Abraham Lincoln on the Death of Osama bin Laden

My fellow Americans, a great stride has been made in War on Terror.  Justice has been done, and bin Laden's shadow across our great country no longer exists.  There are calls to stop the fighting, to bring our soldiers home from overseas.  In light of these, we must remember that one death does not do justice to the thousands of American lives lost during 9/11 nor those lost fighting our wars.  Each life is a blow to America, and the death of Osama bin Laden does not remove the threat to American lives.  The wounds done to our country by the events of 9/11 are far from healing; for some, they never shall.  It is with this in mind that our country as a whole must dedicate ourselves even more fully to eradicating the threat to our country, to ensure that such attacks by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups never occur again upon American soil.  We must, as American citizens, ensure that these deaths are not in vain.

Not My Words

I'm posting the following because it shocked me unlike anything I've read in recent memory.  I found it completely offensive, inappropriate, and in just pure bad taste.  If anyone who reads the following disagrees, I would whole-heartedly love to have a rational discussion with you.

On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the

spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of

the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in

Pakistan.

Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks

in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display,

reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural

psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and

Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like

the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being,

reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.

It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such

an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception

was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States

Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross

irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and

emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true

root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.

The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means

nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death

simply serves as a catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on

revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a

psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it

citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to

anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the

quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.

However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of

rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more

practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the

importance of that problem with respect to priority.

The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society.

It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of

relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and

communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September

11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during

the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.

As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically

limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that

allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this

context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001

become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has

now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is

spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that

pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.

Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from

automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple

structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine

over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart

disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to

environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330

9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget

allocations for research on these illnesses is only a small fraction of the

money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.

Such a list could go on and on with regard to the perversion of priority

when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I

hope many out there can recognize the severe imbalance we have at hand with

respect to our values.

So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude

this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most

brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of

non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed,

killing four little girls attending Sunday school.

In a public address, Dr. King stated:

“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many

people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So

tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God

has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America.

We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the

soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical

weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take

up the ammunition of love.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963 -

Written by Peter Joseph

What comes next?

Today, the American people are celebrating the demise of the largest symbol of terrorism of my generation.  It was one of those moments I think I'll remember forever.  It joins the list of events seared into my mind forever; first hearing about 9/11 as my mother talked with my fourth grade teacher after making an uncharacteristic decision to pick my brother and I up from school that day being the first on that list.  Osama bin Laden has been my generations symbol of evil, and I hope he remains the only one we will have the misfortune of dealing with in our life time.

His death gives a sense of closure to a nation still mourning the loss of thousands of people on that infamous September day.  All over Facebook, people were sounding off the majority expressing relief and happiness that bin Laden had been stopped from causing anymore pain and death to the world.  There were those that expressed disappointment and disgust at the "celebration of death" as some put it.  To them, I have this to say:  The pain, both physical and emotional, caused by bin Laden will never be healed.  Give us a sentence or two on Facebook to declare our relief in the power to finally turn a dark, bloody page in our nation's history.  That being said, his death does not  end the war on terror.  Al Qaeda now has a martyr for their cause, and, if we are to believe the pundits on cable news, attacks will most likely increase as radical Islamists release their fury at losing their symbolic leader.

Questions remain about bin Laden's involvement in the day-to-day operations of the organization.  It seems he had become less integral to the structure and more of a figurehead.  The biggest questions, in my opinion, go past bin Laden and are directed towards the country he was killed in, Pakistan.

Pakistan and the U.S. have had a tenuous relationship, sure to grow as more information comes to light as to just how long bin Laden had been hiding in his compound in the city of Abbottabad, a city that had a large military population.  Needless to say, lots of suspicion is directed towards the Pakistani government as to how much information they had on bin Laden and whether they were reluctant in providing it to the U.S. government.

This is a momentous success for the United States and the world.  This unifying event will lift our nation's spirits for sometime.  But, it must be remembered that there are still those out there that seek to do us harm and we must remain vigilante to their threat.

