what it will do to them in the next election. They should have the integrity to vote their conscience and represent their constituents. Running our country in a way to plan for the next election cycle is creating less trust in our public servants. Run for your party and country, vote for country once elected.

Earmarks

2007-01-29T13:41:00.001-05:00

Earmarks are very much in the news right now. Congress is debating their use and how to control them. Earmarks is the newer term to use. It used to be known more as pork barrel spending.

Obviously this is nothing new. Each party tries to blame the other for overusing them. I read where Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill presented by a democratic majority congress in 1987 because it had too many earmarks in it - just over 100. In 2005, with a republican majority congress, George W. Bush signed a highway bill that he stated to be reasonable which included 6,371 earmarks.

It seems the problem with earmarks is whether they are being done by your own party or by the opposing party. I have a little problem with them altogether.

There are projects funded by these earmarks that are valid and needed. They should be funded and voted on. However, I think they should be able to stand on their own, be discussed or open for discussion, and voted on for their merits. I do not believe there should be anything attached to a bill that is not related to that bill. Too many unnecessary things have been pushed through by adding them to a good bill and passing on the strength of the main bill.

Both parties need to work to reduce these pet projects. I know which party has done the most with these earmarks, and it is the one that cries foul the loudest. Check it out sometime and see what you find. Then keep calling your representatives and senators and ask them to actually address this issue.

Districts and Redistricting

2007-01-27T21:25:00.003-05:00

We all live in various representative districts. There is the city and/or county district, state representative district, state senate district, and US Congressional district. These are prescribed by our US and state Constitutions. Each state or commonwealth is represented by two Senators and the entire country is represented by the president and vice president. Then there is the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and other statewide officeholders.

These districts are necessary to insure fair representation in our system of government. It took great fore-thought and planning by our founding fathers to construct this system. It took men with vision and a sense of fair play to see the necessity of setting up these several levels of representation. I suspect much of that came from living under systems that did not allow proper representation, along with studies of the Greek and Roman democracies. Many factors led to the great country.

The design of these districts, however, has strayed far from the original plan. The layout of our districts has been abused by both parties. It seems the one thing our US Representatives from each side of the aisle can agree on is to protect their own seat in congress once they are in office. So they gerrymander a congressional district to provide themselves the best chance of staying in office. The majority party at the time then attempts to lay out the various districts to best favor their own party. Many of our districts would take a Philadelphia Lawyer to halfway explain their reasons for lying the way they do, unless you just want to hear the simple truth. In fact, many times the redistricting plans end up in court to validate their design. This isn't always an impartial verdict anymore either, though it is usually better than the partisan legislatures.

I believe our districts should be constructed in a way that takes into account the populations required for the level of representation. Then it should be focused on putting towns and counties into a district that have a similar need and/or geographic connection. There is a requirement to have a certain amount of districts with a majority racial or ethnic makeup. This can be accomplished without skewing all the districts.

Many would call me naive to think this way, but I believe that districts that make sense will also work out for both parties in the long run. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate doubt in the power of your message and to show a distrust of the voters. Even the most gerrymandered of districts has fallen into the hands of the opposing party when the representative has not been faithful in their duties, the challenger presents a truly desirable alternative, or their party has shown a dereliction of their ability to govern fairly.

There is no good reason to have a small town that joins the North Carolina border in the same district as the second largest metropolitan area in the state, which is almost 200 miles away. Our legislators should learn to work together to form districts that make sense, or turn the process over to a non partisan board who can.

Economically Speaking

2007-01-05T11:46:00.003-05:00

Economic policies are among the most basic differences between the Democrats and Republicans. While there some on each side that lean toward the policies of the other, there tends to be a profound difference between the two. So it should not be surprising that these policies reflect the overall empahsis placed by each party on certain sections of our citizenry. It is my opinion that the differences began in the fight between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both great men of their time. While Thomas Jefferson is recognized as the founder of the Democratic Party, I believe that John Adams was the forerunner of the Republican Party.

Thomas Jefferson named his party the Democratic Republican Party, or the Party of the Common Man. John Adams argued for only allowing landowners to vote while working on the Constitution. While that is a simplification of some very complicated men and their thinking, it does illustrate where they wanted to place the most power and wealth - either with the average person or with the wealthier citizens and businesses.

History shows that the overall economy tends to perform better under Democratic policies. While I knew that the average citizen is better off under Democrats, I was surprised to see that the stock market also tend to perform better under Democrats as well. Check out this article from Edward Jones:

http://www.edwardjones.com/cgi/getData.cgi?file=/pdf/media/Politics.pdf This shows the averages from 1901 to 2006. Democrats do better with stocks, while Republicans do better in controlling inflation. I would like to see a corresponding record of income and job rates. My experience has shown a higher unemployment rate under Republicans.

Certainly there are differences between different Democratic administrations and differ Republican administrations. These reflect the attitudes of the individual in charge as well as the differing factors when each came to power. However, there are some basic ideals that each has a tendency to demonstrate. Democratic economic policy leans to providing an environment where an average person can have a better chance to increase their income and standard of living. We believe in progressive tax models, not to penalize the wealthy but to give greater opportunity to those on the lower end of the pay scale. We also support small businesses, which create about 80% of new jobs. Under Republican administrations there are a few wealthy citizens and corporations that become far wealthier, while under Democrats the majority of citizens do better though the top percentage of income earners do not build their wealth in the exponential numbers they do under Republicans. Democrats tend to be a ground up party and Republicans top down. We do not believe in trickle down, but in building up.

History has shown us that when there has been an extended period of Republican economic policies, there has occurred either a recession or a depression. It happened in the 1970's after Nixon and Ford, again in the 1980's after Reagan, the Great Depression of the 1930's followed Hoover, and the 'Panic' of 1893 came after Benjamin Harrison. The current administration has placed in motion the worst economic policies since Herbert Hoover in my opinion. We have seen the greatest redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy since the 1920's. We have also watched their policies create an environment that has produced the greatest export of wealth ever from the United States to foreign countries, esp. China and the middle East.

At the end of WWII corporations paid approximately 52% of all taxes in the US. Today they pay around 7%. While I do not believe in taxing a company out of business, I also do not believe in rewarding them while hurting our overall economy. In the first year of the George W. Bush administration new regulations were enacted that allowed multi-national corporations, such as large oil companies, to create shell companies in Bermuda and other areas to shield up to approx. 40% of their income from US taxes. On top of this they were given huge cuts in their tax rates and then many of these same companies began receiving large tax rebates and other incentives. This took a large amount of money away from the US Treasury.

In the 1960's the average CEO made approximately 30 times what the average worker in their company made. Today that CEO makes a little more than 400 times what an average worker makes. In other words, the average worker has to work almost a year and a half to earn what the CEO makes in one day. These exhorbitant incomes need to get back in line somehow. It is a drain on the companies they run and on the economy as a whole. It has even got to the point where executives that produce losses are still given multi-million dollar bonuses and salaries. Nothing seems to be based on performance and I do not believe anyone is worth what some of these men are making.

There is coming a time that we will pay for these excesses and I don't believe it is far off. The economy is not as strong as many people want us to believe. Too many people are out of work and too many people are not making enough to cover their living expenses. As gas prices continue to rise it is putting a further strain on the budgets of most Americans.

I do not wish bad times on our country or our citizens. I do believe harder times are coming though and I only hope it starts before Bush leaves office so most people will know where this problem started. That being said, I believe it is very important that our Democratic and Republican legislators begin working together for the good of the country. The economy has always been a complicated system and it is even more so now. It is imperative that we have the best minds from both sides working together to solve these problems.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

2007-01-02T13:06:00.000-05:00

The Christmas Holiday season has just passed. It is a wonderful time of year and has long been associated with an increased level of cheer and goodwill with most people. It has also been a time of deep depression for a few, as they battle loneliness and separation from loved ones at a time that they believe should be the most happy time of the year.

It has now become a new battlefield for the people who continue to try and divide our country. There is a drive to try and define a war on Christmas. It is unbelievable to me how some people will use anything to drive a wedge in the country. This is a non issue as far as I am concerned.

