I Kind Of Voted Today

The wife and I went in to vote early. Only because of tremors I have had since the 1980s, I needed the wife to fill out the form and mark the ballot.

Gone are the days when I could afford to vote for 3rd party candidates. Those days are in the past because of the current corruption and insanity of the Republican Party. Conservative parties do not need to be insane like today's Republican Party. But what we see now is the result of authoritarianism infecting the party and revolving around a leader who needs serious help, not power. Trump is, like his hero, Vlad Putin, not facing reality. Only Putin has much more intelligence and a better hold on reality than Trump. But one of the tragedies of our time is found in the fact that as either leader gets more militarily aggressive, the closer mankind comes to experiencing mutually assured destruction as warned against in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (click here for the source). 

Of course the Democratic Party is no prize. Run by a bought out DNC, the Democratic Party is responsible for making Trump and his cohort seem like the only rational choice to many Americans. I have run into some of those American Trump voters and though that group is not a monolith, one characteristic they have in common is ignorance spurred by taking up residence in a small information bubble.

The short of it is that in almost every single federal, state, and local election, a vote for a Republican is a vote that helps enable the Trump's agenda. It is a vote for recreating America in Russia's image. And, finally, it is a vote for Vlad Putin. Neoliberalism has taken over much of the world and its logical consequence are corrupt oligarchies like the one that rules over Russia. And though we should vote for the Dems here, a vote for them is not necessarily a vote against Neoliberalism. In most cases, it is simply a vote that slows down Neoliberalism to a crawl at best. But at least electing Dems will protect the free speech rights of those who oppose Neoliberalism.

May Day With The Dems

 Being a socialist, May Day has a bit of a different meaning for me than it does for many Democrats. For one thing, we socialists have been speaking up for immigrants far longer than the Dems though perhaps with too much of an edge. But that is because we have been aware of what immigrants have had to face long before both the Dems expressed concerned and Trump came to power.

However, not all of us socialists are the same. Some focus also on empowering workers at the workplace regardless of their ideologies while others are pushing an ideological agenda too hard. Stalinists are an example of the latter. 

Also, I got introduced to Antifa during a May Day event. I talked with them in person. Though Antifa can stand for being anti-fascist, there is an organized group called 'Antifa' some of whose members told me that they are reliving the street battles that communists were fighting in  Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

I was just celebrating my first May Day with the Dems and it was very laid back which was both good and bad. While the socialists I've celebrated May Day with have too much of an edge, the Dems have too little of one. 

Plus, the Dems have a more narrow view of the workers' needs than socialists do. What socialists see that Dems don't is that workers need to have power in the workplace in addition to unionizing which allows them to enter into collective bargaining to negotiate for both better pay and working conditions. And so unions are there to help prevent businesses from exploiting and abusing workers.

A protest sign at May Day rally. The quote is from the movie 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. It is response to King Arthur when he identifies himself as the King of England to a couple of peasants.

The Dems approach is to portray themselves as vanguards for workers. That means that the Dems will represent the demands and needs of the workers in government in exchange for their support. But it also means that the Dems are not empowering workers in the workplace. In addition, the Dems are heavily influenced by money from corporations. The result is that the Dems can have a conflict of interest when representing workers.

Socialists enable workers in multiple ways. Not only do socialists work to represent the concerns of workers, they also seek to empower them.  Socialists want workers to go beyond what unions do by adding to their collective bargaining rights, positions of power both in businesses and the government. An example of workers gaining power in the work place can be seen in Germany's codetermination laws that allow for a percentage of workers to be placed on a business's executive  boards depending on the number of employees a business has.

Without those positions of power, workers have no partial ownership of the businesses that employ them. Such workers have no say in how a business operates and treats its other stakeholders. Workers have no say as to the direction a business will take and where it locates or relocates. And unless workers are also included in Congress, they have less to say as to what regulations, which would protect people and the environment, will be written and passed. 

And so the approach taken by the Dems, who are already compromised by corporate money, cannot represent workers like socialists could if socialists were given a chance.

In addition, socialists have justice concerns that extend beyond the borders of their own nations. Socialists are concerned about the injustices that come with American imperialism. Unfortunately, some socialists are so focussed and American imperialism that they let the injustices practiced by other nations, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, fly in under the radar. The same occurs with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where some socialists are so focussed on the injustices practiced by the Israeli government that they give hall passes to Palestinian terrorism. On the other hand, while, for the most part, the Dems are rightly reacting and responding to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, many of them overlook both the injustices that come with American imperialism and with those practiced by the Israeli government.

And so there is a difference between celebrating May Day with my fellow socialists than with the Dems. Both groups have contributions to make and faults to change. But if the Dems want to present a more contrasting and positive alternative to the Repubs, they will refuse to be influenced by corporate money and will keep what they rightly doing  while moving closer to how socialists analyze and approach problems and injustices.

In the eyes of many of my fellow socialists, I am slumming it when protesting with the Dems. That is because of the differences, some of which were mentioned above, that exist between socialists and the Dems. I agree with my fellow socialists that we feel significantly offended when the Repubs call the Dems 'Marxists' or 'socialists.' Obviously, the Repubs like to oversimplify life by overlooking the significant differences that exist between socialists and the Dems. The Repubs tendency to over simply things appeal to many of its followers. 

At the same time, we socialists will be promoting injustices if we believe, as how Martin Luther King Jr. described the West, while speaking against the Vietnam War, when he said that it believe it had everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. And so we socialists, and we are a very diverse group,  need to look for what we can learn from the Dems, the traditional Repubs, and even from the Trump's Repubs if we wish to avoid being narrow-minded ideologues with very small audiences. Narrow-minded ideologies ming appeal to those of us who embrace authoritarianism, but it also sabotages our efforts to bring change.

Opportunism Followed By Manipulation

 One of the skills that successful lawyers who argue in court must have is the ability to persuade people. The practice of being able to persuade people causes some to make compromises with facts and truth. But then again, lawyers are paid to win their cases.

The same can said of politicians, especially those who become incumbents. They must be able to persuade people even though politicians can also depend on votes based on the political party loyalty. In addition, a large part of persuading people is to make associations between one's positions or one experiences with positive outcomes while making negative associations with the positions or experiences of one's opponents.

Trump is a case in point here. He partially succeeded in associating increases in crime with Mexican illegal immigrants while associating an improving economy solely with his policies. And so a significant part of persuading people is to be successful at making the associations one wants to make while avoiding unwanted associations with oneself. Note here that facts and truth are not as important in successfully persuading people as being able to make desirable associations while avoiding undesirable associations.