Black Elk and Nature

I've always admired the Native American's close ties to nature.  The connection they have and the way the speak of it is simply beautiful.  While reading "Black Elk Speaks" the admiration the Native American's have for nature is upon nearly every page.  Their names and descriptions are gorgeous, and sometimes I felt myself yearning to be called Fire Thunder instead of Jake, which is just boring in comparison.  The month of August would seem so much better if we referred to it as Moon When the Cherries Turn Black instead of simply August.

It makes me sad to think Americans were hell-bent on wiping out this beautiful culture simply for land.  It was obvious that the Native Americans were the ones who cared for it and worshipped it.  We simply charged in with industry and Christianity, and found them more than adequate to replace what had been there before.

It's a shame, really.

What do you say?

I've had two heart-breaking conversations in the past couple of days.  They're the worst, especially with two people you really care about.  These conversations were, in their own ways, critiques on the society we live in today.

Both of my conversations were with girl friends of mine who happen to be lesbian.  They don't know each other, and yet their stories are so similar that one would think that two people experiencing such things would somehow find each other.  Instead, they share me, a simple link that doesn't really do either of them any good, except having me to help them out as best I can.  In my opinion, I always come up short.

Both of my girl friends are lesbians.  Both have girlfriends.  And both are experiencing their first same-sex relationships.  It should be liberating.  It should be exciting.  Above all, it should feel right.  But because of the way society has reacted towards homosexuality, they feel everything but.

The first one I talked to was asking me how to hold her girlfriend's hand in public and ignore the stares.  She was scared her girlfriend wouldn't understand why she might be a little uncomfortable doing such a simple action right away.  It was so unfair.  I remember the first time I held a boy's hand in public; it was scary but exhilarating.  We were at a movie, which was kinda cheating, because it was in the dark.  But, all the same, it happened and it felt great.  To imagine such a simple act scaring my friend nearly to tears isn't right.

My second conversation fell upon the topic of marriage.  My second friend has been in talks with her girlfriend about it, and it's looking likely.  But because they live in Wisconsin, where it isn't LEGAL, they can't.  They can't enter into the bond of love because a state government says no.  How can this be? It breaks my heart every time I think about it.  To constantly live with the overwhelming sense that what you're doing isn't allowed is exhausting.  To see your friends go through it breaks your heart.

The culture wars can continue.  Morals can be challenged, the Bible can be referenced, and anger and fear can dominate the conversation.  But what will you say when a GLBT youth comes up to you and asks why they can't be who they are, can't do what feels right?

What do you say?

 

Yikes

I found Louisa May Alcott's "Transcendental Wild Oats" relatively upsetting.  She was making light of the movement slightly, correct?  If not, I'm deeply disturbed.  That anyone can read that and believe that the lifestyle laid out is agreeable is sorely mistaken.  It seemed liked extreme-Veganism (not that Veganism in itself isn't radical as is,) with its dedication to not using animals in any way, shape, or form.  I have a difficult time understanding the rational behind this belief, and an even more difficult time understanding how a parent can put their child through such a lifestyle, when there are essential vitamins and nutrients necessary for healthy growth that are only available through the consumption of meat.  Rather upsetting, if you ask me.

Beyond that, isn't it just too hard to constantly live a life of virtue?

Henry and I: Two Peas in a Pod

Oh, Hank.  I feel like I can call him that because we met way back; Interim in fact, in my Problem of War class.  He and I met one cloudy afternoon after I had collected him from the printer and had him join me for a cup of coffee. I found him engaging, funny, and pragmatic (all things I admire.)  He did most of the talking, lots of libertarian-esque ideas I agreed with and underlined with my own affirmations (i.e. YES!) and a couple disagreements here and there (Voting important here- I disagree with his view that voting is feeble,) but on the whole, we got along just fine.  A relationship flourished.