As I have told you before, I am a Christian. I believe Jesus came to earth, lived, died, and rose again to save us. Christmas is the celebration of that fact. It likely wasn't on December 25th that he was born, and wasn't even likely that it was in December. Since the shepherds were watching their sheep in the field, it was more than likely warmer months. The celebration date was set much, much later. However, that does not change the reason for the celebration. The reason for the season.

Approximately 83% of US Citizens are Christain, according to the most recent polls. That is an overwhelming majority of our citizens. Certainly, they are of differing denominations, but still christian. Our founding documents and the constitutions of our states refer to God. Many of our principles of governing came from the Judeo Christian traditions. We are free to worship openly. We can minister in all areas of our great country. We advertise, we meet, we send newsletters and information through the USPS. We use e-mails to pass along information without any interference. We are able to travel to any country in the world as long as we have some type of relationship as a country to work as missionaries and to promote our faith. We probably have the greatest freedom to worship in this country of any country in history. Still, some want to say we are being persecuted.

It must be in the psyche of some people to have to feel they are being persecuted. Finding people that do not agree with everything you say and do is not persecution. I think much of this posturing is used to sway opinions and to prey on the faith of individuals. To create anger against someone or something. Not very Christian sounding though.

Everyone in this country is not Christian. I want to pray for them. I want to help them. I want to help them find what I have found, and I cannot do that by only condemning them. God has said that He would that all should be saved and none perish. I am proud that there has been and is a separation of church and state in this country. I believe that is more important for the church than it is for the state. That does not mean that there is no religion at all within the state. It only means that our government will not establish a religion as the religion of the state. However it also means that we will protect the rights of our citizens to worship freely and without interference from the government.

Christmas itself has become more of an event for most to buy more things than a true worship time of Jesus Christ. I am guilty of enjoying this part of Christmas as well. I have enjoyed Santa Claus and all that goes with that. I love the Christmas lights and decorations. I love hearing from friends and loved ones through the Christmas Cards. I love giving and receiving gifts.

I also love to get to a quiet time and reflect on what this holiday is really about. I have tried to read the Christmas Story from the Bible for my children over the years on Christmas Eve. Sometimes we have gone to Christmas Eve services.

Now I am being told by some people that if I say Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings that I am being un-Christian. I don't believe that. And every business I have heard being targeted for boycotting for having a sign out that uses one of those phrases, has also had Merry Christmas in their stores as well. If I say have a good holiday during Christmas, it means Merry Christmas too. I use all these greetings during the Christmas Season and it takes absolutely nothing away from my faith to do so.

The premise behind this conservative media driven idea is completely wrong in my view. They say that 'these people' are taking Christ out of Christmas. No matter what you to do, not do, or say, you cannot take Christ out of Christmas. Christ is Christmas. The Christ I believe in is all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent and omnipresent. We have no power to take him out of any day. He will always be there no matter what anyone says. The over commercialization of Christmas is a bigger threat to the real meaning of Christmas than someone saying Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings. At least they are acknowledging the season for a time of greeting and goodwill instead of promoting it for the purpose of profits.

Pro What?

2006-12-22T11:26:00.004-05:00

Twice in my lifetime the Democratic Party, or it's leaders, have done something that helped the Republicans to gain power. I am not talking about gaining power for one election, for there are many factors that affect a single race. What I am meaning is an act that allowed a long term shift in alliances.

The first one was done for all the right reasons. It was a moral victory for our country, even as it alienated many of our former supporters. This act was passing the Civil Rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson. Until that time the south had been solidly Democratic.

I grew up during the time of segregation and did not really see the problem with it. Now I also grew up in a very rural area of the north Georgia mountains. I still live in the same general area, though it is much less rural and certainly not as isolated as it was in those years. At that time there was one African American family that lived in our area, so any race relations on an elevated scale was non existent. The times I would hear of it or see it was on our TV or when we traveled to Atlanta or another city. Still I was very young and understanding things mainly as my parents and other family members did.

Looking back however, it is easy to see that this was the right thing to do. It was the morally right thing to do and it was the Christian thing to do. There had been a long era of oppression and this was a necessary step to correcting that. There have been zealots on both sides that have abused the steps we have made, but on the most part we have moved forward. There remains some simmering distrust among many citizens, though it is not so pronounced as it once was.

The Republicans took advantage of this split in our country during the 1960's and the first show of this was in 1968 with the election of Richard Nixon. The rallies for him had the very people that had always been at the Democratic Rallies heretofore. This does not mean that the Republicans were any less charitable than the Democrats, but they saw their opening and took advantage. It was their chance to let the Democrats take full credit for what needed to be done, while they could pick up the opposing voters.

The second time we capitulated voters was in the 1980's when we effectively signed on to slogans created by the Republicans. Our leaders in their attempt to appear more intellectual took a side that most of their party did not even take. And many have continued that until today - Bill Clinton being the best example of one who did not sign on completely.

This divide came from the use of only four (4) words - Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. While this is a false choice, our Democratic leaders chose their side and we have lost many things because of it. The truth is that everyone is Pro-Life. Ask if anyone is Pro-Death and you will get a confused stare. The difference is where we make our stand in supporting the privacy of our citizens and the laws of our country.

Pro-Life does not mean anti-abortion and Pro-Choice does not mean pro-abortion. Now it does to many very sincere people and I respect that position. However, if you check the overall population you will find that this simply is not true. The majority of Americans say that abortion should be legal, but restricted. This answer is true from either Democrats or Republicans - with only about 3 percentage points separating them.

When someone asks me if I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, my answer is "Yes". I do not believe in abortion myself and would not want either my wife, my daughter, other family, or friends to have one. When we found ourselves pregnant as we approached the age of 40, our doctor offered to perform a test to see if our new baby might have Downs Syndrome. We declined the test as it would make no difference in what our decision would be. We would let God take care of that end and we would take care of the baby as best we could. Thankfully, everything was fine.

I do not believe that everyone has to believe the way I do though. I believe the only way we can ever stop all abortions is to convert the person from the inside out. If we make abortions illegal, then we will go back to what was happening before Roe v Wade. The wealthier ladies will have illegal abortions in the back offices of sympathetic doctors and the poorer ladies will be scarred for life or dying in back alleys having had an abortion performed by someone completely unqualified.

It has always struck me as odd that people that claim their moral outrage and pro-life status gives them the right to kill those working at clinics. There is some part of Pro-Life that they have not completely addressed.

Bill Clinton ran as Pro-Choice, but not in those terms. He always maintained they should be safe, legal, and rare. At a rally where the people cheered when he mentioned supporting legal abortions, he admonished them that this was not something to cheer about. While most will not give him credit for it, abortions declined by over 300,000 per year from the time he took office until he left. There were many reasons for this, including a good economy and education.

President Bush's wife and mother are on record saying they did not believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Yet he ran two terms saying the opposite. I noticed that it has not been overturned yet and that he did not sponsor any serious legislation to do so. Even though he had a Republican congress for 6 of his years in office that passed almost every single piece of legislation he asked for.

There are a large number of Independents, Republicans, and even Democrats that believe completely that abortions should be outlawed. Many have voted for Republicans on this one issue, even as they disagreed on almost every other issue. They are sincere and their opinions need to be listened to. However, at this time they are still the minority in the country.

The Republicans have played this card well for over 20 years now. But they have not changed the policy. It seems for those in high office this issue is better as something to run on than it is as something to be fixed. So what are they really Pro for. Maybe getting elected and reelected.

Taxes

2006-11-09T16:58:00.001-05:00

Arthur Godfrey had one of my favorite lines in regard to taxes. He said, "I am proud to pay my taxes. Though I could be just as proud for half the money."

Much is said about taxes and most not in a positive line. There is a lot of misunderstanding on what taxes are, who pays them, how much, and where. Most of this lack of knowledge is intentional and other is just a lack of interest in learning.