Of course the ability to make the associations that one want to make while avoiding unwanted associations depends on what one's audience wants to believe. And this is where opportunism can be followed by manipulation. If an audience is already angry with or biased against a politician or political party, then  associating negative outcomes with what that person or group believes or practices becomes easier. The opposite happens when one wants to associate negative outcomes with a group that an audience is sympathetic with or loyal to.

For example, Trumpublicans wanted to blame the Democrats for the inflation that followed our recovery from the pandemic. That is despite the fact that as we were emerging out of the pandemic, methods of providing the supply of goods, like fuel, lagged behind spikes in demand. In addition, the global price of oil was significantly affected by Russia's invasion into the Ukraine. And of course, the maximizing profits for shareholders  effect on our economy has also played a role as high profits for some oil companies strongly suggest. But none of these factors were mentioned by Trumpublicans.

Another example can be found in the Trumpublican response to Trump's refusal to return classified documents and the subsequent raid. Already being upset with the "Deep State," Trumpublican supporters saw the FBI raid on Trump's Mara Lago estate as a violation of Trump's rights and saw no problem with him having those documents. In addition they are charging that the disparity in how the discovery Biden's not securely keeping documents with how Trump were treated as proof of hypocrisy by the media, law enforcement, and the Democratic Party. And they make that charge despite the vast disparities in the two situations. But remember that the key to being successful in making the associations one want to make often depends more on the the beliefs and sentiments of one's target audience instead of the facts and truth involved.

So our sentiments and beliefs can make us easy prey for those who are only seeking to persuade us while not caring about adequately informing us. And while both of our two major political parties sacrifice truth and facts for the ability to persuade, the Trumpublicans are excelling in caring more about merely being convincing than on helping us understand why we should believe them. And the more that what we can be convinced of depends on our sentiments and established beliefs rather than on being disciplined in seeking the facts and following the rules of logic, the more political opportunists will emerge on the scene will be able to manipulate us.

While the January 6th Insurrection failed as did the Redwave in the 2022 election, we see in the House of Representatives the same spirit of opportunism resulting in manipulation alive and kicking. Our only protection against being hijacked by political opportunists from either party is being well informed. And being well informed depends on our ability discern what is factually true from what is false. And ability to recognize what is factually true is to reduce our personal biases, both biases for and against, as much as possible.

So it is up to us to avoid being manipulated by opportunists. The more we are willing to let go of past biases and examine claims by checking facts and applying logic, the more we are immune to the efforts of opportunists. And that is very important now because the failures of the January 6th insurrection and of the Redwave in the 2022 Midterms have not dampened the spirits and efforts of the Trumpublicans. And while, at this time, the attempts to manipulate the American people are for the most part being made by Trumpublicans, the Democrats have a history of being just as manipulative. Should the Trumpublicans find disfavor by a vast majority of the Republicans, we can expect the Democrats be more manipulative than they are now.

The 3rd Day After

  Friday's posts are usually a review of a Christian article. But today's post will be different because of the recent elections.

Today is the 3rd day after the Midterm elections and there is hope in one sense. Those election deniers who were in league with Trump did not perform as well as feared or expected. As of the writing of this article, it looks like the Republicans will flip the House while it is way too close to call the Senate results. And thus, while the Dems are not worth bragging about, they are still the lesser of two evils.

But the news is not all terrible because of the plight of the many election deniers who ran for their state's governor's office or Secretary of State office. And that gives hope for the 2024 election. The hope it gives is that if a Democrat wins the 2024 Presidential election, we have a better chance of not ending up with a Constitutional crisis.

However, we are not out of the woods yet. Though the good news is that it appears that Trump's personal power over the Republican Party might be diminishing, Trumpublicanism in the form of other Republicans who share his agenda might still be alive and kicking.

Trumpublicanism, in the form of MAGA, that chants the America First mantra, is Climate Change denying, is pandemic denying and being skeptical of medical science, is denying the existence of systemic racism, promotes the domestic side of neoliberal capitalism, and passionately embraces authoritarian rule might have more life than Trump's personal political power. As mentioned before in a previous blog article (click here for the article), DeSantis could be the new front runner and figure head for Trumpublicanism. And for those who voted blue to protect democracy,  DeSantis could be a more ominous and formidable foe than Trump.

DeSantis has already proven that he can do an adequate job as governor, which is an executive position--that is if we don't count his political agenda as a criteria. Though not without blemish, DeSantis does not the PR baggage that Trump has. But there is one characteristic which DeSantis has displayed to a comparable level with Trump: authoritarian rule. That authoritarian rule can be seen the vengeance he is currently seeking on Disney World for their public opposition to one of his proposals on LGBT and education. In addition, he has waged war on wokism both in the public and private sectors by trying to censor certain perspectives of racism in America from being taught. Though the courts struck down his efforts to prohibit wokism from being taught in the private sector, he has succeeded in prohibiting them from being taught in schools.

It's not that DeSantis is free from PR problems. His recent stunt that lured undocumented people to fly to Massachusetts could have legal consequences on him personally. And his recent advertisement claiming that God created him on the 8th day as a fighter to protect the people from Florida could, and should, turn off religiously conservative Christians who have an adequate amount of religious education. Even for those without any serious religious education, such an ad should remind them of the pathological level of narcissism that we saw in Trump.

So as John Oliver would ask at this point: What can we do now or where do we go from here? What we can do is to first encourage the establishment Republicans to split from the Trumpublicans even if Trump's political power is starting to wane. The spirit of Trumpublicanism is still alive in the Republican Party. DeSantis is an example of the influence of Trumpublicanism. The splitting of the party would become a lethal blow to Trumpublicanism regardless of Trump's political prowess. Of course, the split would also hurt establishment Republicans so their splitting the party up would make them into political kamikazes. We have already seen that Kinzinger and Liz Cheney. 

As for the Dems, they need to initiate contact with and eagerly work with establishment Republicans to first collaborate as a general principle, and to repair the prestige of the establishment Republicans. That would make establishment Republicans more competitive among conservative voters.

While the Democratic Party must become more progressive in terms of defending and protecting the marginalized in society and protecting the environment from pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases, they need to learn the lesson the lesson that Vlad Lenin learned all to late. The Dems have to temper the speed at which they promote the progressive agenda so that it does not bring too fast of a change for people to take. That means that progressives themselves will have to be patient with measures that either morally or practically require immediate action and resolution.