So, perhaps my meeting with him was a bit romanticized.  But his work in "Civil Disobedience" struck a chord with me.  Here he was, unhappy with America's role in the Mexican-American war, and he refused to let his taxes go towards such an endeavor, so he did not pay them.  Illegal, yes, but such an inspiration!  To not pay one's taxes in protest is such a perfect tactic: Though just a finite amount of money in the grand scheme of things, as a taxpayer you are holding the government by the money bags.  It's something I would love to use once Congress starts using taxpayer funds to protect the Defense of Marriage Act as Speaker Boehner wants to do, but the legal ramifications are. . .daunting.

I think De Tocqueville would be a little put-off by Hank's ideas.  His obvious distaste for the State would have probably conflicted with De Tocqueville trying to sell such a thing to his French pals.  I have the distinct feeling that since Hank and I get along, and De Tocqueville and I don't, they wouldn't fair well either.  But, De Tocqueville's loss.

Hank and I are two peas in a pod.  And to follow, my favorite plant quote by Hank:

"If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

A Post Without Words

The train: A missed opportunity

I was experiencing train withdrawal there for awhile; after having finished Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged over Spring Break and thoroughly enjoying the one thousand plus pages dedicated to trains and railways, my system was in need of a pick-me-up.

I've always liked George Will; he and I share a lot of similar views when it comes to the issues, but I was disappointed with his opinion on trains.  I get it; now is not the time to be throwing money at such an undertaking, and the governor of my home state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (you may have heard of him,) was right in killing plans for a train that was illogical to invest in at this point in our economic history.  However, that does not mean that it is not a good idea for the future.

We screwed up.  Trains should have been kept around.  Can you imagine the accessibility to the United States we would have now if trains were still a viable form of transportation?  Also, with grumblings of how gas prices are getting high, wouldn't it be nice to keep the gas guzzler in the garage and take an efficient, greener way to work?

I see a lot of promise in trains.  Not now, when the country is struggling to get out of the mess that was the recession, but sometime in the future.  Obama's current slogan is "Winning the future."  It's cute and optimistic, but has little substance to it now.  I would love to see some mention of greener transportation, specifically trains, become a part of it.

Back in the day, greener pastures could be reached by trains.  Who says they can't be in the future?

Reading Break

Spring 2011 was looked forward to for two reasons.  First, it was to be spent in Cabo, Mexico.  Second, I finally had some free time to do some reading that didn't include PDFs or textbooks.  I read two books that upon first look seem completely different; "The Social Animal" by David Brooks and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

I started with Brooks, and found his book excellent.  It explored the inner workings of human beings and where they get their characteristics.  It was one of the most interesting books I have ever read.  It dug deeper than that, however; it dealt with why poverty exists in our society, how and why we fall in love, and even what gives us our politic ideals.  He even mentioned Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (despite this being "free" reading, I still couldn't escape every aspect of school!) I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in sociology and wanting to dig into the human psyche.

Ayn Rand came next, and I've never been so sucked into a book before.  Despite being quite hefty, I found myself speeding through it, and I think a big part of why that was was because I agreed with nearly every idea Rand wove into the plot.  Her small-government, free market, capitalist ideals are something I share with her, and to read a book devoted to those ideas was great.  Now, I didn't agree with everything, and am not sure how I feel about Objectivism, her philosophy, but I can say she's one of the best authors I've ever read.

Brooks focused on how humans work; I could almost apply most of his ideas to the actions of the characters in Rand's classic.  This speaks more to Brooks' work than Rand's, though there is no doubt of the important contribution Rand has made to literature.  I find Brooks' piece to be incredibly insightful and intelligent, and a must read for anyone with a marginal interest in human nature.

Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo

Tonight I attended the presentation of the Argentinean Madres de la Plaza, where they discussed the history of the organization and it's struggle for answers.  The Madres were started in the late 70s after 30,000 people were kidnapped and killed by the Argentinean government, which was at the time a military dictatorship.  The Madres, wanting to know what happened to their children and demanding justice, began their protests at the Plaza de Mayo in front of the Casa Rosa, the Argentinean White House.  They gathered every Thursday at 3:00 PM and protested for a half an hour, something they continue to do today.  The Madres themselves experienced threats, murders, and kidnappings of their own.

