fearlesshistory

So the new, or rather resuscitated, buzz word is Socialism. I read the comments of a certain neo-conservative talk radio host who was explaining it this way; a child goes out on Halloween and gets candy from strangers for hours and hours. They come home and mom or dad take 1/2 the candy the child earned and gives it to a sibling who didn’t go out that evening and didn’t work.

Hmm….well, aside from the obvious flaws in logic (such as recipients of government assistance do nothing for their funds - do farmers who receive subsidies do nothing? How about elderly people who worked all their lives and need help with medical care? Or maybe a retiree shouldn’t expect social security? but I digress) I began to think about the essence of the argument Rus…I mean the man had made. It is unfair to take from hard-working people who bust their asses every day, especially if their hard-earned wages are wasted. I’m sure that was his point, and if so, I have to agree.

That is why I am thinking of writing my Congressman and the President to do something about the Socialism that exists on Wall Street. Seriously! Compared to all the other programs which dole out millions, nay billions of dollars, the bailout package and its accompanying other “mini bailouts” (such as 85 billion to AIG, 37.5 billion to …err…AIG, and now the Big 3 Automakers need a bailout as well) are ruining our economy. For instance, the “national debt clock” which was meant to shock the populace into reforming government and forcing it to live within its means (or, heavens forfend Americans pay more taxes to pay the bill off) has topped 10 TRILLION dollars. They had to do away with the dollar sign to make room for the 10 Trillion dollar mark.

Do we, as Americans, understand where that money is owed to? Well, I’ll tell you this much, they are one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Their government is a despotic Communism. They silence dissidence by rolling in with tanks, imprisoning protestors in work-shop prisons to make clothes for Wal Mart. They invaded a pacifist sovereign nation near their border and exiled the rightful leader.  Have you guessed the loan shark yet?

Yes! China. Whew….well, they may be Communists and may be on the verge of becoming the next superpower (surpassing us, thank you) but at least they aren’t SOCIALISTS.

By the way, to return to our candy metaphor, Mr. Lim…uh…radio guy forgot to mention the aptness of his analogy. You see, our children (and grand children and great grandshildren for generations to come) will have to deal with higher taxes, a crushing national debt that will probably reach new categories of number that haven’t been invented yet, and the increasingly-bitchy and self-absorbed Baby Boomers who will soon be clogging the medical system like an old boot flushed down a toilet. Therefore, our Children’s “candy” (their wages) WILL be taken away as we continue to borrow money from everyone and anyone in order to maintain a bloated military, an out-of-touch financial system, and  wild “pork barrel” spending.

Oh, and before you get all outraged at candidate X or cadidate Z taking pork barrel spending to new heights; this stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Campaign promises to bring jobs to the city, region, or state are funded with (you guessed it) tax dollars. You elect them, you keep themin office (what do you think “experience” is a code word for anyway?), and yet you compalin about them. Either do something wild like vote for an independent, green party, communist party, or libertarian party candidate or shut the hell up.

So you see, we already are a Socialist society - we just haven’t told the working stiffs of the country yet.

As always, your comments and input are greatly appreciated.

Well, I feel compelled to expound upon my ideas about regulation of corporations, particularly in light of the recent developments in the world’s economy. First off, let’s look at a corporation in its legal state.

According to U.S. law, a corporation is considered an entity in and of itself akin to a citizen of the country; it has the same rights and is theoretically held to the same laws. Unfortunately, corporations get away with a lot more than any individual could; if an individual causes an event (wildfire, oil leak, etc.) that damages the environment, they face fines and jail time. If a corporation does the same (Exxon Valdez, etc.) they face a fine and no jail time. Why? Diffusion of responsability. The CEO, CFO, COO, and other corporate heads are not technically on the hook for any abuse or accident that  the corporation caused; the reason is they can shift the blame to faceless bean counters who misled them with erroneous data. While this may be true, more often than not it is a case of wilfull ignorance - if they don’t know about it, they can’t be held liable for it. Even cases where malfeasance and outright falsification occur - Enron, for example - that was tied to the CEO (Ken Lay), then the chances are their jail time will never materialized. [for those of you keeping score, Ken Lay died before his conviction could be appealed and so the appeals court OVERTURNED his conviction because, the family argued, his crime was causing harm to his family’s reputation]