From the Marxist perspective, we need to empower workers both at the workplace, especially in publicly owned businesses, and in government. Currently many workers favor the GOP; but they do so because of culture war concerns. In the meantime, their contribution to the workplace remains reduced to just production and only rewarded with pay. Workers are given little to no opportunity to influence the decisions and direction of the businesses they work in on a large scale. 

And since The Constitution prevents us from having a governmental structure that allows Americans to be represented by vocation, the Biden Administration must make extra efforts to incorporate input from workers of all stripes so as to empower them in government. But an even better suggestion than that is for the Biden Administration to push an American version of Germany's codetermination laws. Those laws require businesses to have a certain percentage of workers on their executive boards based on the total number of workers in the company.

We must continue to battle the Big Lie that says that Biden was elected because of fraud. Even though Big Lie candidates didn't do that well, the Big Lie's promoters and apologists will be diligent at persevering. And that lie could take off if the nation's economy takes a major hit or there is some other major crisis that makes people feel desperate.

Finally, the Democratic Party must open to welcoming balanced pro-life supporters into their party. Besides for the moral reasons, a practical reason would be that doing so would reduce the Republican Party's exploitation of religiously conservative Christians.

Are there other actions to be taken. Yes, but I will quit here because I am out of time and ideas.

The Political Storm Clouds On The Horizon And The Infrastructure Bills

 Because of the corporate owned duopoly that is much of our two-party political system, we are facing an ominous future. Yes, Trump was defeated in the 2020 election, but for the Biden Administration to successfully pass anything in the Senate, it will have to rely on strict political party voting or it has to compromise some of its expectations by collaborating with the Republicans. 

By referring to Republicans, I did not mean the Trumpublicans. They form the storm clouds on our horizon. The Trumpublicans just might be the biggest current threat to the nation. For not only do the Trumpublicans have a different agenda from the rest of us, their agenda is fueled by a fiercely persistent break from reality.

I would not have necessarily considered the Trumpublicans to be a serious threat to the well-being of our nation; but then there was the  January 6 rebellion against The Constitution. And not only that, there is their response to the Covid-19 pandemic that relied on mis/disinformation and including their resistance to the vaccines, the mandates, their conspiracy theories, and their overly eager acceptance of unproven medicines. In short, their eagerness to passionately embrace breaks with reality and their enforcement of double standards.

Even some Republicans, not including the Trumpublicans, have casted their lot with the delusional views of those who have been rejecting what solid scientific research has been telling us.  That is that there are Republicans who do not support Trump but who believe, for example, that the vaccinations are simply a tactic to gain more government control of society. Well, like any other situation that is considered a national emergency, the government will take on a few powers that they did not have or exercised  before. But because their man is not in control, their suspicions against the ruling party emerge those are eagerly spread by the Trumpublicans and fearfully believed by some regular Republican voters. That has put our nation is in a tailspin because the breaks with reality being promoted by the Trumpublicans are triggering phobic reactions among regular Republicans. We can call these reactions phobic because there is a real fear of making distinctions between what is real and what they fear among those smitten. Again, such victims of the Trumpublican driven phobias are afraid to distinguish between the government simply taking actions in the face of a deadly pandemic from a power hungry government that has delusions of totalitarianism dancing in their heads.

Another phobic reaction is seen in how some are reading Biden's infrastructure bills. Some, again, see those bills as a Democratic Party's attempt to usher in a USSR Socialist government. And because Republicans believe, that are having phobic reactions to Biden's infrastructure bills,  Thus, trying to dismiss their fears with facts has become fruitless.

Besides the flat earth beliefs of the Trumpublicans regarding climate change, systemic racism, the election, and the pandemic, we have the January 6th attempted insurrection/coup. Certainly not all participants in the pro-Trump rally supported all that went on inside the Capitol building. In fact, I would venture a guess that on January 6th, most people at the Trump rally who walked down to the Capitol did not knew what was going on inside the building. But the actions that did take place paint an ominous picture for the future of our nation. For if those were the actions taken by those out of power, what would they do or demand if they regain power.

We can't delude ourselves into thinking that because of the 2020 election, the threat posed by Trump and the Trumpublicans is dead. It is far from that. And history provides a guide here. The Bolshevik and the Nazi take over of their respective nations tells us that often, the seizing of power by dangerous radical groups does not at first succeed. Rather, their success is because they tried, tried again. 

We will have the Trumpublican threat with us for the foreseeable future. And for as long as that threat is viable, we need Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans to find ways to work together and collaborate on legislation. For unless they can find ways to work together, because the Republican Party is still heavily influenced by Trump and the duopoly of our current two-party system, the Trumpublicans will find their way back into positions of power. And, again, considering what they did, as demonstrated on January 6th, while not in power, just think of what they will be willing to do once they regain power.

The State Of American Politics

 Already we are hearing about one possible presidential candidate in 2024.  Of course that would be Donald Trump. His followers don't realize what a disaster his presidency was. His presidency, like that of George W. Bush's, left our nation in shambles. Yes, it got an assist from the Covid-19 virus. But still, Trump's judgment during the time he was in office was very suspect. 

From the beginning Trump was either enthralled or intimidated by strongman leaders. Even if we don't include Putin in the mix, he expressed jealousy over China's Jinping's maneuvering to become President for life, he was impressed by Erdogan, he congratulated  Duterte for how he handled the Philippines drug problem, and from I read from one of Woodward's book on Trump, he seemed intimidated by Jung-un of North Korea.

Trump's reelection hopes always relied on his immigration policies and the nation's economy. Moral shortcuts were seen in the Trump Administration's treatment of those who were detained though it should be mentioned that there were some similarities with how Obama's Administration also treated undocumented people. But Obama was able to talk about unwanted immigrants without using racist descriptions. 

But let's face it, we will never solve our immigration problems until we make our foreign policies and trade agreements a significant part of our immigration policies. Why is that? It is because our foreign policies and trade agreements have been instrumental in driving up the demand for people wanting to emigrate to this nation. Our foreign policies have a history of increasing the rate of violence in a nation even for the long term. There is something about supporting regime changes where the incoming ruler acts as a tyrannical dictator that can tend to make a nation more violent. As for our trade agreements, they have been partially responsible for increasing poverty in some of our trade agreement partners as the targeted beneficiary of those agreements are often corporations. That is what we saw with NAFTA.

As for our economy, Trump took shortcuts there to ramp up, or actually partially ride the coattails of his predecessor's, success. Here Trump cut environmental regulations that increased short term profits while endangering our future both with respect to climate change and environmental concerns outside of climate change. In fact, Trump did all he could to show the world that he refused to believe that climate change even existed. 