Taxes are how our government operates. Without taxes it would falter and fold, just the same as all of us. The income of the government has increased in huge multiples, yet still they manage to spend more than is brought in. For years that shortfall was addressed with other taxes and by selling some type of government bond. However, the George W. Bush administration has opted to postpone the payment of their excesses to future generations. Instead of addressing the problem, they have borrowed money from foreign governments (more than all 42 presidents before him combined). So our children and beyond will be paying off the deficit, plus the interest, with so much of that money going out of the country and not helping our own economy.

So taxes will be a part of our life. They are an investment in our country and we want our representatives to spend that money wisely. That doesn't appear to be the prevailing view in Washington, or Atlanta. This money is to be used for services, defense, and other necessary operations, as well as helping other countries and people who are unable to help themselves.

There are changes that should be made to our tax system. It is unlikely that it will ever be constructed in a manner that everyone would think is fair. However, it can be made to be more fair than it is now. I believe the tax system should be some form of progressive tax. As it says in the book of James, 'To whom much is given, much is required'. This can be financial, talent, or work ability. It has gotten out of hand over the years with everyone paying more and more of their income for taxes. There needs to be a reckoning to bring things in line.

Under the current administration the tax burden has shifted dramatically with the middle class carrying an ever heavier burden. This has been accomplished on two fronts, one that was most openly debated. The one most people know about is the tax cuts, which he keeps wanting to make permanent. More than 3/4 of this tax break went to the richest 1% of our citizens, with the rest sharing less than 1/4.

This is a giveaway to the rich and did very little to stimulate the economy. Studies have shown that every dollar tax break given to people making more than $100,000 per year results in a $0.25 return per year. However, every dollar tax break given to those making $50,000 or less a year gives a return of $7.00 per year. If he really wanted to stimulate the economy, the percentage of tax breaks would have been reversed.

The more hideous and unreported giveaway was to the most profitable, multi-national corporations. These companies are allowed to set up shell companies in the Caymans and other areas in order to report less than half their income inside the US. In addition, the tax rate was lowered and in many cases tax rebates and assistance were given to these same companies. It has been an outright travesty.

Many people are touting the (un)Fair Tax as the way to go. To really discuss that will need another post. In the meantime, I recommend that you go to FactCheck.org to check out an article called Unspinning the Fair Tax. This is a pretty good and fair look at the proposal so you can get a basic overview to consider. Fact Check is not a left wing operation either. It is the site recommended by VP Cheney in the debates during the 2004 electon.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

We are told over and over that the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes. That is simply not the case. They do pay a larger dollar amount per person, yet they still have a much larger dollar amount left after taxes. Before Bush those making more than $100,000 per year paid roughly half of the income taxes, and those making less paid roughly half. This is from the IRS figures. Those numbers have come down for the wealthier part of our citizenship over the past 6 years.

When we discuss this issue, it will help if we use real numbers and at least attempt to talk with facts and not myths. This issue will produce a lot of rhetoric, most of it misleading and much of it false. Look deep and search for the truth.

A Free Press

2006-10-21T12:34:00.000-04:00

A free press is one of the foundations of our country. It is imperative that we have a free and responsible press. Thomas Jefferson once said that if he had the choice of government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would take the latter.

The idea and ideal behind a free press is to have informed citizens. However, when the press begins to shade the news and coverage thereof to promote a point of view, a party, or an ideology it ceases to be a free press. Everyone in this country has the right to free speech and to have their voices heard. When our 'news' reporting entities become mouthpieces for the people they are supposed to be covering, our right to a free press has been violated.

This is what has been happening for years. There have always been instances of this, but it has gained momentum and corporate control has increased since the mid 1980's when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. From that point to this there has been an increase in the ownership of news outlets by corporate conglomerates. This ownership has changed the news and how it is presented. It has in fact become the news at times.

It is my belief that we have a crisis in our news at this time. We have people who lean left (philosophically) listening almost exclusively to left wing speakers. We have people who lean right listening almost exclusively to right wing speakers. Most of the country lies in the middle and leans one way or the other. We do not have many outlets that report news in that manner any more. If we are to bring our country back together, we must get more of this type of reporting.

As with most important things in history, this will likely be led from the grassroots up and not from the top down. The top likes to have control of all information. They can then sway opinion to support what they have already decided. The people are the ones that suffer when there isn't a fair and honest dialogue in our country. We should talk with our local papers, our local radio stations, and our local television stations to enlist their help in presenting all sides to discussions. And we must continue to use alternative media to get that message out.

We have many important issues to face in the coming years. There will be hard times and there will be good times. If we are to survive those hard times, we must decide to work together for the common good of our citizens. We must decide to start a dialogue that addresses issues honestly. And we must demand fair treatment for all from our press. It will not be easy, but it is impossible if we do not try.

Judicial Activism

2006-10-10T11:05:00.000-04:00

Judicial activism is a term that has had a lot of use over the past several years. It is a sound bite used as a effort to convince voters to vote a certain way. Sound bites have become a common method of trying to influence opinions. In many cases those sound bites have been very effective, even when they are giving an erroneous view of what policies actually are being advocated.

Exactly who or what constitutes judicial activism, and who decides. The answer to that question depends a lot on which side of a particular issue you are standing on. The inference we hear most in regard to this term is that the activist judges are those that have a liberal leaning. It is inferred that they are trying to change the constitution. Those making the accusations like to refer to themselves as 'originalists'.

The term originalist is a calculated attempt to convince everyone that they are interpreting the constitution in the same way as those who wrote the document. They want us to believe that they are neither adding anything to or taking anything away from this basic document of our republic. However, when you look at their opinions it seems somewhat out of line with the freedoms and rights that our founding fathers promoted for our new country. Those founders of our country left room knowing that times would change, opinions would change, and events would change. They wanted a document that gave some leeway while still protecting our most basic rights and the tenets we hold dear.

This country was established with the power of governing to be shared between three branches of government. The executive branch was the President and Vice-President, the legislative consists of the senate and house of representatives, and the judicial of the various federal courts ending with the Supreme Court.

The duties of each branch can be basically explained as follows: the Executive carries out federal laws, recommends new ones, directs the national defense and foreign policy, commands government, and does ceremonial functions. The Legislative is charged with passing new laws, originating spending The judicial branch was charged with intepreting the laws and insuring that they adhere to our constitution.

There are ample instances of each branch overstepping the bounds of their constitutionally prescribed duties. The Executive has often stated their own interpretation of the constitution in regard to laws passed. Sometimes this has been upheld by the courts and other times it has been overturned. The legislative has attempted to go around the judicial by prescribing not only the laws, but the mandatory punishment - without regard to all circumstances. And the judicial has at times been too strict or too lenient in their sentencing. And all have at one time or another crossed the other two branches.

The fact is that we have an imperfect form of government. It is only better than everything else out there. We, as citizens, are charged to protect this government. We must keep it in check and make sure that it responds to the needs of it's people and that it follows our constitution. We must not give up our hard fought freedoms, and we must not let those freedoms lead us to become a country of scoundrels and scalawags.

We have a system to protect our courts. The judges are appointed and the district judges and above must be confirmed by the senate. They can also be impeached if found guilty of wrongdoing. We need to remove judges that are incompetent. However, we must not base this on political opinions. This needs to be based on the best facts we can find. Don't change our government and constitution, change those that need changed within the government.

And don't use soundbites to subvert what should be a serious discussion.

Our Environment

2006-10-09T18:31:00.000-04:00

The idea that anyone would be against a cleaner environment is foreign to me. It has been proven that clear air, clean water, and pristine lands make us healthier. More pollution leads to more illnesses for us, our parents, and especially our children. I do believe that in the hearts of everyone there is a desire for a clean planet. However, many get sidetracked by issues they believe to be more important at the time. Issues like money. They will address it as other names such as jobs, services, lifestyles, or the economy, but it boils down to money. And not money for everyone, but for a select few.

I was lucky enough that the time I grew up, and the place I grew up in, was a place that had more land than people, mountain beauty, clear skies, and clean water. I still live in the same general area. It is still cleaner than most, though not the same as what I grew up with.