Now, individuals are regulated by the state whether they want to be or not - they usually have no say in it whatsoever, with the exception of protesting the rule or changing the rule via the voting process. For example, if a person embezzles some money or swindles an elderly couple out of their life savings, then the individual will go to jail because such crimes are against the law. Corporations, on the other hand, usually don’t have jail time appended to their violations [more score keeping: corporations which have caused this financial meltdown got almost $1 trillion of your dollars instead of having to pay fines or go to jail]

Why? Well corporations have several advantages; First, they have much more money than 98% of the individuals in the country, meaning they can use that money to lobby Congress to repeal, modify, or even look the other way when laws prove to be inconvenient. Second, they have that pesky diffusion of responsability. Third, they can use their employees (individuals) to vote for changes that benefit the company - this means that for every vote a flesh-and-blood person gets, the corporation gets thousands. Now while the last point elides the possibility of individual dissenters voting against the grain, the average corporate employee wants to help his company accrue more profit so their job can continue and/or they can get a share fo the profit.

Now, as for the soul part. All major religions have something akin to the Ten Commandments and other proscriptions upon behavior. These “commandments”are, in effect, laws handed down by ‘God’ to regulate the behavior of human beings. Rules like don’t kill, don’t steal, be nice to each other, etc. True, these rules are often conveniently ignored when an “infidel,” “heathen,” or “heretic” is the object of someone’s ire, but nonetheless, the rules are there.

Very, very few Christians, for example, would argue that the Ten Commandments restricts their livlihood or that they should be repealed so that they could live life to the fullest and realize ‘God’s’ bounty on earth. Why then do good “Christians” want to de-regulate and continue de-regulation of corporate Americans? Are not corporations composed of HUMANS? Are not humans, by definition, fallable? Do they not cheat, steal, lie, covet, murder, and do all sorts of heinous crimes against their fellow man, against nature, and against God if there are no rules? Then why should corporations not have rules?

To all those anti-regulation McCain/Palin voters out there, I pose two, simple questions; Would you live in a city, state, or country that had no laws to restrict the activity of humans? Why would you vote to repeal regulations by government (which is a manifestation of your will, by the way) over corporations that do not act in any way in accordance to the laws of the land, your faith, or of common human decency in the regular course of their business dealings?

The current troubles that the Bush administration is facing with the love-to-hate-’em Middle Eastern nation is not really all that new, but does mark a return to old confrontationalist policies of both nations.

To understand why we’re at this juncture, you have to look at the past (of course). In the 1950’s there was a very popular Prime Minister of Iran; Mohammad Mossadeq. Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1951, he embarked on a campaign to nationalize the oil fields of Iran and restrict the power of one big oil company which had accumulated so much power that it virtually ruled the country: Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. His nationalization plans spelled big trouble for the British who were relying on the inexpensive importation of much-needed oil in the wake of World War Two. At first, British military and diplomatic pressure was applied to the Shah (king) of Iran who began constraining the powers of the Prime Minister in order to freeze him out of the Government. It kind of backfired; instead of going quietly, Mossadeq demanded even more authority. When the Shah refused, Mossadeq resigned.

Iran immediately exploded with riots that lasted five days. Military commanders ordered the troops back to their bases in fear that they would join the rioting and bring Army weapons with them. Needless to say, Mossadeq was returned to power and continued to nationalize the oil fields. The British, desperate to stop this turn of events, turned to the United States. At first, the United States didn’t seem moved by British pleas, but after the British started hinting that their intelligence indicated that Mossadeq might have ties to international Communism, the United States intervened.

The Republican administration under Dwight D. Eisenhower worked together with the government of Winston Churchill to plot to overthrow Mossadeq; Operation Ajax was put into motion by CIA operatives who paid Mossadeq’s political enemies to initiate a coup against the Prime Minister. Led by General Zahedi, hired goon squads began pratolling the streets and Mossadeq was forced from office and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. The Iranian people became aware of the US and British plot, but were essentially powerless to help Mossadeq - this memory lasted for decades.

In 1979, the entire reason the American Embassy was over run was to prevent the CIA from initiating a Mossadq-style coupd against the Ayatollah Khomeini. Of course, there was no evidence that the Carter administration even considered such a move, but the Iranians wanted to be sure.