Trump's tax cuts targeted the wealthy. That and his spikes in the military budget again put America's future at risk as the they resulted in unnecessary spikes in the deficit. Many of us didn't notice this because we were convinced that Obama left the military in shambles--something that is kind of hard to do since even under Obama we were spending more money on the military than the next 8 nations combined. But as one old rock song mentioned: 'Paranoia strikes deep.'

And while we weren't watching, Trump restarted the US in a new arms race with Russia.

But what do we get with Biden? Certainly he is an authoritarian at heart though not to the degree that Trump is. He claimed that he could work with the Republicans but has yet to show that. Having floated his recovery plans earlier in the year, some non-Trump Republicans met with him to see if they could strike a deal. But Biden refused to compromise with them. As a result, Biden's infrastructure plans will have no Republican support. In fact, some of Republicans are thinking about letting America default on its loans and shutting down the government, a step that will hurt many of us.

And then there is Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Certainly we needed to withdraw because we were in an unwinnable conflict with those who hosted those who attacked us on 9-11. Our troubles from Afghanistan started when Carter signed off on assistance with the predecessors of the Taliban, the Mujahideen. Here we should note that, like the Taliban, the Mujahideen strongly opposed the social reforms that the Soviet friendly Communist government was trying to continue and even add to that included an improved standing for women. Thus we have another success story for employing binary logic in a world full of continuous values.

Certainly, any withdraw from Afghanistan was going to be messy. But Biden showed insufficient effort to minimize that messiness. And he has still failed to acknowledge that he could have done a better job.

Yes, Biden has some success early in his tenure as President. But will his performance hurt the Dems chances of keeping control of at least one chamber of Congress let alone both Such is an important question because the Republican Party is still under the control of Trump. Their denial of reality, seen with Climate Change during Trump's Administration has leaped tall buildings in a single bound with their reactions and responses to the Covid crises. And they plan to center the 2022 midterms on the ludicrous accusation that the Dems are Marxist socialists--such is an insult to many of us who lean to varying degrees toward Marx. But such is the state of the Republican Party because of the deliberate ignorance possessed by many of its registered voters.

And though we could go one about the government, we should note that, in many cases, a nation's politicians are only a reflection of its people. Here, we can realistically blame Trump for spiking the political polarization we see. This polarization is the result of tribalism, a tribalism that is built on the practice of canonizing one's own views and leaders and stoking fear by demonizing one's opponents. And many of us just go along with that.

If this article seems pessimistic to you, then good. I really don't see anyway out of the mess that the whole nation, including its politicians and its people, have made for itself.

Are The Trumpublicans Exhibiting Leninism?

The Trump loss has come with a, what was for some very foreseeable, purging of the current Republican Party. This purging started with the actions taken by state Republican parties against those Republicans who voted for either the impeachment or conviction of Donald Trump. The latest ouster of Liz Cheney from her party determined positions of power because of her opposition to Trump could be considered to be the epitome of retaliations in the name of Trump. The issue here is whether the Republican Party will be known by a personal loyalty its members have to Trump or by a set of principles which they believe should guid our nation's leaders when making decisions.

Though the combination of Trump's hold on the Republican Party and his authoritarianism should have made the current state of the Party not just foreseen by some, but expected by all, it has some parallels in some of what should be surprising historical characters. Because of my own Marxist leanings and studies, one of the surprising parallels between what is happening with Trump's party today, otherwise known as the Trumpublicans, can be seen with Russia's socialists in and around the time of the Russian Revolution. Upto just prior to the 1917 October Revolution, there was also a 1917 February Revolution, Russia's socialists could be  divided between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Some time prior to the October Revolution, the Mensheviks split from the Bolsheviks because the former group wanted Russia to experience a gradual conversion to socialism while the Bolsheviks, let by Lenin, want to use a quick revolution in order to gain power.

In addition, what followed the October Revolution was a purge of Russia's socialists by Lenin and Bolsheviks. Loyalty to Lenin was required to avoid being silenced. Karl Kautsky, a contemporary of Lenin wrote against the silencing of fellow socialists (click here and there for a couple of examples). Those socialists were being silenced because they disagreed with Lenin and Bolsheviks. 

We see a silencing in today's Republican Party. And, like the split that happened between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, some in the Republican Party are considering splitting from the Trumpublicans in order to start their own party. For the Mensheviks, the split spelled the end of their influence. Only time will tell if a split by the Republicans opposed to Trump from their party will have a similar result.

But more importantly, the silencing of fellow Republicans because of a lack of personal loyalty to Trump somewhat reminds one of the silencing of socialists who were not loyal to Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Though the means of silencing practiced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks were less subtle than those practiced by the Trumpublicans, the general principle of silencing based a lack of personal loyalty is similar enough. 

That such silencing is happening in America paints some dark, ominous clouds on the horizon of what is left of our democracy. For if the Trumpublican Party can silence fellow Republican because of a lack of personal loyalty to Trump, what could occur if the same Trumpublicans regain control of the whole nation. We've already seen some of the measures they would resort to in order to maintain power despite the election and what Trump's own appointed officials said about the election.

I lean toward Marxism and have no positive regard for what Lenin did. At the same time, I know that no ideology is omniscient and thus we need to hear from liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. But conservatism cannot be fairly represented in our government and the nation by any political party that revolves around personal loyalty to a self declared messiah figure. That isn't conservatism, that is a cult. And history has shown us what cult figures who are in love with their own image can do to the nation that follows and empowers them. Thus, those Republicans who are driven by conservative principles must not only split from the Trumpublicans, they must make the split work by becoming a vibrant voice in our government.

