blogs.kxly.com

On November 18, 1978 more than 900 people drank a lethal concoction in the middle of a South American jungle. The mass suicide has always been a disturbing episode for me to ponder. How could one man, cult leader Jim Jones, have such influence over these followers? The “People’s Temple” was founded by Indianapolis preacher James Warren Jones, who had no formal theological training. A combination of religious and radical socialist philosophies formed the basis of his teaching. Jim Jones had a kind of attractiveness that many followers could not resist.

The I.R.S. started investigating his organization. The news media intensely followed the story. Jones became somewhat paranoid. In 1977 he convinced his congregation to follow him to an isolated tract of land that the People’s Temple had purchased in Guyana. The encampment was called Jonestown. Soon relatives of cult members demanded that the U.S. government rescue what they believed to be brainwashed victims living in concentration camp-like conditions under Jones’s power.

To investigate their concerns, California Congressman Leo Ryan, accompanied by several journalists, arrived at Jonestown to interview its inhabitants. He reported that his life was threatened by a Temple member during the first day of his visit. Ryan cut short his visit and decided to return to the U.S. with some Jonestown residents who wanted to leave. As they boarded their plane, a group of Jones’s guards opened fire on them, killing Ryan and four others. Some members of Ryan’s party escaped. Jones knew they would report the murders. This would make it impossible for the commune to continue functioning. Jones decided his followers must make the ultimate sacrifice.

912 followers were given a lethal purple drink, a mix of cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. Jones didn’t drink the deadly nectar. Instead he fatally shot himself in the head.

It seems an improbable story, a bizarre tale, almost unbelievable but true. How intelligent people fall for such a scheme remains mysteriously unexplained. What’s more … it could happen again.

Has the self-esteem movement run its course yet, because if it hasn’t, we’re creating yet another generation of young people who don’t understand that mediocrity isn’t worthy of an award.

For some time, in the interest of preventing injury to personal self esteem, parents and educators invested in what amounts to a phony version of reality. Underperformance was ignored, and their little darlings were given ribbons for everything. These kids were encouraged to play sports, though they had aptitude for athletics, and they were given accolades, even when they dropped the ball or came in last.

Elementary school teachers didn’t want to crush fragile little egos or discourage creativity, so they often didn’t correct spelling errors, and thus classroom walls are adorned with many examples of grammatically incorrect work, or math papers where the students didn’t arrive at correct answers, but were rewarded anyway just for trying. As these students progressed through school, their mediocre academic performance was not challenged. They grew up with a false confidence, thinking that they were actually competent, when indeed they were not.

Then at last, in the real world, they discovered the hard way, what logically could have been anticipated: they had misplaced self esteem, but nowhere near acceptable skills.

In the real world winning matters. There is no reward for trying. Employers only reward results. The best and the brightest move up. Many young adults were sheltered from this brutal truth growing up, and their expectations are therefore far beyond their skills. Dealing with the reality that just showing up is not an achievement, is tough for them. For some, it is almost impossible to bear. The self-esteem era probably has done more damage than good in our society. Some hard lessons in life are best learned without sugar coating. We’ve always known that, but social engineers often forget.

Nearly every economic indicator had slowed before the middle of September 2008. Then came word of the failure of Lehman Brothers, the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and the threat of cascading failures in the mortgage securities industry.

In a whirlwind, amid the last few weeks of a presidential election campaign, Congress authorized a $700 Billion Wall Street bailout package that was supposed to stop the bleeding. It didn’t. Punctuated with occasional wild rises, the Dow Industrial Average plunged, and with it, the retirement savings of most Americans. Foreclosures dominated the news. Unemployment rose. Industries singing the blues started lining up on the steps of the capitol, hoping to get in on all those government giveaways.

As we ordinary folks watched all of this, we were bombarded by news reports about how bad things are, and how much worse they might get.

We are told of a housing bust, the most severe since WWII. We are told about the largest free-fall on the stock market since the Great Depression. We are warned that gasoline prices could spike to $5 a gallon or higher. We are told that retailers are looking at a holiday season that will be a “nail-biter”. The prognosis, we are told, is not good, and the uncertainty is killing us.

The nation’s financial problems may be intense right now, but consider that while all this has been going on, the restaurants are full, holiday vacations are being booked, recreational vehicles still tow SUVs down the nation’s highways, and many consumers are still buying things.

If there are soup lines, they’re well hidden and I’ve seen few folks riding the rails in the last few weeks. We are in a recession, and it is painful for some, and could become painful for more of us, but contrary to dramatic media reports, we are not aboard a financial Titanic. Careful personal financial practices are recommended in these uncertain times. Fear is not needed, and just makes everything worse.

U.S. troops in Iraq are quietly moving farther and farther away from the country’s population centers. It’s all by design and part of a preliminary security pact we signed with the Iraqi government concerning the future U.S. military presence.

When President Bush ordered the so-called “surge” in 2007, the plan called for U.S. troops to work along side Iraqi forces on the streets and in communities they were responsible to protect. Today, in accordance with a plan engineered by General David Patraeus, our troops are preparing to be out of all Iraqi cities by June of 2009. The risk remains that if the Iraqis aren’t ready to assume the security role our combined troops have performed to date, secular violence may break out again.