The Iran-Iraq war solidified the position of the Ayatollah as Saddam Hussein (backed by Ronald Reagan’s administration, but only behind the scenes) attacked Iran in 1980. The war initially went well for the Iraqis, but Hussein’s ineptitude and the sycophantic nature of his regime allowed the Iranians to turn the tide and threaten Iraq. During that time, the American administration set up a secret arms deal to Iran in order to fund the Contras in  Nicaragua, a move that almost brought down the Reagan administration. Getting wind of the deal, Saddam Hussein let the world know that the Americans had helped him with satellite imagery and chemical components for his chemical warfare program against Iran. The Iranians were further angered, believing they were justified in 1979 for the capture of the American Embassy and began referring to the US as “The Great Satan.”

It is ironic that Iran is now considered a part of the Axis of Evil by the Bush administration. During the 1990’s, the relationship between Iran and the United States had actually begun to warm up. Mohammad Khatami was seen as a kind of liberal in his country as he opened up relations with the United States and generally struck a moderate course. On September 11th, 2001, Iran held a national day of mourning for the loss of life in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania. Iran condemned the attack and offered to help the United States in speaking with the Taliban (who, by the way, are enemies of the Iranian government. The Taliban often smuggled drugs through the porous Iran-Afghanistan border). The Iranians absorbed many Afghan refugees and sealed the border to prevent the flight of the Taliban into the Iranian hinterland. The same, unfortunately, could not or would not be done on the Pakistan side. In 2005, after the Iraq war had begun and the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech by President Bush, the spectre of American designs on Iran’s oil was resurrected by hard line Iranians. Khatami was discredited because it seemed his soft tone had emboldened the Americans who now surrounded Iran; Muhammad Ahmedinejad was chosen as President of Iran in 2005. The rhetoric coming out of Tehran became increasingly incendiary and inflammatory as a resultof the posturing between the two countries.

It should be noted that despite Vice President Cheney’s statement that no option was off the table in regards to Iran (hinting that the military might attack Iran) and John McCain’s ill-chosen jest when he sung “bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran,” the reformist movement is gaining ground in the populace of Iran. This change includes an apparent resurgence of Khatemi who is banking on a dramatic policy and political change in the United States’ upcoming election. Meanwhile conservative forces in Iran are arguing that the new President of the United States will be more of the same and that Iran should prepare for a confrontation with the United States.

Gives a sens of how important November 4th really is, doesn’t it?

Leave Joe Wurzelbacheralone. He is not a presidential candidate, nor is he a running mate. He is not a movie star or a super model. He is an ordinary person who exercised his Constitutionally-protected right to question Barack Obama on the nominee’s tax policy. You had, and still do not have, any right to investigate his tax returns, divorce records, or his personal history. There are only two reasons you would do so. First, you want to make copy; a petty goal meant to line your pockets and feed the 24 hour news cycle. Shame on you.Or you could actually be angry that a common man such as the plumber from Ohio would dare to seek answers from the candidates directly instead of believing what you are spoon-feeding the American public. Mr. Wurzelbacher is doing what all good citizens should; he is thinking for himself.

Of course, if American citizens did that for themselves more often, where would that leave you FOX news and MSNBC? Would the lights go out at CNN or CBS? Would the presses at the New York Times, Washington Post, or Toledo Herald fall silent and cool? Or, worse than that, would your ineptitude, laziness, and meaningless polls be exposed for all the world to see? Yes, the Emperor has no clothes but in order to distract us from that you pull Mr. Joe Wurzelbacher’s pants down and point. Edward R Murrow must be spinning in his grave right now.

Congratulations on your “exercise” of the First Amendment at the expense of the American populace. Now go find some REAL news to report.

John McCain’s recent jab at the Obama campaign has reached deep into America’s past and dusted off the dreaded ‘S’ word - Socialism. In the immortal word of Dick Cheney; “So?”

Is Socialism really a bad word in America? Well, yes and no. You see, Socialism has been linked in Americna rhetoric to Communism to the point that average Americans can’t really explain the difference between the two. Socialism is further juxtaposed against Capitalism and America, another pairing which has become synonymous in the American lexicon. So it is time to let history set the record straight.

First off, America hasn’t been a pure Capitalist society since the 1890 Sherman Anti Trust Act (some argue it never really existed to begin with). The theory of Capitalism as set forth by Adam Smith’s 1776 treatise The Wealth of Nations holds that free market enterprise will foster competition, a lowering of prices, and innovation. True, it does. What it also does is lead to larger, more established corporate entities to consolidate their power and form monopolies or “trusts.” Trusts such as Standard Oil and US Steel which quashed innivation, worker’s rights, set prices in opposition to market forces, and allowed non-elected heads of industry such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller to exert more control over the American populace than the Predident and the Congress combined.