ONIM For August 20, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

• Of Calvin, Social Justice, And The Theology Of The Cross -- Heidelblog
• God Plans To Prosper Us -- Felix Culpa
• How Pervasive Is The Prosperity Gospel? -- Cranach
• The Power Of Healing Through Forgiveness -- Jim Erwin
• Report Reveals Widespread Sexual Abuse By Over 300 Priests In Pennsylvania -- NPR
• Even Before Recent Revelations, U.S. Catholics Gave Pope Francis Declining Ratings On Sex Abuse Scandal -- Pew Research Center
• Capitalism And The Gospel Of Love -- Imaginative Conservative 

World News

• Teen Girl Slammed Unconscious During Arrest By San Francisco Police, Witnesses Say -- San Francisco Chronicle
• Woman Says Her Job Application Was Denied Because Her Name Is Too 'Ghetto' -- Yahoo
• Nearly A Year After Maria, Puerto Rico Officials Claim Power Is Totally Restored -- NPR
• Thousands Sign Petition Calling For Lebron James To Replace Betsy DeVos As Education Secretary -- CBC News
• Mystery Russian's Satellite's Behaviour Raises Alarm In US -- BBC
• Naval Base Kitsap Spills 80,000 Gallons Of Sewage Into Puget Sound, 'No Contact' Advisory Issued -- Q13 Fox
• College Students Who Don't Use Opioids Suffer Too, Penn State Study Suggests -- Philadelphia Inquirer
• The Corbyn Wreath 'Scandal' Is Just An Exercise In Hypocrisy -- Guardian
• Australian Military Licenses To Saudi Arabia Have Quietly Quadrupled -- New Matilda
• When Aretha Franklin Offered To Post Bail For Angela Davis -- Quartzy
• How Women In Zimbabwe Overcame A Culture Of Fear To Build A Culture Of Resistance -- Waging Nonviolence
• How International Travel Is Changing The Narrative On Violence In Chicago -- Waging Nonviolence
• Why Anti-Authoritarian Doctors Are So Rare -- ZNet
• A New Film Examines Sexual Violence And The Bakken Oil Boom -- ZNet
• UK Refuses To Back UNK Inquiry Into Saudi 'War Crimes' Amid Fears It Will Damage Trade -- Independent
• Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering Of Animals That Benefits Human Health, But Many Oppose Other Uses -- Pew Research Center
• As Midterms Near, Democrats Are More Politically Active Than Republicans -- Pew Research Center
• How Emotional Abuse Takes Its Toll -- Truthdig
• Yemeni Refugee On Escaping War And Life On South Korea's Jeju -- Aljazeera
• Italy Bridge Collapse: Three More Bodies Found Under The Rubble -- Aljazeera
• Chart: 'CEOs Make 312 Times More Than Typical Workers' -- Yahoo News

Israel-Palestine News

• Israel Detains Prominent Jewish-American Critic At Airport -- Fox News
• African Migrants Reel As Israeli Law Cuts Into Salaries -- San Francisco Chronicle
• Palestinian Succession Talk Heats Up As PLO Council Convenes -- Bloomberg
• Israel Proposes Gaza Cancer Patients Be Treated In West Bank, Where Treatment Is Unavailable -- Haaretz
• Israel Is 'Becoming A Full-Blown Police State,' Reza Azlan Says After Interrogation At Border -- Mondoweiss
• Sacha Baron Cohen's Col. Erran Morad Another Sign Of Israel's Growing Isolation -- Mondoweiss
• Netanyahu Receives Visit From Police Over Corruption Allegations --Fox News
• Palestinians Can't Keep Living Like This -- Bloomberg

Donald Trump News

• If Omarosa Did Sign An NDA, Trump Might've Broken The Law -- Huffington Post
• Analysis: One Year On, Trump Still Fuels Racial Divide -- AP News
• Don Lemon Reveals The Sad Reality About Trump's Alleged 'N-Word' Tape -- Huffington Post
• Trump's Military Parade Is Now Estimated To Cost $92 Million--$80 Million More Than Earlier Estimate -- CNBC
• Trump Cancels Military Parade, Blames D.C. Officials For High Cost -- NBC News
• 'You've Embarrassed Us In The Eyes Of Our Children': Navy SEAL Who Oversaw The Osama Bin Laden Raid Rebukes Trump -- Business Insider
• Criticized For Racism, Trump Goes After Black Former National Security Advisor -- Huffington Post
• What Those Joint Editorials Denouncing Trump Conveniently Left Out -- Truthdig
• Trump Warnings Grow From Forgotten Republicans -- AP News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Kareem Abdul-Jabbar On The NFL, 'BlackkKlansman' And The Summer Movie As Protest Song -- Hollywood Reporter
• Billionaires Reach For The Stars While World Suffers -- CNN
• Stagnating Salries: Real US Wages Are Essentially Back At 1974 Levels, Pew Reports -- USA Today
• Texas Opens Investigation Into Reported Death Of Child After Leaving ICE Custody -- ABC News
• Report: Blue Lives Matter Rebuff Jets Offer, Cites Anthem Protests: Player Issues Are 'Made Up' -- Yahoo News
• Naturalized Americans Could Lose Their Citizenship With Thousands Of Cases Under Review -- McClatchy
• Oatmeal, Breakfast Foods Contain Unsafe Amounts Of Cancer-Linked Weed Killer, Report Says -- USA Today
• Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change -- New York Times
• Foster Care System Is One Of The Paths To Murdered And Missing Indigenous Women -- CBC News
• Forgotten Women: The Conversation Of Murdered And Missing Native Women Is Not One North America Wants To Have--But It Must -- Independent
• Chicago Police Are 14 Times More Likely To Use Force Against Young Black Men Than Against Whites -- Intercept
• "A Complete Disaster" -- Z Magazine
• Kerala Floods: Thousands Await Rescue As Death Toll Crosses 200 -- Aljazeera

Just For Fun 

• Customer Walks Into Liquor Store--Without Noticing Bear Standing Right Next To Him, Video Show -- Miami Herald
• Pence Calls Space Force Necessary To Protect Us From Gay Aliens -- Borowitz Report
• Trump Says White House Is No Place For Lying Lowlife From Reality Show -- Borowitz Report
• Ditching Tight Pants Improves Sperm Count -- Onion
• Google Admits Your Phone Will Track You Even If You Leave It At Home -- Babylonian Bee
• Extremists On Left, Right Eliminate Each Other In Violent Clash, Nation's Problems Finally Over -- Babylonian Bee
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

References

1. 
   

The Other Side Of Indoctrination

Unfortunately, I have had to agree with my fellow Leftist activists who say that, for the most part, the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. And from my limited experiences, I have observed this mainly in Churches that are on the conservative side of the political spectrum. And in many cases, it seems that Conservative Christians embrace conservative politics because of the conservative label. I do know individuals from liberal Churches who also indoctrinate from the liberal side as well but I am usually hanging around the religious conservatives because of my religious beliefs.

In today's post, we are going to look at how a former religious and political conservative contributes to this indoctrination from his new liberal side. This person is Frank Schaeffer and we are going look at a talk he gave at UCLA (click here for the talk). I would provide biographical information on Mr. Schaeffer except that he does more than an adequate job of that in his talk. We should note that he is the son of a well known Christian apologist and social critic, Francis Schaeffer (click here and there for biographies). His mother, Edith Schaeffer (click here and there for a biography and list of books she wrote), is also well known in Christian circles. 