If that happens, will then-President Barack Obama ignore the set-back and proceed to remove troops from Iraq, or will he recognize that we must stay awhile longer?

When he takes office in January, Obama will be under tremendous pressure from the left to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. The anti-war movement will want him to pay no attention to what happens if we just step away. They will insist that there’s nothing more we can do. They will not oppose placing more resources in Afghanistan, but they will not accept a longer occupation of Iraq.

What will Obama do?

Whether or not it accepts the reasons why the United States got into Iraq, the world will not accept our leaving that country in a festering mess that threatens the future stability of the Middle east region.

As much as Obama wants out, and as hard as his cronies pressure him to cut the cord, we have created irreversible obligations in Iraq, and even the anti-war president may not be able to duck them.

It looks like Congress could soon move to help America’s troubled auto industry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants what she calls “emergency and limited financial assistance” for the industry. Pelosi wants the current lame duck session of Congress to come up with legislation that would make the automakers eligible for help under the $700 billion bailout bill that cleared Congress October. Pelosi says that Ford, General Motors and Chrysler are all in financial trouble, and if any of them fails it will have a devastating impact on our economy. President-elect Obama also wants to provide help for the auto industry.

I’m not denying that Detroit automakers are hurting, but where do we draw the line on all these bailouts? Which industries are we going to disappoint? How many corporations are the taxpayers going to eventually have an equity position in, and over the long haul, how is quasi public ownership of some of America’s heritage industries a good thing?

The airline industry is in trouble. Almost the entire durable goods sector of our economy is suffering. 700-billion dollars isn’t nearly enough to positively impact all the companies in the country that could use a bailout. Will we raise that sum? We’ll have to if we’re going to use public money, but somewhere along the line, we’re going to have to recognize that the United States of America is broke, and this extraordinary excursion into government ownership of private enterprise, is fundamentally wrong. We don’t have a dime of our own to apply to all these struggling industries. We have to borrow every dollar we invest already, and it has never been our way to have government take over industries.

We must not allow American industry to become dependent upon government. It will destroy us as a nation. I know that means that we’re asking for hard times, but unless we draw the line now, I’m afraid we’ll never have the good sense or the courage in the future.

Veterans Day means different things to different people. For many Americans it seems that there is no universal sense that the men and women who have worn the uniform are to be regarded in the same way.

Wars and military conflicts that we believe we were right to conduct seem to afford their veterans more honor than wars we opposed. Hence the World War II vet was seen instantly as a noble warrior, whereas, for a long time in this country, and for some still, the Vietnam veteran was not.

In the just-completed presidential campaign opponents to the war in Iraq were quick to say that they support the troops, even while they condemn the war. I have always found this kind of reasoning difficult to understand. Soldiers, sailors and Marines fight wars. That’s their purpose. They are trained to eliminate our enemies in the theater of battle. They have no other mission. That mission is war making. To suggest that we support our troops, but not the reason they exist is ridiculous.

If you oppose a war, don’t send the troops. If you send in the troops, let’s be realistic you intend the war making.

What is much more important to keep in mind is that those who have serve the interests of freedom in all wars over the years, are never in a position to refuse the mission they are given. Their oath is to serve. They may object, and a very few do on occasion, but otherwise, they fight, and place their lives on the line for the rest of us, whenever and wherever they are sent. They are not asked which conflicts they find acceptable. This is what makes these brave men and women honorable. This is why as a nation we hold them in high esteem, regardless of the wars that demanded their sacrifices. This why we they stand tallest among us. This is why we are forever grateful for their service.

On this Veterans Day, therefore, I find no cause to parse history. Every man and woman who has fallen in battle, and all others who offered any portion of their lives to defend what we all hold dear, deserves my respect and appreciation, and they have both. Without distinction, I honor even those who fought to protect our interests around the world, notwithstanding the popularity of those interests here at home.

Thank you for your service to your country.

Governor Christine Gregoire accompanied by a healthy entourage of Democrats in the Washington State legislature assured us that they would not raise taxes. The Governor claimed during the campaign that “now is not the time to raise taxes”.

What she meant was that as long as she was in jeopardy of being defeated in the election, she wasn’t going to talk about raising taxes. Well, now that jeopardy has passed, so guess what’s coming.

Our state is staring down a deficit of up to $3.2 Billion. Revenue projections from existing tax sources will not meet our needs. Moreover, promises made to special interests by majority Democrats and the Governor must be met to avoid political backlash. Therefore the only way those folks can think of to balance a budget is to raise taxes.

The votes from last Tuesday’s haven’t even been fully counted, but already House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown have signaled they intend to raise taxes. The restrictive provisions of Initiative 960 stand in the way, and the State Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that suit brought by Senator Brown last year. If she gets what she wants, the pathway is clear to ratchet up your taxes.

Lisa Brown told the Seattle Times a couple of days ago that the legislature will have to “look” at tax increases and to allow current tax exemptions to expire. That kind of talk means that state government will be confiscating more of your money just as soon as those politicians can work out the details.