Since 1890, there has been a slow, systematic building of legal precedent that allows the government to regulate Capitalism. Though it remained largely unenforced, the Sherman Act set the stage for later regulations in the 1930’s following the collapse if the stock market. These advancements in policy led to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Depositor’s Insurance Company, and other acts that checked the over-hungrey nature of Capitalism.

Communism, on the other hand, in its purest form positions itself as the opposition of Capitalism, but in reality it is the final stage of Capitalism, according to Karl Marx. The idea is that Capitalism would so exploit and control the lives of ordinary workers (the proletariat) that they would rise up, murder the money-hungry class which oppressed them (the bourgeoisie) . This would lead to a citizen-owned social structure where the people would control the means of production and reap the benefits of commerce, industry, and trade without distinction or discrimination based on race, gender, or ethnicity. Communism in practice, however, was an oligarchy which used the power of the government to take control and (in many cases) artificiallyprop up industries and institutions that were failing so that the people would continue to be employed (and the government would continue to be in power).

Socialism is the broad, broad grey area in between “pure” Capitalism and “pure” Communism.  Socialism is actually a socia contract between the state and its people wherein the government will interfere in order to prevent it’s citizens from being ravaged by hunger, illness, or the depradations of industrial and commerical entities. Socialism has a long and proud history in the United States, including Herbert Hoover’s ill-advised attempt to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression by providing the livestock of farmers free feed bought by the government. This theory was taken a step further during the Great Depression to include food lines, Social Security, and the WPA - which built many of the parks, highways, and infrastructure we now use. Socialism continued in the 1960’s with Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty; Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing for low-income people, Head Start, and other programs expanded to meet the needs of the populace.

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan considered decreasing the Social Security benefits in order to rescue the ailing Socialist system. Originally, in 1964 Reagan had denigrated the program stating that if he became President, he would do away with it. By 1980, he had mellowed a bit, it seems. Either that or he realized that a Socialist program like Social Security had become (as Tip O’Neill put it) “The Third Rail of American Politics.” Testing the waters, Reagan got a House Republican named  Schweiker sponsor a bill to cut Social Security. A retiring worker would have his monthly benefits cut from $248 a month to $164 a month and save the government around $80 billion a year. The overwhelming flood of angry calls and letters caused Reagan to back down and cost Schweiker dearly. Reagan later did pass a measure (proposed by Alan Greenspan) to tax 50% of the earnings of people receiving Social Security in order to rescue the fund. It seemed Americans were not all that keen to get rid of Socialism after all.

Does Obama’s plan “spread the wealth” as it has been so promulgated by his opponents. Well, kinda. Social programs would receive a boost and people and individuals making over $250,000 a year would have their taxes raised…by 3%. In the mean time, the government of an Obama administration would (theoretically) invest in alternative energy solutions to decrease dependence on oil, create jobs, etc.

Is McCain opposed to taxes? Yes, it seems he is. Is McCain opposed to Socialism? No, it seems he isn’t.

As a matter of record, though, it should be noted that the Bush Administration used over $700 billion in your tax money to prop up failing businesses (Wall St.) and industries (Ford, GM, Chrysler) in order to prevent job losses in the American economy. SecretaryPaulson purchasedAIG almost outright and has been forced to concede that it is necessary to purchase controlling stock inbanks to prevent their collapse.

Where have I heard that before?

LINKS:

http://hnn.us/articles/10522.htm l - “When Did Social Security Become American Politics’ Third Rail” by Rick Shenkman

http://www.ssa.gov/hist1983amend2.htmory/l - Text of the Amendment taxing Social Security, 1983.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#1983 - Ronald Reagan’s comments on the taxing of Social Security benefits

When the banks collapsed and the stock market tanked in 1929, many of the persons responsible had the decency to commit suicide.

When banking fraud was uncovered in the 1980’s, federal investigators had the backbone to charge Charles Keating and put him behind bars.

In 2008, insurance giant AIG received a much-publicized $81 billion dollar rescue plan, then sent executives on a spa and golf vacation to the tune of $440,000 of your money. Now, after having gotten an additional $37.8 billion (that’s a grand total of $118.8 billion to one company for those of you keeping tabs), AIG’s executives spent $86,000 on a hunting trip to the UK.