What Frank Schaeffer said came as a surprise to me. As much as he has distanced himself from his parents' religion, he displays a sincere respect for their piety. He does say that his dad was better than his theology and that his dad would reject the persecution of gays and others that many Christian Fundamentalists currently engage in. His objections to the religion of his parents have both a rational and personal component. On the rational level, he rejects any religion that puts a higher priority on orthodoxy than on orthpraxy (that is he rejects right belief as being more important than right behavior). The personal component of his rejection of his parents' religion has to do with the absolutism and certainty of their beliefs, intolerance towards those who are different, self-righteousness, and divisiveness. 

It seems that he regards some of his past conservative politics as a politics of hate. However, his past politics combined his parents' religion with conservative politics. It is important to note here that there are conservatives from the past whom he deeply respects. One of those conservatives is Jack Kemp.

However, Schaeffer has no respect for today's Republican Party. In fact, he states that this party as he knew it no longer exists. Rather, the party has become a utilitarian joining of the Religious Right with the Neoconservatives. Both parts are actively involved in trying to conquer others. The Religious Right is trying conquer on the domestic front while the Neoconservatives want to dominate the world. Schaeffer has an utter distain for both of these groups. 

Though Frank doesn't hold to a religion that revolves around orthodoxy, he strongly opposes  the atheism preached by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Schaeffer sees in this form of atheism some of the same personal traits he saw in Christian Fundamentalism which he found very repulsive. 

The keys to Schaeffer leaving the faith and conservative politics can be found in his political experiences as well as the kind of person he was becoming at home. Schaeffer talks about how the revolving bedfellows he found on in the abortion issue and on the Presidential campaign trail confused him. To oppose abortion, Schaeffer was told that it was ok to work with Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics are the theological arch rivals of those who come from the Reformed Faith as Schaeffer's parents did. This permission to work with Catholics as well as the accompanying new compliments that were given to Catholics who opposed abortion baffled him. 

Something similar happened when Schaeffer supported John McCain. During one campaign, McCain had criticized some Evangelicals as being intolerant. That changed when during the next campaign, McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate. 

In addition to the above mixed messages, Schaeffer didn't like how he was treating his own family during a certain period of time. The combination of these factors helped push Schaeffer away from the faith.

According to Schaeffer, what he does believe varies from day to day and this is fine with him considering that he now rejects the absolutism and certainty he saw in fundamentalism. But the religious side of Christian Fundamentalism is not what bothers Schaeffer the most here. It is how this fundamentalism involves itself in the public sphere through politics that is his major concern. The absolutism and certainty combined with their narrow views of the world and their hatred for those who are different makes fundamentalists' involvement in American politics almost an obsession to Schaeffer. 

Because of the danger posed by both politically active Christian Fundamentalists and Neoconservatives, Schaeffer displays the same little to no tolerance for Leftists who criticize Obama. He scolds such Leftists for being impatient with Obama as if the pace of Obama's reforms was his biggest sin. Schaeffer believes that we must unite around Obama and support him for his courageous and wise efforts to help the country and stand against what has become of the Republican Party. 

What can we learn from Frank Schaeffer, a person who is no longer a believer? We can look at how our fellow Christians have so offended him that he now looks down on the faith and sees it as a threat. One criticism that we might take to heart is how much we emphasize orthodoxy over orthopraxy. It isn't that we have to put the same emphasis on the latter as Schaeffer does; it is that we need to look at ourselves to see if we use orthodoxy as a way to excuse ourselves from how we treat others.

In addition, we Christian Fundamentalists need to check our religious ambitions at the door when it comes to our political goals. We must ask ourselves why we are trying to dominate others by the policies and laws that we want our government to pass and enforce. Another question we must ask ourselves is whether we are showing compassion to the vulnerable.

Something else we can learn from Schaeffer is to be careful in how closely we associate our faith with our politics. It's not that there should no relationship between the two, that would be impossible. Faith and politics share moral issues and the morality we learn from our faith will affect the political views we support. However, when we strongly believe that a Christian must have a particular political view, we set others up for an unnecessary conflict of faith if they find it necessary to change their political views. I found this in my own life as I was switching my political views from being conservative to being a Leftist. It was a real tearing process especially for my faith. So as much as our faith might drive our politics, we must realize that Christians can believe a variety of political views. To fail to teach others, especially our children, this is to put a potential stumbling block before their faith. 

However, we are not the only ones to have something to learn here. Schaeffer must realize that, according to the talk he gave, he tends to view Christian Fundamentalists as a monolithic group, which they are not. There are fundamentalists who are literalists and they are some who use literalism both selectively and Biblically. There are fundamentalists who are ignorant of science but there are scientists who are also Christian Fundamentalists. We should also note that the strong American association between Christian Fundamentalism and conservative politics does not always occur in countries. And younger Christian Fundamentalists are starting to come out in different political flavors besides conservatives. Finally, Christian Fundamentalism is about the core beliefs of Christianity, not about a single personality type.

In addition, Schaeffer gives us Conservative Christians a false dichotomy between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Part of this is our fault because of how we have behaved in the past. And we can prove him wrong by showing how orthodoxy and orthopraxy are related by living out our faith. Of course, this means that some of us must change. We must put more emphasis on serving than on seeking to either rule over others or escape from the problems of this world. 

What else could Schaeffer learn from others? Schaeffer needs to learn what the Left is really about because it is here where Schaeffer follows much of the church in how it indoctrinates others in relation to the status quo. In the talk he seems to be saying that that the Left's biggest problem with Obama is that Obama is not implementing their reforms fast enough. So Schaeffer denounces the Left for not standing behind the President.  But his criticisms of the Left only show a limited binary view of the politics in America. And this view is driven by his hatred for how he has defined the political Right, that it is the joining of the Religious Right with the Neoconservatives. Thus, out of urgency to battle them, he sees the protests against Obama from the Left to be foolish. But his intolerance of the Left rivals the intolerance he attributes to most fundamentalists.

The Left criticizes Obama because of his support for both the current economic classism and the militarism of American Exceptionalism. Obama has done nothing to change the economic course of this nation. There are no significant legal changes to keep our financial institutions from crashing the economy again and there have been no criminal prosecutions for past fraudulent activities or present criminal practices--practices such as money laundering. Instead, the Obama Administration has tried to show its commitment to law through fines many of which can be quickly and easily paid. And though the Obama Administration is hampered from getting laws passed through Congress, it is free to criminally those in our financial institutions but it won't. Also, the Obama Administration favors a free hand for energy companies in their extraction of resources. The Obama Administration supports the Keystone Pipeline, has said nothing against mountaintop removal, and has allowed fracking to continue despite the damage it has done to the environment. 