In December of 1981 the Madres had the first March of Resistance in la Plaza, where they along with supporters marched for 24 hours straight.  This too is a continued practice.  Come 1985, an elected president was in charge and the first trials of military officers began.  However, progress was halted when the president passed the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws, which restricted rights and made it more difficult for the Madres to get information.

Finally with the presidency of Nestor Kirchner did things turn around.  The Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws were found unconstitutional and annulled, and President Kirchner was the first president to acknowledge and fight for the Madres.  April 30th was named Day of Dignity for the Madres, as it was the first day back in 1977 that they marched upon la Plaza.

When I traveled to Buenos Aires and visited the Plaza I remember the feeling of raw emotion while watching the Madres continue their protest of over 30 years.  The pain, anger, sadness, and desire to know what happened to their children is evident, and surely a wound upon the country's history that may never heal.

National Identity: What's it good for?

While reading Steven Durlauf's response to Putnam's "Bowling Alone" entitled, "Bowling Alone: a review essay" (believe me, the contents of the paper are much more original than the title,) I came across an interesting idea I hadn't considered while reading Putnam.  Durlauf has issues with Putnam's discussion of social capital, particularly the two different types, bonding and bridging. Durlauf believes that there are aspects of our lives which do both, and national identity is just that.

National identity can bridge loyalties between different ethnic groups while bonding citizens in ways that may increase hostility towards foreigners.  Well, that was Durlauf's opinion at least.  I don't know about the whole "hostility" towards foreigners.  Maybe it's just my idealism peaking out through my hard, cynical outer-shell, but as a country built by foreigners, I would hope for some more welcoming attitudes.

That's not the case (that little spark of idealism faded quickly.)  Attitudes towards the Hispanic and Muslim communities have gotten increasingly negative this past decade.  Anti-Islam sentiments seemed to reach a boiling point last week, when Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King-R began hearings on what he deemed the "Radicalization of the American Muslim Community."  Reading this article:  King Hearings & Anti-Muslim Hate: A Citizen's Call to Action, makes it hard for me to believe this is really the type of thing Durlauf would refer to as a type of social capital worth believing in, or even acknowledging as social capital.

The Loss of Social Capital

Robert Putnam was right; America's social capital is evaporating at an intense rate.  I generally agree with what he sees as the causers for this occurring, such as women entering the labor force, the "re-potting" hypothesis, the transformation of the American family, and the influence technology has upon our lives.  I wonder if perhaps he left out an important causer; the major influence of corporations on today's politics.

American citizens didn't have powerful, multi-national corporations acting as master puppeteers on Capitol Hill.  Corporate influence in modern-day America is vast and free-spending.  After the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that spending by corporations in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, the influence, and spending, of corporations has exploded.  This is especially evident in the 2010 mid-terms, where spending records were shattered.  Check this link: Campaign cash: What Interest Groups Spent on 2010 Midterm Elections to see who spent what and where the money went.

The typical American citizen does not have billions of dollars to invest in political campaigns.  The typical American cannot pay for commercials advocating their views, or send a lobbyist to Washington to schmooze with politicians to forward types of legislation they like.  The social capital of the typical American has been usurped by corporations, and reversal does not look close.

Social Truce in 2012? Doesn't look like it.

The economy.  Jobs.  The unemployment rate.  These are the issues running through the mouths of every politician from our state houses to D.C.  Republican presidential candidates have declared a "truce" on social issues, instead focusing on something they could convince the American public they could execute better than their opponents.  But one Republican in particular seems to be unwilling to acknowledge the agreement.

Mike Huckabee, a favorite of social conservatives, is livening his base by invoking his pastoral past in condemning a number of social issues that he finds just a little too liberal for his liking.  Obama's recent announcement that the federal government will no longer defend the unconstitutional DOMA unleashed a one-man conservative firestorm.  His recent comments on a Fox News program showcased his strong distaste for the homosexual lifestyle.  He even felt the need to go after recent Academy Award winner Natalie Portman, who had the audacity to get pregnant out of wedlock.

If Huckabee has any true aspirations to reach the office of the presidency he needs to remember that he is no longer behind the pulpit of his church.  He is doing a different kind of preaching to a different crowd of people, and if he wants to be relevant to the American people as a whole, he needs to start adopting similar views.