Living in the mountains gives us the advantage of being at the headwaters, meaning the streams and rivers in the county originate in the county. The county I live in, and the counties surrounding it, has more US Forest Service land than private land. Because of that we are the source of many streams and rivers that eventually become major water suppliers and navigational streams. Here they are still very clean. They aren't as pure as they were before so many people built houses on small tracts of land, but still pretty clean. After they go past several cities and towns, the water is not quite so clean. In fact, many of the rivers become very polluted.

I was born in the 1950's and when I was very young there was not a lot being said about pollution or the environment, especially in my part of the world. In the 1960's there became an awareness of the problems, and some of the sources. Several books were written and many activists started making a stand. People that lived and worked in areas that the damage was most profound began to make noise for change. Still that change is hard to come by when those in charge of much of the pollution realize it will cost them to clean it up. It takes a while for some of them to realize that not doing anything will cost even more. The costs of cleaning can be passed on and recovered. The costs of not doing it can mean lost lives that can never be recovered.

There were many environmental laws written in the 1970's. As a result, our environment had made many recoveries, and in other cases was at least getting worse at a slower rate. There is always more that needs to be done, but any improvement is better than nothing. The mountains I live in are no longer as clear as when I was younger. There are days that they are crystal clear, especially after a good rain. And there are days that I cannot even see the mountains that are less than 10 miles away, especially in the summer. The air pollution comes into us from cities near and far, some from as far away as 500 or 600 miles away.

The current administration has dismantled or weakened environmental laws passed in the 1970's and over the 30 years since. When the law could not be weakened or removed, they simply put someone in charge that would not enforce the provisions of that law. What should be an American solution to a world problem has become a point of difference based on political affiliation. Not completely, but in many regards. The party that gave us Theodore Roosevelt as president has gone almost completely away from his vision. They have taken the stand that nothing should stand in the way of more profits for the corporations. Not even the costs of cleaning their industries so that our environment and our citizens can be healthier. It does not have to be a choice of one or the other.

Not everyone in the republican party feels this way and not everyone in the democratic party is concerned over the environment. As a general rule however, the policies of the democratic party during the last 40 + years have been more helpful to environmental concerns. I would like to see that equalized between the parties as it is a problem and an opportunity for all. The state of the environment should be important to you whether you are a tree hugging environmentalist, a gun toting hunter, a hard core fisherman, a hiker and/or a backpacker, a boater, a canoist, or just someone who enjoys the scenery as they travel about. It should also be important to you if you want your children and their children to enjoy the things we are able to.

The environment is very important to me. The outdoors is where I spent much of my youth and where I go to refresh and rejuvenate my mind, body and soul still. I had grave differences with the Reagan administration due to these issues. Even that administration did not hit the level of this administration. I did not expect George W. Bush to be overly friendly to the environmental cause, but I was completely surprised and disappointed in the adversarial policies he pursued. It became a full attack on our existing environmental laws, and by extension on our environment.

We have had proposals called "Healthy Forests Initiative" that calls for building thousands of miles of roads into wilderness areas to allow timber companies the opportunity to clear cut virgin forests at a loss to taxpayers. This is offered even though the companies are not losing money currently. Forests are a renewable resource that with stewardship many companies are able to supply our needs by regrowing trees on property already opened for the timber industry. We have a "Clear Skies Initiative" that allows thousands of tons more pollution (including the very dangerous pollutant of mercury) than is allowed in current laws and postpones enforcement of public health standards for smog. This administration has also tried to remove Clean Water Act protections from up to one fifth of our streams, lakes, and wetlands. It is already unsafe to eat the fish caught in many of our lakes and streams.

I believe strongly that we have the obligation to do all we can to protect our planet. I also know we have to be pragmatic and continue to be able to live and work. We must also protect our country. All these things are not impossible to do together. It takes time, thought, lots of work, cooperation, along with strong and creative leadership. It is critical that we work on this now. It is important for our citizens, our companies, our economy, our government, and our lives.

Torture is Un-American

2006-10-06T13:03:00.000-04:00

Torture is something that I have always thought of as being done by other countries. There are some countries such as England, France, and Spain that have done so in the past, but have changed their policy to reject those activities. It is something that I was sure that America had moved beyond and I expect the large majority of Americans would say an emphatic no to allowing.

It has historically been the position of the United States that we will not do it, condone it, or allow it when in our power to prevent. So why are we having a national discussion on whether we should allow torture, or allow one or two people decide what constitutes torture? What has changed in our country to cause normally merciful peoples to say it may be okay? Is it some great and widespread sales job that has caused many of our citizens to disregard their beliefs in human rights or to ignore their religious beliefs and not rise up in defiance of those that would change our national moral code. Torture is not some vaguely indescribable activity. There are many forms of torture from physical to mental. Some can leave permanent scars, injuries, or even end in death. All forms will affect the one receiving it, and often the one administering it, for the rest of their lives. Any reasonable person can decide pretty quickly when an activity of interrogation crosses the line from serious or aggressive to torture.

Our country has been a part of, and in fact been the main supporter and writer of, treaties that prohibit the use of torture. We have most likely always had some overly enthusiastic or even cruel individuals that would cross that line in an effort to get information quickly. History has proven that most information acquired in this manner is unreliable. And when those people conducting that type of interrogation were discovered, they were dealt with.

It is beyond my understanding that any leader in this country would even approach this subject as a possibility. For anyone to argue that terrorist suspects are not subject to the articles of the Geneva Convention and therefore can be dealt with in a manner less humane seems incompehensible to me. We have fought hard to set the standard of humane treatment for prisoners of any war. In the last few years, it seems we have given up that leadership in the name of protection. This is not protection or security, but a long term way to have even less security. This says much more about us than it does about those who are against us.

I do believe in protecting our country, our interests, and our citizens. I believe we must do everything possible to insure that protection. I do not believe that giving up the very standards that set us apart from the cruelty of evil nations or peoples is insuring us of any type of security. It is a step toward our own destruction.

There is ample proof in our history of times and peoples that conducted torturous activites. Yo can look at the history of slavery and the treatment of the indians or native americans for examples. Because of that we did write laws, create agencies, enforce treaties, and more to insure the safety of our citizens as far as possible and the humane treatment of all those we have held as our prisoners.

Whether we actually torture a person or allow other countries to do so, we are the ones that pay the price. We pay it in the respect we receive throughout the world and we pay for it in the loss of national morality. Lets stop the discussion about torture. Just say no and treat everyone we hold as we would wish our soldiers to be treated if captured. It is the American way to be better than those who would do us harm.

Blue State? Red State? Purple Nation?

2006-10-01T09:41:00.000-04:00

I am so tired of hearing the terms 'blue state' and 'red state' in referring to different parts of our country. This has been going on for several years now and it is something that is completely false and irrelevant. It is a media and party driven division of our country, and there has been too much division of our country already. It needs to stop.

The only time this designation is truly valid is during elections, and basically only during presidential elections. It is a way to keep track of how the electoral votes are going. The rest of the time it is a false portrayal of our country and our states. Certainly there are states that tend to lean republican or democrat, but there are none that are exclusively one party states.

In my part of the country there are blue skies, blue ridge mountains, blue waters, green leaves in summer, red, gold and brown leaves in fall, red skies in the evening or morning, gray rocks, red dirt, and a myriad of other colors. Yet the media says I live in a red state. That is based solely on how the state as a whole has voted in recent presidential elections.

Georgia was a democratic state when I was growing up . In today's vernacular, it was a solid blue state. There was not a republican governor in the state until 4 years ago. But we did not call it blue. Even when it was so strongly democratic in it's overall vote, there were a large number of republicans in the state. Many of them were my friends and relatives.

Now the media, pundits, and political parties refer to Georgia as being a 'red' state. But I go to democratic meetings with large numbers of Georgia residents that claim to be democrats. Our local elected officials in Union County are democrats. Our state representative is a democrat. We have been outnumbered in recent state and national elections, but there are still a lot of us here.