The Left criticizes Obamacare because of its cost. By relying on the private sector, such as what Obamacare does, his healthcare plan not only continues America's high cost of healthcare, it will become unsustainable and will further America's problems with deficits and debt. At the same time, some see the primary beneficiary of Obamacare as being the healthcare industry itself.

Finally, the Left criticizes Obama's embrace of American Exceptionalism. Obama has only followed the Bush timelines in returning troops home but he has expanded the war into Pakistan through the use of drones. In addition, his use of drones in countries like Yemen is very likely creating terrorists for the future. There are other foreign policies to criticize but we should summarize the theme of Obama's policies as being without accountability. That Obama has assumed the power to assassinate anyone in the world, even American citizens, with impunity. In addition, through the 2012 NDAA, Obama has gained the power to indefinitely detain any American citizen and that without accountability. And though there are other items to criticize, we should note that Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

So Schaeffer shows an ignorance of the concerns of the Left when he scolds them for not supporting Obama. And part of this is because Schaeffer sees far more differences between Obama Democrats and the political conservatives who strike fear into him than the Left does. The Left sees the Democrats and the Republicans as belonging to the business party so that supporting either is to support the same old, same old.

Are there things we can learn from Frank Schaeffer's life history? Certainly! He has some valuable things to say to us. But at the same time, he must realize that he has some valuable lessons to learn from others too. And he must realize that to some extent, he has become what the targets of his criticisms are. He is simply part of an institution of indoctrination.

Is Our National Debt The Disease Or A Symptom?

The Shutdown is over and so is defaulting on loans along with a huge economic uncertainty. But an ominous future has only been procrastinated while today is forever for too many Americans. So what should we make of all of this?

Conservatives, who believe in personal responsibility, rightly believe that paying back a debt is a moral obligation. So failure to pay back what is borrowed should be avoided at almost all costs.  However, the debate between Republicans  and Democrats does not consist in figuring out how to pay back the debt. Instead, Republicans and Democrats continue to spar over how to make the debt grow.

During Obama's Presidency, Republicans rightfully complain about the growing debt. Though the complaints are valid, they lack context. Such Republican complaints were absent when Bush was President and we can identify one of greatest contributors to the growing debt as being the combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And though we might have grounds for arguing that the war against Afghanistan was justified, overthrowing the Taliban with the help of known terrorists groups, such as those that belonged to the Northern Alliance, only furthered the misery of the people there and delegitimized our war rationale.

In addition, a large part of the debt during Obama's Administration came from bailouts for banks and financial institutions. The event that sparked the bailouts occurred during the Bush Administration.

Despite their public contrition for their spending sins during Bush's Administration, the Republican targeting of "entitlement" spending and the shielding of both defense spending and tax cuts serve as strong indicators that deficits and debt are not their main concerns. Nor do they regard fiscal responsibility as being an important moral standard.

On the Democrats' side, we have the defense of "entitlements" spending and a push for tax increases on the rich. But why? These Democrats show little, if any, concern about either the increase of military interventions or defense spending.  In addition, they have said next to nothing about homeland security budgets  as well as the growth of the prison industrial complex. 

And as much as the Democrats might rightfully blame the need for the bailouts on the Republicans, the conditions that allowed the collapse of the economy, for the most part, remain the same and the Democrats have refused to criminally prosecute officials from the financial institutions for their fraudulent, regarding the housing bubble, the rating of mortgages, and the foreclosure on homes, and criminal, regarding money laundering, activities. Thus, just as spending on the Vietnam War during the days of Martin Luther King Jr. hurt programs of "social uplift," so both corporate welfare and the maintenance of a corrupt system sabotage the Democrats' efforts to maintain entitlement spending. 

What we have in the end are the two ruling political parties who claim they want to be fiscally responsible but who contradict these claims by their practices. Both parties want to spend too much. One party includes "entitlement" spending while the other does not. One party thinks that it can make up the difference by increasing taxes on the rich while the other wants to put the brunt of the tax load to be placed on those who are not major campaign contributors. The latter party sees only one debt: the financial debt. It does not acknowledge the moral debt that "entitlement" spending addresses. At the same time, the party that acknowledges the need for "entitlement" spending also shares the spending practices of the other party and thus "entitlement" spending will be both shortchanged and endangered by government overspending in other areas.

Before closing, we have to address what "entitlement" spending means. According to the magazine, The Economist, entitlements include Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. We learned during the Shutdown that Food Stamps are also entitlements. What we should note about Social Security and much of Medicare, however, is that they are self-funded and do not increase the deficits and the national debt. In fact, Social Security holds the most federal debt for the government and so we would have to ask whether those who wish to cut or eliminate Social Security how they are planning to honor that part of our debt. 

But more important than that is the significance of these "entitlement" programs. That is because "entitlement" spending is there to help stabilize the economic status of those who are vulnerable. By calling such spending entitlements, we are relegating such spending from being a moral requirement to being a feel-good luxury--a luxury we cannot responsibly afford in tough economic times. Thus by hurting entitlement spending by either targeting  or sabotaging it, we are explicitly stating that the vulnerable in our society are disposable as are the morals that would drive us to care for them. 

But there is a twist here. The Middle Class is being taught to regard the poor in the same way as the Rich regard the Middle Class. So the more the Middle Class adopts the mentality that says, "entitlements are a luxury," the more the Rich reneges on spending their tax dollars on infrastructure that mostly benefits the Middle Class. If one doubts this, then look at the state of much of our infrastructure today. This is why more and more of the tax burden used to support government functions is falling on the middle class. And what is lost on Conservative Christians here is how they hurt others by requesting cuts in entitlements for the vulnerable is how they are being harmed by the Upper Class. That is because we need full participation via the payment of taxes by the Upper Class to finance our society. 

Our dilemma is this, our current system cannot support both our debt and moral obligations. And yet, the only solutions being offered to us are different ways to tweak the current system. This system is designed to reward those who perform the best at acting in their own self-interest. So it follows that the system puts fewer and fewer ethical constraints on how one does this. In addition, since all earthly resources are finite, there is a point where the more wealth one makes for oneself, the less there is for others to scrounge for. So as wealth disparity increases, more and more are without and whatever refuge they could find from the government is being cut by our two political parties. The one party wants to eliminate entitlements while the other seeks to sabotage them.