Associations, Political and Otherwise

I found myself in unchartered territory earlier tonight; a political debate with my twin brother.  Up until now we had seen relatively eye-to-eye in that he would listen to what I had to say in our Poli Sci classes during high school and parrot what I had said, which I was fine with.  It always helped to have someone else on your side.

However, as I shifted away from my previous affiliation and became a bit more moderate, my brother has stayed put.  The information he receives is not filtered through me but rather those around him and the Internet.  Tonight I discovered that I have officially lost my influence over my brother's political association.  He is a stand-alone figure, a fact I find both perplexing and wonderful.

My brother and I have always had a little competitive flair in our relationship, and this political difference has opened up a whole new category.  We started our conversation off with discussion of the turmoil in Madison, our hometown, and our discussion got heated from there.

I found throughout our conversation that though our political association had changed, there was a deeper association underneath; family.  It's not voluntary, but the benefits and strength it has is essential to why America has become a success.  It held more weight with us than our political associations, as we did not dip into the vitriolic spew politics has become for most  (though I daresay that if he had not been as conciliatory as he had been there could, and would, have been a slight escalation in our rhetoric)  I think that de Tocqueville may have missed an opportunity in solidifying his claims by leaving this point out.

2012 and the GOPers vying to take on Obama

Presidential candidate speculation started after the Republicans got ransacked in the historic 2008 election. Americans do have a way at looking ahead, don't we?  Anyway, the Republicans have been throwing out names left and right, each with their pros and cons.  The speculated candidates include Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich.  A couple long-shots for the Republican nomination include Herman Cain, a radio show host and pizza corporation owner, as well as Fred Karger, a Republican operative who has worked in numerous Republican White Houses and is also gay.

To anyone who has stayed up on politics the past couple of years, the majority of those names should be familiar, most of all Palin's.  After losing the vice presidency in the 2008 election, she has been on a controversial media blitz ever since, dominating the airwaves with controversial comments while garnering a large, energetic following.  In my opinion, she's dangerous for the country, along with Michele Bachmann.  The fact that either of them pass the threshold for a viable Republican nominee astonishes me. I was reading an opinion page on the website Politico and read a response in which a political science professor said Bachmann was viable in that sense that she would be a good candidate for those of the public who find Palin "too intellectual".  Yikes.

Despite it all, the Republicans need to realize that no matter how vulnerable Obama appeared earlier, he is gaining strength.  Not only that, he is a sitting president with over a billion dollars in his campaign war-chest who does not have to go through a grueling primary before hitting the general election.  The Obama campaign will be going on all cylinders by the time the Republican nominee comes out bloody and beaten from the conservative dog-fight assured to take place.  

Depending where the country goes the next year and a half will play the biggest role in the outcome of next years election.  Will the Republicans continue the domination of the 2010 midterms or will Obama and the Democrats be able to reverse their fortune and return to the success of 2008?  

A "Civil" Government

I constantly find myself trying to take De Tocqueville's book with a grain of salt, try to read it in the context of the period in which it was written, but I cannot.  I immediately apply to the current day, and find De Tocqueville sorely mistaken.  In his section describing the associations in Europe and America, I feel as if he's wishing the governments of Europe would follow the civil discourse of America.  If only he could see it now.

It's unfortunate our political landscape has changed into a battlefield.  Now more than ever it seems the prominent parties are constantly in a war of attrition. Though, due to what I perceive to be the fickle nature of the voting nature of the American public, momentum does shift every two-four years or so.

De Tocqueville also describes the individuality of politics, the ability to make decisions on your own.  If only that were true.  One can turn on the news and see the votes on legislation and see votes on party lines. That's typical.  One can look at the elections and see that independent, moderate voices either are shut out in the primaries or go on to defeat in the general election.  American politics have become polarized to a point De Tocqueville would probably resort to the fetal position.