If you go through the votes of the last several elections and mix the red and blue colors by the numbers voted, you will find something interesting. There will be pockets that are pretty solidly red and pockets that are pretty solidly blue. Overall, though you will find that almost the entire nation will look purple.

This color designation of states is certainly not the worst thing happening in our country. It is, however, another symptom of the divisions that have been promoted over the last 20 or 25 years. Those divisions are much older than that, but they have been exacerbated during this stated time. Our citizens are not one issue citizens any more than any party is a one issue party. Our country is also not a one party country. For our country to be its best, it needs a strong two party system.

The two parties have taken ever widening positions on a national level to rally what they consider to be their base. They need to reconsider what their base really is. When the majority of the country is moderate on most issues they need to look at them carefully. They should not abandon their core beliefs, but they should look for those areas where they can lean just a little less left or right without losing their integrity.

When the election is over, the sharpest divisions should also be over. Those elected are chosen to represent all the citizens of their district to the best of their ability. Naturally, some constituents will never agree with many positions of their elected official. However, they should feel that they could contact those officials about their concerns and have those concerns taken seriously.

The elected officials should spend more time on government of the people, by the people, and for the people and less time campaigning and raising money for their next election. Our media and officials can help by declaring all states in the country 'red, white, and blue'. At least for a day or two.

Patriotism or Nationalism

2006-09-25T10:11:00.000-04:00

Patriotism is a good thing for any country. The pride of being a part of a country and believing in that country enough to put your own life in danger to protect it, or even to lay down your life to preserve that country's government. It is an amazing and wonderful thing. If it were not for outstanding patriots in our past, there would be no United States of America now. When I say outstanding patriots, I mean those you know by name and those everyday heroes that you may never know. They are all outstanding.

Much has been said about patriotism since 9/11/2001. There has been great emphasis on this notion, and some overzealous and misguided rhetoric on who and what is patriotic. I think we need to take a closer look at patriotism and what it means. I believe there is a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. Patriotism is very good and necessary for a country's long term survival. Nationalism is such an extreme case of patriotism that it begins to overlook the common good that is the benchmark of a country. A lot of people like to use this quote from remarks Senator Carl Schurz made to the Senate on Feb. 29, 1872, "My country right or wrong." However, they need to remember the entire quote, "My country right or wrong; when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be set right." There is a huge difference between the two, and a difference that those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create this republic would say is critical.

It would be helpful to give some objective definitions of the two main words being discussed here, along with definitions of a couple of other words that relate. Webster's New World Dictionary defines Patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country". Their definition of Nationalism is: "1. a) devotion to one's nation; patriotism b) excessive, narrow, or jingoist patriotism; chauvinism. 2. the doctrine that national interest, security, etc. are more important than international considerations". The definition of Jingo (jingoist) is "a person who boasts of his patriotism and favors an agressive, threatening, warlike foreign policy; chauvinist". Finally the definition of Chauvinism is: "1. militant, unreasoning, and boastful devotion to one's own country; fanatical patriotism; jingoism. 2. unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt to other races, the opposite sex, etc."

The initial reaction to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 was to come together as one nation. We declared to ourselves and to the world that we were committed to protecting our country and we would stand shoulder to shoulder, no matter our other differences, in that endeavor. This was a wonderful outpouring of unashamed patriotism. Something we should all be proud of. If only that spirit could have continued.

Unfortunately, it quickly deteriorated into something very different, something very divisive and damaging to us as a country and something that has weakened our standing in the world. It depends on where you stand politically, where you will point to identify the culprit that caused this change. You already know where I stand. Though I will admit that there have been some on both sides that have misused information to create this division. However, the republicans have been more organized and effective in pushing their version. Divide and conquer seems to be the motto of the current administration.

It is beyond me that they can, with straight faces, accuse democrats of being weak on defense when the democrats voted almost unanimously with the republicans in backing their initial responses to the attacks of 2001. Historically, democrats have vigorously defended this nation - militarily and deplomatically. In fact, if you look at the military records of the leaders of the republican party and those of the democratic party you will see about 5 to 1 more democrats with military service and experience than their republican counterparts. I have often said that it seems that a lot of men go to war as republicans and come out as democrats. Democrats are not weak on defense, they simply go at it differently, and with a much different rhetoric. They believe in protecting our country and our rights.

Some of the tactics of this administration remind me a lot of the tactics used in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's to gain, consolidate, and keep power. Before you jump on me, I am not comparing this administration of being anything like the Nazi's. I am only saying they have used those political tactics to their advantage. The German people were convinced they were being the most patriotic by supporting their leader. He had brought back the national pride and took it to a new level. The level that I see as nationalism.

Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg Trials famously said, "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hitler did not gain power all at once or by force initially. He did little things that made everything seem to be the best for the country. Things that created patriotic pride and brought people together. There were little restrictions in rights at first, all in the name of security and protection. An erosion of rights that was slow and only affected a few people or group of people at a time. Most went along believing this was good for the country, until they realized it was too late.

I believe that it would be prudent for me to once again assert that I am NOT trying to compare the republicans or this administration with the Nazi's. I am only trying to point out that they have used some of the political tactics that brought that group into power in Germany during the 1930's. Even religion was used extensively to bring this about. Some SS belt buckles had written on them "God is with us".

Nationalism is a term that brings to my mind the prevailing attitude in Germany during that time. The concept of the Fatherland and it's protection. We are now using the term Homeland to refer to our country. Words can be powerful tools and should be used to relate the truth, not to distort it.

I found a paragraph while searching information for this article from George Orwell in his 'Essay: Notes on Nationalism' written in 1945. “By ‘nationalism’... I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

There has been a concerted effort over the last five years to label people as patriotic or unpatriotic based on their support or lack of support for the policies of the current administration. This is a very unfair and un-american way to act. The idea of being either for everything a president does or to be siding with the enemy of our country is completely wrong and a reprehensible protrayal of our fellow citizens.

I find that I am having to constantly remind myself to look beyond the words and study what is being done. Since I am one of those that disagree with this administration's policies far more often than I agree with them, I must be careful to not just summarily dismiss everything they do as being wrong. When you try to demand all or nothing in your support, you will often get the non support being voiced loudly and vehemently - sometimes when a particular policy really should be supported. These demands, by their very nature, isolate a leader from consensus support.

This concept of completely supporting the president is not a party issue, it is an issue used and promoted by this administration. If you look through history you will find examples of people from both parties, and those with no revealed party affiliation, who have made stands that run opposite of this opinion. One of the most well known is Theodore Roosevelt. Two of his recorded opinions are shown below. The first from an article he wrote in the Kansas Star during World War I (1918) and another a little later. The sentiment he expresses in both is basically the same.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." Theodore Roosevelt

Dissent in and of itself is neither unpatriotic nor unamerican. If there were not righteous dissent in our history, we would still be a colony of England.

Here are a few other quotes about patriotism that have been uttered through the years:

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government. Thomas Paine

"A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution". President James Madison

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." Ben Franklin

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

Be Patriotic. Support our country. Don't just wrap yourself in the flag and say, I am a patriot. Defend our country and pledge allegiance to the flag that represents it. Demand that liberty and justice for all be preserved. Join with our fellow citizens in protecting our country, it's freedoms, it's rights, and it's compassion for our fellow man. Be always vigilant for threats from without and from within. Remember why and how this country was founded and be willing to stand firm. We are all in this together.

Protecting the Ballot Box

2006-09-24T23:00:00.000-04:00

It would be safe to say that no election, however well intentioned, has ever been completely clear of all impropriety. There have always been those who are so zealous in their desire to elect their candidate that they will resort to all sorts of tactics to try and insure that victory. Whether their zeal comes from a heartfelt belief that their candidate is truly the best for the country or from a desire for the power and money that can be had if their candidate is elected, the resulting attempt to alter the outcome of the election is wrong. They may pass out false information to discredit the opposing candidate, they may buy votes, they may illegally stuff a ballot box with votes, they may suppress the votes in certain areas, they may destroy or otherwise lose ballots that were cast in an area known to be strong for the opponent, or a myriad of other methods. These things have happened, and there will most likely always be those who try to subvert the integrity of our elections to their own benefit.