Never mind what they told you during the campaign. The Governor and the state’s Democrats in the legislature have had their sites set on tax increases all along. Of course they’ll claim that post election circumstances have led them to the unfortunate decision to have to raise your taxes, but the foundation was being laid even as these politicians swore they’d never take your money.

Hold on to your wallets, Gregoire, Brown and Chopp are planning to make them lighter.

Conservative talk radio hosts are wringing their hands with worry that under newly elected President Barack Obama, the liberal leaders in Congress may get frisky and seek to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. I think these talk radio folks are feeling a paranoia that isn’t worth the energy.

The former Federal Communications Commission regulation was introduced back in 1949 to ensure that radio listeners and television viewers would not be prevented from hearing an unrestricted array of viewpoints from broadcasters It was retracted in 1987.

Let’s be realistic here … the broadcast world has changed dramatically since 1949, and substantially since 1989. A proliferation of informational resources, an explosion of technology, a vast number of broadcast outlets including over-the-air radio and television, satellite radio and television, cable TV and the Internet are available to the public now. Few of these options were around in 1949, and many were not a part of our lives 20 years ago. In the present media environment the federal government has little reason to police the airwaves to ensure that differing viewpoints are heard.

Reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine is not proposed to meet a need to force broadcasters to offer more viewpoints. If majority Democrats in Congress bring it back, it will be for a narrow and much less noble purpose. They want to silence conservative talk radio. This proposal is about limiting, not expanding diversity of opinions on the air. It wouldn’t be the first time. The Kennedy administration used the Fairness Doctrine to intimidate broadcast licensees they considered enemies. Richard Nixon used it similarly. They both enjoyed cover from a broadcast spectrum that was puny compared to what exists today.

I would welcome a debate over whether government needs to muzzle conservative talk radio to protect them against conservative talkers on the air. Exhibit A against the Fairness Doctrine would be the federal election just completed. The few cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Fairness Doctrine demonstrate that the Court has trended away from the theory that broadcasters need to be restricted. I’m confident the Court would find reimposition of this obsolete concept a de facto restriction on free speech.

If Democrats want to use the Fairness Doctrine to silence the opposition, I say bring it on.

Few presidents, if any, have ever taken office in our history, facing higher citizen expectations than will Barack Obama. An anxious nation took a chance on this brash, but unproven upstart. Voters obviously liked his message of hope, though they never required him to define it. They accepted his pledge for change, never really knowing what it meant, or how he might accomplish it.

Desiring anything but what had gone before, voters this week elected Barack Obama untested and with perhaps the thinnest of presidential resumes in memory.

When he is inaugurated next January, Obama will be expected to achieve the many incredible things he promised. He will be expected to tame a wild and scary economy. He will be expected to expand tax revenues to reduce government borrowing and expansion of an already burgeoning national debt. He will be expected to restore stability and prosperity to the middle class. He will be expected to make affordable health care available to every American. He will be expected to efficiently and quickly end the unpopular military occupation in Iraq. He will be expected to win the war on terror and to guarantee that we will never experience another 9-11. He will be expected to make a college education available to all Americans who desire one. He will be expected to bring new respect and enthusiasm for U.S. interests around the world.

Some Americans even expect him to pay their burdensome mortgages, and fill their tanks with gas. In short, Barack Obama was elected because he promised to fix everything that makes us anxious.

The question is will he deliver? Can he deliver?

The euphoria of his historic election will soon wear off, and Barack Obama will soon discover that sitting at the desk where the buck stops, is a far cry from what he had imagined out on the campaign trail, where words come easy. The American people will have an epiphany too. Barack Obama is not the Messiah.

Barack Obama ran a nearly flawless campaign. The same cannot be said of John McCain’s. Barack Obama had over three quarters of a billion dollars work with. McCain had only a third of that. Barack Obama had the unprecedented, and appalling support of the mainstream U.S. media. They fawned over him, protected him, and carried the water for him. If these advantages were not enough, Barack Obama also enjoyed an unprecedented economic crisis one month before the election … the perfect campaign issue, handed to him on a silver platter. Such is the stuff of American politics.

It was an historic victory. Barack Obama becomes the first person of color ever to be elected president. There is no doubt that his victory opens a new paradigm in American politics. For Democrats there could hardly have been better news. What must also be understood is that close to half of the American people did not vote for the winner. For the third presidential election in a row, half the nation did not support the victor.

So what has changed? Democrats will now hold the White House, and they will have a majority of 56 to 40 in the U.S. Senate, and a 246-172 majority in the U.S. House. To put it another way the ball is most definitely in their court. Democrats are solely in control.

Will they govern in a way that will benefit all Americans, or will they advance a very liberal agenda? President Elect Barack Obama hails from the far left of the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed are also far left politicians. That combination threatens and frightens half the country who are significantly more moderate or conservative. Will they ignore that, or will they offer a place at the table for the vanquished?

Politically Republicans have been rendered virtually powerless. The American people will no longer be able to lay blame on the G.O.P. Their expectations rest completely with Democrats now. Can they, will they, deliver?

Only time will tell.