De Tocqueville and Wisconsin

While I was reading the assigned chapter, my thoughts kept on connecting what I was reading to the situation in Madison.  Would the protests agree with De Tocqueville's vision of democracy in the United States, or, instead, would he view Governor Scott Walker's budget bill as the antithesis to democracy?

Some call the actions of Walker tyrannical, dictatorial even.  I seem them as misguided and arrogant.  I do not see Walker as our Midwestern Mubarak, and nor do I see Madison as our Cairo.  Such comparisons are hyperbole to the nth degree.  Despite all this, that does not mean that what is going in my great home state isn't dead wrong.

In theory, Walker has done everything De Tocqueville has laid out in his rights as governor.  One aspect does make me uneasy, however, and it is as follows "When the authority, due by general consent to the laws, is disregarded, the governor marches out at the head of the physical power of the state; he breaks down resistance and reestablishes accustomed order."

It's hard to say what De Tocqueville would think about this situation.  We all have our opinions and interpretations of his work and we will apply it in our own way to the protests happening in Wisconsin.

Equality: Fated

"Therefore, the gradual progress of equality is something fated." -De Tocqueville, Democracy in America


When I was poring over Democracy in America, the section that this sentence began was the only one I couldn't help but read over and over again.  There was so much hope, so much optimism in it that it made me believe, hardly a fraction into the book, that De Tocqueville had captured the spirit of America in one of the truest ways I have ever read.

There is so much truth in that statement, especially for our country.  Despite what people may say, that true equality is not achievable, that is beyond the powers of average men and women, De Tocqueville states powerfully and eloquently that the common people are constantly fighting for it, that each step we take is a step closer to universal equality.

Some naysayers may also state that De Tocqueville was merely talking about equality in terms of political power, and I would have to agree that the crux of his argument focuses on that.  However, democracy, in my opinion, is a demonstration of equality in every facet of life, not just government (though, some may argue that the size of government these days means that it already is involved in every facet of our lives, which, on the whole, I would agree with), thought it seems that in order for equality to truly government needs to legitimize it.  And, though democracy should already be promoting equality amongst its people, it seems equality comes when a vocal majority of the citizenry stand up and demand it.  In my opinion, a true democracy would be granting equality for the minority, whether the majority are for it or not.

There's much on the subject of equality and the role of government I find noteworthy, and I'm afraid this posting has become a jumble of my ideas in a not very coherent order.  If I could boil my general point into a concise sentence (which I should be capable of, right?) it would be this:

Democracy, in its truest form, is the strongest supporter, protector, and advancer of equality for each and every citizen, though our American democracy does not act as such until a majority of the citizens decide that the time is ripe for an advancement towards true equality.

I started out this blog post as almost a love letter to America and its history with equality; I feel as though I've lost the endearment and have settled into a haze of frustration and disappointment.  I'm eager to see if De Tocqueville experiences something similar.

"And this, too, shall pass away."

Lincoln used this at a speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, celebrating the progress of the 19th century and urging a committed focus on extending it to the future.  He hoped that this progress was just beginning; that the triumphs of the 19th century would continue and that this successful period and the accessibility of the Dream of Upward Mobility would become available to all "Americans".  He did not think that this would end, but Cullen, on the other hand, believes it has.

I disagree with Cullen.  The Dream of Upward Mobility has not been an easy thing for some to achieve, but that does not mean it's impossible to reach.  Just in Lincoln's lifetime the Dream of Upward Mobility began to extend from only white males to African-Americans and women (though this was a very slow process).

If we look at colleges today, I'll choose St. Olaf at random, I'm sure there are more than one or two students here who are the first of their families to attend college.  On a larger scale, I bet if you asked Mr. Cullen whether or not he thought an African-American man could be president when he was writing his book, he probably would have said no.

I can be just as cynical as the best of them (Cullen included) but when it comes to the Dream of Upward Mobility, I can be as optimistic and idealistic as Lincoln himself.  It is so intrinsic to the "American" Dream that to say it is dead is to say that what this country was built on, the ideas, values, and beliefs have also perished with time.

As long as "America" is a country, the Dream of Upward Mobility shall never pass away.