Taxpayer outrage over golden parachutes has been largely ignored (it wasn’t even a hard-and-fast rule in the $700 billion you and I paid for the industry bail out!) and now there’s even LESS chance of congress or state prosecutors in addressing these concerns. That is unless we do something about it. Email, call, AND write your congressman or woman as well as your Representative. Let them know their jobs are on the line if these executive privileges are not reimbursed AND prevented from happening in the future.

Let me put it this way; your nephew approaches you asking for a loan to keep the family business afloat. You know that his spending and shady book keeping got the family business deep into the red but you also know that if the family business goes under, you’re screwed. You loan him the money and ask him to be careful with it. Instead of resucitating the family business, he takes a vacation to Alaska, spending money left and right. He gets back to “work” and realizes he’s pissed away a lot more money than he originally thought and returns for another loan. You need to keep the family business afloat or your house, your car, your entire life savings will be washed down the drain, so you loan himeven MORE money. He takes off to sun himself on the beaches of Malibu a week later. What do you do?

Economically turbulent times are good for American society.

There I said it.

I’m not talking about the high unemployment rates or the loss of capital, but about the direction American society heads.In 1819, riding high on the post-war economic boom, agricultural products were rated on what portion of what territory it was grown in. For instance, wheat grown in southeast Ohio was amongst the highest prices paid per bushel than anywhere else in the country. This boutique agricultural production kept pushing territorial boundaries westward ahead of the social stability of official police or even federal laws. This led to a spike in lawlessness on the frontiers where one settler fought wars against his neighbors - a literal, shooting war. The crash came toward the end of that year, causing land values to plummet and grain price to bottom out. Unemployment in Philadelphia - America’s grain exporting capital - surged to 50% or more (according to anecdotal evidence). The Panic of 1819 spurred Joseph Sill and his wife Jane to take up the burden of caring for the destitute. Mr. and Mrs. Sill also began to buck the trend in the Protestant work ethic of the time by suggesting that being poor is not a moral failing. Their efforts helped found numerous aid societies who say it as their Christian duty to aid those less fortunate than themselves.

The market crash of 1929 caused waves of suicide and unemployment of epic proportions all across the country and all across the world. Herbert Hoover, the infamous first-term President of the United States was slow to react, insisting that if Americans just worked harder, then the problem would right itself shortly. The hiccup in that theory is that Americans were working hard; harder than ever. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his campaign as the Democratic nominee, preached charity and hope. When veterans of World War One marched to Washington DC to demand their promised war bonuses, Herbert Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to disperse the “Hoverville” because demanding relief was “un-American.” The actions of Douglas MacArthur and George Patton in 1932 essentially handed the election to FDR.

!979’s election between the incumbent Jimmy Carter and Republican nominee Ronald Reagan focused on economics. Carter’s ill-chosen description of the receding economy would come back to haunt him. While Carter admonished the American populace for allowing a “malaise” to settle over their work ethic, Reagan fired back that he loved this country too much to let its greatness slip away. And the people believed in his message of hope and prosperity, handing him a landslide election in November.

Fast forward to 2008 and there are two messages which are becoming abundantly clear; voting for the idea of change, indeed the idea of hope, is not putting your country first.  Throughout his campaign, Obama has seemingly learned from the precedent set by his predecessors; hope speaks to America when it is on the verge of cataclysm. There is nothing wrong with hope, he advocated. In fact he called it “audacious” in his memoir. America’s past has always been audacious - Immediately after the Revolutionary War, English merchants bet how long the United States of America would last, giving it less than a handful of year. Americans were audacious enough to prove them wrong. Spanish admirals and generals laughed at the farm boys that America had conscripted into its service before the invasion of Cuba and the Philippines saying that Americans were twisted and mal-formed because they were poorly fed and the descendants of the rejects of Europe. Theodore Roosevelt’s charge up Kettle Hill took them all by surprise and brought hope to a nation feeling the stirrings of national pride. Hitler referred to the United States as a nation of “mongrels” who were too stupid to be a threat. Today, al Qaeda talking heads laugh at the discomfiture of the West’s economics, saying that Americans and Europeans are fools and idiots.

It’s time to prove them wrong all over again. Go out and be audacious.