I believe it is our duty as Americans to preserve the sanctity of the ballot box to the best of our ability. We are the greatest example to the world of democracy and how it operates. We travel the world to help others with their elections and admonish them to hold fair and open elections. Then we come back here and run the risk of having our own subverted by those with political agendas that they fear will not stand the test of a fair election. These people have the idea that the end justifies the means. We should set a higher standard as the only current superpower in the world and as the premier example of a democratic government.

We must strive to higher ideals, as we always have. Certainly, I want to win as deeply and as passionately as anyone. However, I believe the voice of the people should be the foremost factor. And it should be the voice of an honestly informed people. Our ballot box should not have even the appearance of being able to be manipulated.

Technology has increased to allow us the opportunity to prevent almost all fraud in the ballot box. Unfortunately, it is also at a point that will allow even greater fraud if it is not dealt with honestly and openly. Our ballot box should be above reproach. Our citizens should and must have confidence that their vote is counted and counted correctly - as they intended to cast it. With the advent of all electronic ballots and the problems associated with them in the last few years, that confidence is very low in some places. It is getting worse as more news is reported of the test results on this equipment and of the real problems that have happened during its actual use.

I use a computer daily and I know their importance in our world. They are able to store and configure large amounts of information in seconds as opposed to hours of doing it by hand. I know that is the way that almost everything is handled in this world now. I also know that my computer has crashed. It has lost important information, and it can be hijacked to provide wrong information. This is both the good news and the bad news of the new electronic voting machines.
Touch screen voting is easy and quick. I really have no problem with it at it's core. However, I do have a problem when all information is electronic. I believe it should be required that all balloting machines print a paper ballot that can be read by the person casting it. It can then roll into the machine or be removed and placed in a separate ballot box, either way would be fine. But there must be a paper ballot that can be used in a final recount, if one is required. I also have a problem when the company making the machines say they own the raw data, as they did in Ohio after the 2004 race, and refuse to provide it to the election officials. I believe all voting data is the property of the governing officials in the area the votes were placed. It is there it should remain - locked and protected. There may never be a way to make the system completely foolproof, but we must keep trying. We already have the ability to improve greatly on what has been done. We just have to show the resolve to require it.

There is also the issue of who makes the decision on what equipment is to be used. It has historically been the option of the local election officials to make that determination. I actually liked the system we had locally before the touch screen system was mandated by our state. It was basically 3x8 cards with a place to mark in pencil beside the candidate or resolution. Then they were counted electronically. If there was a recount required, it was easy to do. It could first be run through the scanner again to check against the first count. It could then be counted by hand. The ballots were marked in pencil so you could tell the intent of the voter, without any 'hanging' or 'pregnant' chads or confusing 'butterfly' ballots. Then the state mandated identical touch screen systems, without a paper trail, to be installed in every voting precinct in the entire state. My confidence in the results of our elections in this state has continued to go down since that time.

One concern with a system being mandated statewide or nationwide is that the larger the area using exactly the same equipment, the larger the opportunity for widescale fraud. I believe we need to have standards required from above, but our local election officials should be allowed to determine the exact make and type of machines to use. Whatever system is used, I believe a paper ballot, or paper trail, that can be verified by the voter should be mandatory. These paper ballots must be saved in a secure location and be the final word in a disputed election requiring a recount.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue and should be just as important to those of any party affiliation, or those with no party affiliation. This is how our democracy operates. We must make sure it is handled properly. Without the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box, we cannot truly claim to be a democracy.

Religion and Politics

2006-08-16T14:58:00.000-04:00

Politics and Religion are two things we are often warned not to discuss. Especially at occasions where people of differing opinions may be present. I am sure this is meant as a way of trying to keep everyone civil. Yet we must discuss them. Maybe not in every conversation nor in every situation, but they are both entities that affect our lives in ways of which we may not even be aware.

These two facets of life are important to us. They draw strong and deep reactions toward anyone challenging our position. Sometimes, though, our position needs to be challenged. We need to know why we believe the way we do and we need to be able to articulate that. I am a christian, and sometimes I need to be challenged and asked for the evidence. I am called to pass that information along. To do that effectively and correctly I must refer back to the Bible. I am also told to speak in love, which isn't always easy to do. My belief is that one God has created all on this earth and He desires that none perish, but come to Him in truth and love. Not everyone that is a christian is interested in politics, and not everyone that is interested in politics is a christian. Still that does not keep these complex and far ranging issues from being important to us, and to them being at least somewhat entertwined in the world and in our lives.

There is the related issue of how much a role religion should play in our government, or how much a role the government should play in religion. This has become one of those 'hot button' issues because people on both sides have taken extreme positions that tend to divide everyone. They do not want to find a solution unless it is completely and exclusively their stated solution. The ones that say it is my way or no way are the ones getting most of the attention, but there must be a voice of reason - a still, calm voice - to bring resolution to the bitterness and bring the family back to the same table.

I believe there should be some separation between the church and state, at least between organized religion and the government. I believe that was the intention of our founding fathers and is indicated within the Constitution and other documents. That does not mean there is to be an absence of religion and certainly we want men of faith to be leading us. I believe the Bible even gives an indication of this separation when the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus and He answered, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

There are christian symbols and references throughout the documents in the founding of this country. Many are also incorporated into our most famous and historic buildings. The majority of our founders were Christian and so naturally included this belief system and symbolism in the basic building blocks of our country. They were also descended from the stock of people that settled here to avoid the religious persecution that had become so terrible in Europe, where the government and church had formed such close ties as to make it sometimes hard to decide exactly which entity was really in charge. So, these men chose to found our country with the express desire to avoid that happening here.

The one thing that angered me most in the 2004 presidential election was the overt, and wrong, use of the christian religion in promoting the republican party. The divisiveness that it produced in our churches. I have told many of my republican friends (and some that weren't such friends) that God is not a republican. I think some were surprised. I know I was when I learned He wasn't a democrat. In fact, I have it on pretty good authority (the Bible) that He isn't even a US Citizen. He has, however, tremendously blessed this country and its citizens.

I believe our churches and pastors have the right and the responsibility to take positions on certain issues. Those positions should be in keeping with their studies of the bible and based within the belief of their religious convictions. However, I do not believe a pastor or church should endorse any political party or candidate. I have found positions in both parties that are not exactly in line with scripture, and I have found positions on both sides that are. It is my belief that the message of the God, His church, and the pastor as spokesman for that church is of far greater importance than the message of either political party. And by taking the side of either party, the pastor/church is losing the strength of the message in trying to reach all those to whom we are called to witness - some that are members of the other party.

I believe there are cases where the preachers have abandoned God's word and have, in their political zeal, put their own in it's place. They know enough, or remember enough, to say the right words in the right way to make many of those listening believe in their message. But it has become their message and not Gods. The Bible does warn us that there will be false teachers that will lead many astray. And that they will even do great works in the name of the Lord. Still, we are warned that they are false.

One of the newer ideas/programs to come along is the faith based initiatives. At first glance this sounds like a good idea. It is a way to help our religious organizations to get money from the government to use in the endeavors they are already working in, and doing a more efficient job than our government does. So why would this not be a good idea? I have a few reasons, and most of them because I think it will hurt our faith organizations in the long run.

I lean to the liberal side overall, and as a liberal I believe that we have an obligation as a country to take care of those who are less fortunate and cannot take care of themselves. Have there been abuses in many of these programs created by Democrats for that purpose? By all means. But that does not mean we should abandon them and those that really need them. It means we should work together to try and fix the problem, not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As a Christian I believe we are called to take care of those who need help and are unable to find it themselves. I believe we are called to help provide for the poor among us, to take care of widows and children, and to be that Good Samaritan - the one who took care of those who were unlike himself, and did so without any expectation of being remunerated.