The "Common" Man

The "common" man.  Every populist movement in history seems to be driven by this "common" man.  He's clearly been very busy.  I personally am not 100% sure who this "common" man is.  Is it based on one's income?  Racial background?  Sexual orientation?  Political affiliation?  There are so many criteria that need to be met- yet it seems lots of people fit the bill.

For me, personally, the "common" man is white, relatively well-off, well-educated (debatably), and has an acute desire to retaliate whenever they feel threatened.  As DeAne said in class on Wednesday, "The perception of threat is as powerful as real loss."  The "common" man is a perfect example of that, especially with the modern day Tea Party.

The Tea Party movement was born from threat of over-reaching government.  Many found truth in the movement and it gained strength, becoming a force to be reckoned with in our politics.  The "common" man seeks a reduction of big government, which he believes eventually could reach the size where it restricts moral freedom and liberty.

I don't buy it.  I don't even buy the concept of the "common" man in our society.  We're so diversified, so unique, that common cannot be used to describe our society.  Some would say I fit the description of the "common" man but I definitely do not feel like the Tea Party shares my views.

"Common" man I am not.

The Christianization of America

The Second Great Awakening instilled the concept of Christianity and its ideals into mainstream "American" public.  Church attendance sky-rocketed, allowing priests and pastors to spread their views and ideals to a much larger audience.  Religion, exclusively Christianity, began to seep into all facets of "American" life.  Religion and church-going became a social staple for those yearning to be atop the social hierarchy.

Unfortunately, with the Christianization of the public came the Christianization of the government.  Despite our great strengths with the separation of church and state, religion still managed to become a large part of politics, and remains one today. With such factions as todays religious right, which has a draconic influence on "American" politics, especially in regards to the Republican party of which the religious right is part of the base, our politics is not what the founding fathers dreamed of while conceiving our nation.

I don't see any need for religion in our politics, or in mainstream society.  I ascribe to my own beliefs and I typically do not share them publicly.  Our society is not a welcoming environment to other religions, no matter how much we wish to convince ourselves otherwise.  Christianity is obviously the dominant religion, and there isn't room for others.
 

Rapturous

I am not an evangelical.  Frankly, I find the group intimidating.  However, I can agree with them on one thing: The Left Behind Series is really really good.  I discovered it my junior year of high school when my aunt bought the entire series at a garage sale and they slowly made their way through my family.  My mother received them by mistake; she had tried, and failed, to read them previously and had no desire to try again.  She claimed she had been frightened, which was legitimate.  The chaos and catastrophe that occurs in the series is what the Bible claims will happen at some point before Jesus' Second Coming.

At the time, I was finishing up Confirmation classes in the Catholic Church, and had spent many Wednesday evenings poring over the Bible.  I decided to pick the first one up and give it a try, and to my surprise, I was hooked.  I sped through the series quickly, but because I saw them as fiction as opposed to a scary prophecy that was sure to come true.

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival in America fueled by the proselytizing of oratorically   skilled pastors.  I feel if these books were available back then, fear would have played a major role in the conversion process.  Who would want to be Left Behind and suffer the plagues, the Antichrist, and the virtual Hell that the Earth turns into, when what is necessary to avoid it all is follow God, Jesus and His teachings from the start?  It would have been an excellent tool in convincing men and women to follow Christ.

I can't say I felt a sudden desire to amp up my Christianity in preparation for the Rapture.  I found the books to be extremely entertaining and held my attention. . .well, rapturously.  

Guilty for copping out of a blog post post

My conscience got the better of me- here's a post that's honest to blog.

Each year, the conservatives of America gather at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in D.C. to sing love songs to low taxes, limited government, restricting abortion and prohibiting gay rights. As conservatives, they identify with the Republican party, which has failed them this year when it comes to upholding socially conservative values.  This year, a gay Republican group known as GOProud is a sponsor of the event.  Far-right groups were not very happy.

The Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America, The Family Research Council and the National Organization for America, as well as other far-right groups pulled out almost immediately following the announcement of GOProud's involvement.  Political conservatives such as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina refused to attend as well.