The New York Times published an article today on the source of the anti-Obama rumors which allege that he is a Muslim, a terrorist, and any number of hideous falsehoods. It turns out that it is none other than Andy Martin, a name which has cropped up from time to time in American politics.
Essentially, tha article goes on to speak about Andy Martin’s past, including why he never became a lawyer (He’s a paranoid schizophrenic) and what he’s been doing all this time (he tried to smear George W. Bush in 2000 and ran for Illinois’ senate seat because he wanted to “Stop the Jew power” in Congress).
The article goes on to speak with Danielle Allen, a Princeton professor who said “What he’s generating gets picked up in other places…and it’s an example of how the internet has given power to sources we would have never taken seriously at another point in time.”
Really? What other point in time would that be? Fear and scurrilous rumor have always has a life of their own and spread like the disease they are; that is to say virulently, like the Black Plague.
In 1950, at a lackluster address to members of the Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, Joseph McCarthy suddenly produced a paper upon which he asserted that he had the names of over 200 “card carrying members” of the Communist party who have infiltrated the government and are going to hand it over to the Soviet Union. Joseph McCarthy’s allegations were picked up by the media and rocketed the junior Senator from Wisconsin into the spot light. His charges continued to grow in outlandishness and eventually formed the basis for the House UnAmerican Activities Committee’s (HUAC) far-reaching investigations which ruined the lives of people in film, politics, the media, and elsewhere with completely unsubstantiated rumors. It did, however, bring some people fame and glory to testify against people at this committee; Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan became the darlings of America for testifying against the “Communist” elements in Hollywood.
But such hysteria was not confined to Republicans and conservatives; Robert F. Kennedy worked on McCarthy’s staff during the entire investigation into Communists in the government.

Rumors, particularly the false almost unbelievable types, are more likely to be picked up and repeated endlessly. And it is these kinds of rumors which destroy lives with falsehood; John McCain’s first run for the Presidency was derailed after “rumors” emerged - and were quickly denounced as false - that McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually a love child from an affair he had with an African American.

“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”
“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

So, I was reading a news story about the campaign rallies of both Obama and McCain. I have to say that I’m really uncomfortable with the idea of “boo”ing the opposing candidate. I don’t think it’s necessarily a BAD thing, I just don’t do it. There’s too much demonization of the opponent in elections and it’s not healthy. WHat’s even less healthy is when the candidate doesn’t tell people (genlty) “Now hold on a moment…let’s give the man/woman respect for being a tough opponent.” or words to that effect.

McCain used to do that. So did Obama.

But as the “gloves come off” the knives come out. I was taken aback at a recent rally with Sarah Palin addressing a crowd, doing the whole “palling around with a terrorist” thing when I heard something that shocked me. Someone (several someones, really) shouted “Treason!” and “Off with his head!” A similar response and hateful rhetoric was evidenced at a McCain rally the other day. I’m struck by the reaction, really, of both Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain; both smiled, or at least smirked. Sure, the first time it happened, it could be attributed to “he/she didn’t hear the comment” or they weren’t aware that such statements were being made or whatever.

But, unless they’ve been living in a cave they HAVE to know that such comments are being made at their rallies and upon their behalf. It reminds me of another time and another presidential race.

John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon are contending to be the next President of the United States but rumors swirl that Kennedy, the first Catholic to run for the office, is going to give the country over to the Pope.  Sure, it seems silly now, but this idea stuck with people for years. Want proof?

JKF was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald a day later.

Hate is a funny thing; the more you allow it to happen, the more you allow people to indulge in mindless, irrational, rabid hate the more they become obsessed with it. The more it lingers in their gut, in their minds, and in their souls. By not stopping the chants and screams, by not admonishing the crowds to settle down, by not chastising the over-zealous, the Republican campaign is essentially endorsing it.

We may disagree. We may dislike and think wrong-headed the policies and positions of the other. We may even refuse to speak to each other. But the more we hate and demonize the other person, the more diminished we become as individuals and as a country. Remember the first ammendment is freedom of speech, but also temper that right with the responsability of restrains and fair-mindedness.