It would seem then that the merging of these two would be a good solution. I don't believe it is. Any money coming from the government will also come with restrictions and strings. If not initially, it will eventually. It cannot be used in the same manner or as efficiently as that collected privately. As our faith groups get this money they will come to depend on it instead of the Grace of God and His provisions. The faith community will not feel it as necessary to make the donations they need to because they can see that they are already receiving so much money from the government. The faith based community by definition should be depending on God in faith to provide what they need. The US Government is not God. If we are working in God's will, all we need will be provided. These issues along with others, will create a net loss of money to help those in need.

There have been conversations, discussions, and arguments about the role of religion in politics. Some people want more involvement, some want less, and others want none at all. That discussion is likely to continue for a long time. Both politics and religion will continue to affect our daily lives. I believe that both are important. I believe in our country and I believe in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. We are called as Christians to lead others to Christ, but we are not called to force them there. We must recognize that not all believe as we do and we need to respect that enough to lead them gently in love. Take the example of Christ. He could force us to follow Him, but instead He says that He stands and the door and knocks.

Let us have a government that is ruled by good men and women. Some of faith, some of differing faiths, and some of no faith. Let that government protect the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And let us follow the example of our founding fathers and provide the individual rights that we believe to be inalienable - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - along with the belief that we are all created equal.

Democrats and Republicans

2006-08-13T00:49:00.000-04:00

There have, for the most part, been two political parties in the United States since the founding of our country. Two differing philosphies of how we should approach the issues faced by our country, with one common desire to make this country strong, prosperous, and free. Today those two parties continue as the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats began as a political party in 1792 under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists and John Adams were the beginnings of the Republican Party, though not completely. The Republican party was formed officially in 1854.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned about the formation of political parties and the dangers their formation could pose to the welfare of our country. I wondered for a long time why he had this concern. They seemed to be a natural and logical way for a person to find a common place for those of like philosophies to gather and promote their ideas and ideals for our country. In the last few years though, I am beginning to understand his worry. Our politicial parties have become more and more divisive in their campaining, and have been more prone to support strongest those on the more extreme points of their philosophical leaning and fewer in the middle. Along with that is the penchant for shading and sometimes avoiding the truth in a concerted effort to gain advantage and power. Using powerful words and phrases that sound good, but often do not describe the policy being enacted at all. This is something we need to correct. We must demand that our leaders on both sides of the aisle be true to our vision, clearly stating our position, and enacting policies that match our words.

Many people in this country will tell you they are a democrat. I am one of them, as are many of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Many others will say they are republicans, of which of which I have many friends, some relatives, and many acquaintances. Still others will say they are libertarians, some will claim the green party, and a large number will say they are independents. Our country needs all of these citizens, and we need them to be actively involved. Active and informed. While I believe everyone should vote, I am becoming reluctant to always recommend those who do nothing to inform themselves of the issues and platforms. And it is getting harder and harder to find unbiased information. Our once pretty reliable news media has become adept at spinning stories one way or the other. Journalistic integrity seems to be reaching a very low point in this country. And it is dangerous to our country to vote based on only biased reports.

But what does that party label say about a person? Does it prove whether you are a Christian or not? Does it guarantee you to be of good character or to be a scoundrel? Will it show you to be a patriot or a person only out for your own gain? Does it even tell where you stand on 'hot button' issues such as guns, gays, or abortion? It does not! History shows us christians and non christians on both sides, good people and crooks on both sides, patriots and otherwise on both sides, and there are people on both sides of the aisle that will take one side or the other of all the hot button issues. Every democrat is not extremely liberal and every republican is not extremely conservative. In fact, most are moderate with a leaning one way or the other. And many times they may lean the opposite way on individual issues.

So what does a party label say about the person. For the most part it will indicate that the person subscribes, at least for the most part, to the basic philosophy of their party. The real differences will show up in the policies enacted by the party in power. It shows up in to a lesser degree in the debates when the party is not in power as well. You still need to be aware of what the policies are, and not just listen to what is being said.

You can ask a hundred people why they are a member of one party or the other and you will likely get at least a hundred different answers. It may be because of the family they grew up in and they just continued to be a party loyalist. It may be because of the friends they have, or those they trust and respect. They may choose one or the other based on only one issue that they believe in passionately, or on a few that they find to be important. Some follow those that have the power, some go on their gut feeling, and others are swayed by a particular political leader that impacted them at some point in their lives. Many do study the issues and the parties to find or remain in their political home.

I have long been a believer in the strong two party system as we have had in practice in the United States. I believe that both sides need to be strong and they need to try to work with members of the other side to find the best answers for our country as a whole. There will always be some differences that are almost impossible to work through completely, but there are enough areas that we can work on together to get us through. I also believe those independent, swing voters are essential in keeping the balance as well.

There is no way to fully describe the differences between Democrats and Republicans in one short article. And whatever differences I describe will not pertain to every single republican voter, party member, or official. However, it is historically provable in the policies of the parties.

I believe the very basic differences in the parties is that of their economic approach and philosophy, along with where they believe that power should be placed. Where does each party place the emphasis of their efforts and who do they protect or promote first.

The Republican party believes that for the country to be strong, the large corporations must be protected. Their policies will favor the protection of the corporation and large wealth over that of the individual citizen. This is seen in their policies - their resistance to raise minimum wages, their weakening or not enforcing many worker protection laws, their cutting of taxes and allowing multi national corporations to use less of their real income for taxable purposes, their lowering of environmental standards to allow corporations to make greater profits, and the tendency to having higher unemployment rates during republican administrations as a way to keep inflation lower. Much of this is sold in the belief that less government interference in business is better.

The Democratic Party has the philosophy of putting the individual first, of protecting the poor and middle class. The working class and the hope of raising the standard of living for all citizens is at the heart of the democratic policies. This is seen in their policies that place minimum working conditions of safety for corporations to provide, their policy to protect the environment for the health of our country and citizens (and to have the polluters to pay for the cleanup of what they are making profits on as they pollute it), of providing programs to help those unable to help themselves, of creating social security to give our seniors dignity in their old age, and in supporting a tax system that places less burden on the poor and middle class who are already strugging to keep going.

Neither party is completely pure in these endeavors, but even a cursory examination will show that they lean in these directions. There are good ideas and policies enacted by both parties. I am proud to be a democrat and I know many that are just as proud to be republicans. The truth is that we are all in this together. Our common dreams are far greater than our differences, though that has been a difficult position to take in the last 6 years. I see some hope of it getting better now. Let's keep working.

Albert Einstein said, "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." I think we can find some of that same sentiment in the founding documents of this country.

Liberal and Conservative

2006-02-23T13:07:00.000-05:00

Ask anyone about their basic ideology and they will almost always say either liberal or conservative. Many would argue that the title of this article should be liberal or conservative, in the belief that you cannot be both liberal and conservative - even in disproportionate amounts. However, I think the and is more appropriate. Even if you believe the notion that you cannot be both, there are still people on both sides that need to be able to work together and live in some type of harmony.

I was raised in a family that was very active politically and have memories from an early age of attending political rallies with my Dad. I also have friends, family, and acquaintances that are on both sides of the political party divide. As such, I have spent a lot of time discussing issues with people on all sides of the ideological fence. These days there are very few that will admit to having any inclinations toward the other side of that fence. However, if you talk long enough and about enough issues, you will find that almost everyone has some opinions that will fit with the other side.

I have had people, whose opinion I value highly, say that they are against liberals and everything they stand for. This made me wonder why they would say such a thing. For I know that many of the things that liberals do stand and fight for are very important to these who are denying them. Things like civil liberties, the environment, and caring for the poor - to name just a few. However, as I was questioning why they might make such a statement, I realized that I needed to look at myself as well.