There will come a time where equality will be universal and those who stood against it will be on the wrong side of history.  I can't wait for that time to come.

Democracy/Copping out of doing a blog post.

“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.” -Oscar Wilde.  A quote that, in many respects, paints a highly accurate picture of government of the United States, especially in its current form.  Harkening back to the days of the Athenians, democracy has changed the way that is implemented over the years but has not lost the ideals.  These ideals acknowledge the rights of people, the inherent God given rights that everyone person has and which no government can take away or manipulate.  A democracy is a government in which the ruled are essentially the rulers.  Far from perfection, but, in the view of the majority of the world, the only viable form of government.  Democracy is an intrinsic American value.  Some would go as far to say democracy is American (they would be wrong, of course).  Though Americans may be democracies biggest cheerleaders amongst the citizens of the world, the concept does not belong to them alone.  

The most obvious form of democracy in America occurs whenever voting takes place.  People go to the polls and vote for the person they think will best represent their views in some facet of the government whether it be local, state, or federal.  However, elections are winner-take-all, and invariably some person’s rights to have their preferred candidate will represent them will be taken away.  As stated by Thomas Jefferson “ A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is how democracy works.  There are no doubt flaws, but every system has them.  It is then the responsibility of the representative to remember not only those who elected him or her to office, but also those who did not, for these people are still his or her constituents and need to be heard.  Unfortunately, America has changed democracy from representing the people to representing a party, but that is a discussion for another time.

Democracy is as it’s ugliest when mob rule occurs.  There are those who believe that the majority is always in the right; this is not the truth.  Mob rules is a sever flaw of democracy, because in true democracies a majority is all that counts.  The American government is crafted in a way where majorities hold all the power.  Minorities are virtually powerless.  Another unfortunate aspect of true democracy is the power granted to the people.  Winston Churchill once stated “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”  Harsh, but, in many cases, true.  The sheer lack of knowledge held by some voters is astonishing, and to imagine the power they have can be intimidating.  It has become popular these days to ask for a leader like the common man.  I could not disagree more.  I want someone to represent me in office who is more intelligent, more ethical, and just all around better than I am.  I want someone who can make decisions even when the majority is against him or her because he or she knows an alternative is the best solution.  Democracy can be ugly (it usually is) but there are silver linings.

This form of government acknowledges the rights of human beings better than any other.  It not only acknowledges these rights, but protects, upholds, and cultivates them.  Democracy does not allow power to be consolidated to a few but rather all who are governed.  It keeps our representatives honest (at least to some extent), as they have to answer to us when their seat is up in an election cycle.  Our government is that of a democratic republic, where our representatives are democratically elected to their positions, in that we, the people, cast votes in order to elect them.  The ability to vote is the best aspect of democracy.

Democracy is showcased every day in America.  It comes in the simple form of sharing an opinion that might contradict the government.  It could be a letter to one’s representative urging them to vote according to one’s view on a piece of legislation.  It is the accessibility to our government that is overlooked every day.  Our representatives that we elected are shaping the path the government is going down and putting our views and desires into action.    

America has been a showcase for democracy since the country’s creation.  It has been democracy’s champion, as its citizens are passionate about the concept and the ideals that are idolized through the practice.  Democracy has its flaws, but it is the only viable government that recognize the rights and liberty that all people possess.

We: The Average "American"

Sometimes, I don't like being referred to as an average "American".  The average "American" cannot name many (if any) of the Supreme Court Justices.  The average "American" doesn't know what the Electoral College does, nor does the average "American" know the Speaker of the House.  I don't particularly like being grouped in with them.

Surprisingly, the civic literacy of college students isn't much better.  You would think that with the average "American" now having a college degree (or getting there, at least) that civic literacy would be higher.  Nope.

In my opinion, the average "American" isn't too interested in how government works.  He or she is more concerned with the voting, which is an extremely important civic duty.  However, perhaps the votes would count more if one was aware of the process through which government governs, and the actions it executes while in power.

 If you think you're a bit more literate than the average "American" when it comes to civics, check out this Civic Literacy Quiz and prove it!  You might be surprised at how much (or little) you know.