A room full of long-haired elitists sit in a cramped, hot room. It’s summer and the sun threatens to bake them. They discuss the idea they’ve been playing around with. They’re radicals, you see. They’re revolutionaries, deep inside. They have the guns and they have a plan. They will declare war on the government, throw down the old hierarchy and install a new order in its place, an order where their radicalist agenda will be realized. They discuss the unfairness and tyranny of the current government and their plans to make the whole world stand up and take notice. They’ve all received the finest educations in the world. They’ve all made a great deal of money under the old regime. They’ve traveled the world, been the leaders of men, and served their government loyally. Now they will end it all in a war that will see either the old powers cast down or themselves dead. They’re ungrateful! They talk of equality. They talk of justice. They talk of God’s plan for men. It is 1776.

Or so the legend begins…

A young lawyer from Illinois, a one term representative of his state, strides toward a stage with a speech that will move the hearts of everyone who hears it. His life as a youngster was harsh, his family had little money. He worked hard, read a lot, and eventually went on to some success as a orator and a law clerk. His star was rising and his party knew it. He speaks to those assembled and many believe in his message of hope and prosperity; of the promise of a great nation. His opponent, a grizzled old veteran of politics and intrigue, calls him “inexperienced” and says that a vote for him would dash the country into ruin. Undaunted, young Abraham touts his outsider status and his willingness to make important changes to the government and society of these United States.

Or so the story goes…

The times are booming and prosperity in America is making money flow like water down a mountain, into the pockets of a small few. The workers, sick of the obscene wealth that the top executives were making organize themselves into groups and called for better conditions and better pay. They want the wealth to trickle down, it seems. The company heads say it would be the death of American industry and commerce. They warn that “outsiders” would edge them out and the workers, the economy would falter and fail. They speak of an international threat, a giant global organization which was envious of the American way of life and would do anything they could to destroy it. By making these demands, the workers were doing the job of these international agents of terror and revolution. It was the 1920’s

Or so the story continues…

When Bill and Daisy Myers moved into their brand new home in Levittown, Pennsylvania - a small subsurb outside of Philadelphia - they had finally realized their dream. Bill, a returning veteran, used his accumulated pay and the G.I. Bill to pay for their new, spacious home far from the overcramped and dirty city. Their neighbors came out when the Myers move in, crowding around the moving van the Myers had hired. The first rock hits Bill andDaisy’s daughter, drawing blood. Rocks rain down on the hapless couple as they race into their home and lock the doors. Their neighbors break the windows of the house and bash the Myers’ new car with baseball bats. Welcome to the neighborhood. Welcome to the 1950’s. Welcome home war hero.

Or so the story unfolds…

The young black man is charismatic, no doubt about it. He appeals to the African Americans and the Liberals and the Jews. He calls for a radical change in American society based not on hate but on hope. It is code, “they” argue, a signal to his real bosses. He wants to upset American society by “giving everything to the blacks,” “they” argue. His speeches, principles, and ideals - his “dream” - frightens the living hell out of many Americans. The conservative elements dig up his past, link him to despotic leaders we hate and fear. Link him to things that, in hind sight, would seem ridiculous but are breathed in a whisper as the truth. The Reverend was killed in Memphis by a single shot.

So the familiar tale says…

A television show - the most popular in its time slot - centers around the high-stress world of doctors in the emergency room at a Chicago hospital. Two of the doctors fall in love. He’s black, she’s white. Into the offices of the National Broadcast Corporation flood hundreds of angry letters, filled with threats so vile that the writers immediately begin to gloss over the romance in their script.

Ah, this chapter I’ve seen before…

One morning a janitor at a small, Christian college in the Pacific north west comes across a life-sized cardboard cut out of the nation’s first African American Presidential candidate hanging from a tree by a crudely tied noose. The sign around its neck reads “Act 7 reject” in reference to the scholarship offered by the school to African American students who have the potential to become leaders but lack the money to go to the school. It was September, I remember it well…

And the tale goes on…

At a rally of the AFL-CIO, the secretary-treasurer Richard Trumka addresses a crowd of Union members. His address is filled with reminders to vote coupled with an endorsement of the Democratic candidate. After the meeting he speaks with a woman he’s know for a long, long time and asks her why she won’t vote for the person he endorsed. He’s a Muslim. No, he’s a Christian, Trumka replies. He won’t wear an American flag lapel pin. Neither will you, counters Trumka. He’s black. Ah, and you’re not, sighs Trumka.

This is America’s story…how will it go on? Will there be a plot twist? Or will the foreshadowing and repetition continue? Who will decide?

Will You?

LINKS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27123224