My answer to the question of where I stand ideologically has long been that I am liberal on most issues and conservative on some others. Recently though I have found it much harder to say I am conservative on anything. My opinions on the issues have not changed, but my opinion of what it means to be conservative have. I find myself not wanting to be associated with that term in any way. And it is a shame to feel that way. These terms have come to mean something very different than they should. They have come to illustrate a line in the sand that cannot be crossed instead of a base view of how to look at the issues we need to work on. I have decided that the main problem is with perception. The push has been so hard to redefine each other that most people have the wrong perception of what the other side really does stand for. And at times it becomes very hard to explain in this current world of language wars.

There has been a growing trend for many people identifying themselves with one side or the other to make their choice of who to vote for based on very few issues. Often only one or two. The opposing sides have so misrepresented these issues that many voters are often making a choice based on false information. They make their decision on an issue and vote the way they feel they have to, even though they may disagree with everything else in the party's agenda.

The rhetoric that has been used in the past 10 to 12 years has escalated to the point that most people have very little idea of what is really going on. This has been brought about by both political parties and with the help of the media. Abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting has been a huge disservice to our public discourse. While it had flaws, we were far better off with it than we are without it. Now those that lean conservative tend to only listen to conservative stations, read conservative papers, and believe conservative publications and pundits; and those that lean liberal tend to only listen to liberal stations, read liberal papers, and believe liberal publications and pundits. This is not a great way to have an informed citizenry. And if you are paying attention, you know the conservatives and republicans have been buying and consolidating control of the news outlets for the past 20 plus years. While they fuss about the liberal media, they own most of the news outlets and the majority of the broadcasts are conservative.

This ideological difference has been discussed and argued about since before the founding of our great country, and it is likely to continue for years yet to come. This does not have to be as big a dividing line as it is though. I have seen times when both sides could more easily discuss issues in a civil manner and come to a conclusion that is the best compromise for the most people and especially for our country as a whole. Though some issues have always been too important to compromise on.

The last two presidential elections are a tangible indicator of our divide. It is something that we need to address as a country and quit feeding the monster that is dividing us. I don't pretend to think that we will forget our differences and just agree on everything. That isn't how it works. We are meant to have differences and to discuss those and fight for our beliefs. However, we can work together better than we have been.

There is so much talk in all the political discussions about red states and blue states. I completely disagree with this and believe it is an unfair way to characterize our country. If you look at the actual vote, most states are purple as the total vote was only a few points apart either way. I prefer to think of all states as red, white, and blue. We are all Americans. We have different opinions on certain issues, but we all want the best for our country, our state, our community, our friends, and our families. We all believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; even when we disagree on the best way to provide that. And we all believe in the sentiment to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

I describe myself as a moderate with liberal leanings. And I like the term liberal better than progressive, even though being a liberal means being progressive. This change in terms makes me wonder if it is being used by some liberals who are afraid to admit they are liberal in the current political climate. And that gives the appearance of trying to avoid the wrong perceptions that are being promoted by the conservatives. These should not be avoided, they should be addressed and corrected.

Let me give you a couple of definitions of the word Liberal that I borrowed from the North Fulton Democrats web site:
1.
a-Not limited to, or by, established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad minded.
2.
a-Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor
b-Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the word liberal this way: "Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish" and "not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the institution or administration of government...." Liberal is also defined as generous, and "implies largeness of spirit in giving, judging, acting, etc."

To continue, here is one of my favorite quotes on this subject:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by liberal they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and it's members demonstrate that we are not that kind of liberal. But, if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad. If that is what they mean by liberal, then I am proud to say I'm a liberal.
John F. Kennedy

Now I realize that this is only an overview of the differences and similarities of the two sides. It is a very simple view of my opinion about where we really are as a country and where we seem to think we are. To fully explain this position will take several more articles giving examples that illustrate more specific positions. However, we must have a starting point - a point that gives us the basis on which we build our positions and explain why we hold those positions. This is one of those starting points.

One last thing to think about. Our founding fathers were liberals. If they had been conservative, we would still be subjects of England. Perhaps a quote from one of those radicals might help you to understand a small portion of this.

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. " George Washington

I do believe that most Americans are actually more moderate in philosophy, and very few truly lie on either extreme of the liberal/conservative continuum. Perhaps you do not agree and believe yourself to be a dyed in the wool conservative. That is your perogative, and I am liberal enough to believe you have the right to your own opinion - even when I disagree with it.

The Basics

2006-02-03T16:03:00.000-05:00

This blog was created to give me a place to present my views in a manner that can be read and replied to by anyone interested. It is mainly for my political beliefs, though it will not be limited to that. Our basic beliefs affect our political positions, and so many political realities affect our lives that limiting discussion to only political views would give an incomplete picture. I say our beliefs affect our positions because there are other factors. Those include where we are receiving our information and how reliable we feel it is. Many people do not take the time to thoroughly research issues to determine their position and simply fall into line with whatever their party promotes, or at least with what their favorite leader professes. This is nothing new, but has been carried to new highs in the last few years.

I believe everyone should be involved in the political process. Most are not as interested in it as I am and that is their perogative. It remains important though. We are lucky enough to live in a free country and one that we should be ever vigilant to protect from all threats, whether from without or within. I have often counseled my children to watch what is being done and not just what is being said. There are often vast differences between the two.

I don't know how many people will read this blog or if anyone might choose to respond. You are able to leave comments by name or you can respond anonymously. Either way is fine with me. However, I do request you to be respectful and keep the language clean. I will not use profanity and request that you have enough respect to do the same. I do reserve the right to edit any comments for inappropriate content and to delete those that cross the bounds of decency.

I am happy to discuss my views with those who agree and with those who do not, and have done so for most of my life. My views are strong and deeply held, so I can understand when you feel the same of your own. It is my hope to present my position in a coherent and logical manner. While I may not be able to express all I feel about a subject in a short article, I am willing to answer questions that you may have in order to clarify a position and the reasoning behind it. It is my belief that even with strongly held political differences, we have many more similarities and beliefs in common than have been articulated much in the past 20 years. In other words, we can choose to disagree politically and still maintain a respect and caring for one another as a person.

To give you some idea of where I stand, I will give you a very short idea of my background. I am a Christian and attend a Southern Baptist Church. While I may not always agree with stands the denomination takes, I do always agree with what my Bible has taught me through the Holy Spirit. I believe it is our faith is more important than our denomination. I am a citizen of the United States and very proud to be. I am very patriotic, though I resist the nationalistic approach that so many have exhibited recently. You see bumper stickers that say, "My country, right or wrong". I like the more complete quote from Senator Carl Schurz in an address to the senate in 1872, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right". I was born in 1953 and have lived in the state of Georgia since that time.

I am a Democrat. I may not always agree with everything the democratic party does, but I do agree with core principles of the party which set the course of our policies. The basic tenets of the Democratic party provide for the equal rights of all people regardless of social or economic status. Our party policies protect the individual and poor first, while creating an environment that encourages creativity, entrepreneurship, and business. There are good people in both parties and there are good ideas on both sides. It is imperative that we learn to work together again for the good of our country as a whole.

There is currently the biggest divide I have ever seen in our country. It is a division that disregards any open discussion, with both sides saying I am right and you are wrong. Many do not want to be confused with facts or any opposing viewpoint. As I said earlier, I have discussed politics most of my life and never have I found a time that so few people were willing to discuss issues and differences as I saw in the election year of 2004. That was disheartening to me, and also has compelled me to become even more active than I have been.

Everyone that has known me for any length of time knows that I keep up with politics. I study it and research the different issues. I do not just like to take someone else's opinion of an issue. I like to find the facts and form my own opinion. There have been people all through my life that have asked me why I didn't run for some office. So far there has been no office that I felt I should run for, though I still freely gave my opinions as I worked with and for those who were running. The experience of 2004 convinced me to become more formally involved however. I am not running for office and do not foresee that, but I am working more formally than before. I am a member of the local Democratic Executive Committee and have helped to establish a website for that. We are now planning activities to prepare for this election year.

This blog is another step in my efforts. It is a way for me to present my opinions and positions where you can read them at your leisure, and hopefully understand them better. Thank you for visiting my site. I look forward to the chance to talk with you and discuss our agreements and our disagreements. We are all in this together.