Our debt isn't the problem, it is just one of many symptoms that point to a failed economic system. And so we will not begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel until we recognize and acknowledge what is wrong with the current system so we can create a new one that, at least, avoids the grave errors on which the current system is built.

Taking The A Or C Political Party Trains To Self-Destruction

What can you expect if you work for the government? If the commercials from the past are to be believed you could expect to see the world if you joined the Army and expect adventure if you joined the Navy. And though, for the most part, job security both depended almost solely on avoiding injury or death, one of the problems with joining either one is that you have many bosses and little freedom.

However, there is a government job one can apply for where you can see the world, as they use to in the Army, live the adventure, as they use to in the Navy, without both the physical hazards of being shot at and the annoyance of being accountable to anyone. 

But the benefits don't stop there. These federal employees enjoy good pay, excellent healthcare benefits, well above average travel benefits, federal retirement benefits, very grateful and generous friends, they can moonlight as long as they don't earn over 15% of the pay, but they can earn an unlimited amount from investments which can often be made with insider information. 

And thanks to gerrymandering and the two-party system, job security can range anywhere between 85% to 98% for one job and from 79% to 95% for the other since the year 2000. We should note however that during the last time when jobs were at stake, over 90% each retained employment. What jobs are we talking about here? The jobs that offer this are becoming a U.S Senator or Congressperson.

Now the question of the day becomes with all of these perks sans hassles, are our Senators and Representatives earning their keep? That question can be answered by asking another question. The question we need to ask is, in what direction are our elected officials taking our country?

To the casual observer, it seems like the Republicans want to take country in one direction while the Democrats want to take it in another. But a number of my fellow Leftists believe that both major parties are taking our country in the same direction. That direction one that is hazardous to both our freedom and health. Then what would be the difference between them? I liken it to when I travel to NYC for going to an Occupy Wall Street event at Liberty Square. I always take the subway to the Fulton Street station from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. I can either take the A Train, that is the express train, or the C Train, the local. The difference between them is that the express train is faster because it makes fewer stops.

This difference between the trains is difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republican is the express train. It wants to reach its destination with as few stops as possible. That is why it is it wants to cut more regulations and taxes on businesses, especially the major players, while reducing benefits for the vulnerable. 

The Democrats, however, want, at best, to add a few regulations and other obligations on major corporations and financial institutions. But, in the end, they are still ending up at the same final destination as the Republicans. 

It is under the Democrats that we also have the bailouts of the financial institutions responsible for economic collapse, increased protection for major banks and other financial institutions from criminal prosecution for fraudulent and criminal activity, a new healthcare system that rewards the healthcare industry by garnering more business for the insurance agencies as well as not holding in check the costs that come from other facets of the healthcare industry, and secret negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that liberalizes trade, and thus weakens the sovereignty of nations to the demands of corporations. 

In addition, Obama has placed the ratification of the TPP on the fast track which means that there will be minimal time for examination and debate on the treaty. We should also note President Obama's decision to support the pipeline that would carry tar sands oil through the US for processing despite the negative environmental impact the use of such oil causes. In addition, we have even more military spending than under Bush which has increased the profits of the military industrial complex. We could also consider how our Senate passed an amendment that  prevents states from requiring that GMO products be labeled.

Finally, while the Democrats plan to spend this country into insolvency, the Republicans want to use tax cuts for major corporations and financial institutions to choke our country into insolvency. And both have done their fair-share in cutting regulations that limit the negative impact that the actions of major corporations and financial institutions have on society. The elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act during the Clinton Administration was a major factor in the economic collapse of 2008 while the passing of NAFTA also hurt the economy while benefitting corporations. In addition, necessary regulations that would prevent our financial institutions from falling into another economic collapse were never passed.

The above is just the business end of things, we also have issues concerning the abuse of government power. Note that what had begun with President Bush's Patriot Act is enhanced with President Obama's NDAA of 2012. Provisions in that act allow the US president to indefinitely detain any American citizen without due process. And when we add to that the revelations of the surveillance which the NDA conducts on the whole country along with the President's power to order the assassination of anyone in the world, again, without due process shows a strengthening the executive power in our country. 

So what is the real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Perhaps the Democrats toss out a few social justice bones here or there while the Republicans want to cut the chains of social responsibility that further impede corporations from maximizing profits. Another difference we could cite is that while Democrats want to create more dependency on the government in some cases, the Republicans want to create just as much dependency on power elites from the private sector. To complete this task Republicans have to get government to fail. 

In the end, people have less power and ability to control their lives while being more accountable to those in power. In the meantime, government and corporations have more power over our lives with less accountability. So what is the difference between the two parties?

We only have ourselves to blame for our tragic current state of affairs. For we have allowed those seeking power to define America in a way that forces us to choose between remaining American or changing with the times. In other words, we have been tricked into conforming and remaining compliant with both public and private sector elites.

How can we change? The first thing we need to do is to choose another destination and we can't choose another destination by taking either the A or C trains. For as long as we either stay with the Republicans or Democrats, or we try to prove our independence by becoming bipolar, we will end up at the same destination--one of self-destruction. 

Another way we can change is to become more involved in all levels of politics than what we are accustomed to. Too many of us want a laissez-faire relationship with our government. Thus, what we want is for our politicians not to bother us between elections. But such a relationship tempts those who are elected to either maintain or increase their hold on political power. And to do that, they have court those with money. Unless we challenge corporate and special interest money with numbers and involvement, our elected officials learn to do the bidding of others.

If we want change, we need to overcome the reasons why we are not involved in the political issues of the day. For some, busyness and fatigue kill the desire to be informed and involved. Such people need to realize that the more they give into busyness and fatigue, the more control of their lives they give to others. In addition, they should realize that if a way of life prevents one from being able to exercise some control over what their country does, then perhaps that way of life needs to change. 

Others just want to have too much fun to have to be serious at times. My fellow Conservative Christians prefer to hide in our theology just as an ostrich hides its head in the sand. Here we become similar to those who are having too much fun to be involved only the "fun" we choose is spiritual. Thus, we use theology not to spur us on to greater stewardship but as a bubble to shield us from the troubles and cares of the world. The world makes us feel anxious while our theology gives us comfort. So we prefer to be passive to the world and enjoy the comfort provided by theology. 

These are the choices we have to change the direction of our country. We need to choose a different destination and thus we have to find another train to ride. And we have to become involved despite our life's circumstances. Without changing in these ways, we will automatically opt for the A and C trains both of which are taking us to our doom.