"Let's Give Real Meaning to Education"

“Education.” That is probably the most over-used and least understood word in the lexicon of the English language. It is the great promise and the big lie for the political establishment. When there are promises to be made that belie specifics, “education” is the fallback position of choice. Those who are vested with breathing life into that term are probably the most maligned professionals in our society for efforts that are largely the scorn of the many and the gratitude of the few.

Education, at any given point in history, is a reflection of the social and cultural mores of the time. However, sad to say, what was once a noble and respected professional calling, supported by the society of which it was a part, has morphed into an endeavor that must operate in a milieu that is void of controversy. They must be all things to all people, with significant contradictions in the perception of what education should be. School Administrators want to avoid offending the School Board, the PTA and parents, most of whom are convinced that the uniting of their individual sperm and ovum was ordained by the Divine hand itself, and inspired with the belief that their progeny are above the need for structure and discipline. The parents who believe it are pathetic and the children who are the product of those belief systems are insufferable.

If any reasonably inquisitive mind wants to understand contemporary educational systems, one need only embark on a rudimentary venture into an examination of the society around them. Today’s society is the culmination of more than a half-century of progressively greater permissiveness that has, in my humble opinion, brought us to the brink of total anarchy. Life and life’s values are whatever the traffic will bear. We are no longer shocked by anything. In fact, we have become too understanding and too tolerant. Mature and responsible adults become what they are by the limits that are placed and enforced on their behavior in the process of “growing up.” I don’t see much of that happening anymore.

Crime is at an all-time high. The types and numbers of crimes have increased in geometrical proportion. Drugs? Eh, what’s the big deal? Burglaries? Commonplace. Oh well, s--t happens. Juveniles murdering their classmates, their teachers, their parents? Ho hum. Violent sex offenders now reside among us in our neighborhoods. What’s the problem? We can’t restrict their civil rights! I could go on, but I have made my point, and it sure as hell isn‘t very pretty.

If one wants to piece together a collage of the values upon which a society rests, all he/she has to do is watch what we regard as entertainment such as movies, television programs, music, videos, advertising, etc. It is all about vanity, sexual prowess, eternal youth and the body beautiful. The preponderance of men are cast as completely obsessed with erectile dysfunction. Given the volume of exposure to what is regarded as fashionable by women, one could easily conclude that there is just a bit of the slut in the makeup of a large part of the female population. Whatever is considered fashionable is a must. Frankly, I am weary of the never-ending display of cleavage and pendulous breasts. Titillating though it all may be, few are outstanding examples of divine art. As a matter of fact, it is exhibitionism bordering on outright vulgarity. However, you can bet your bippy that, should any male make an off-color remark about the fashion statement of a female co-worker, he would be slapped with a sexual harassment suit so fast his head would reel! I shudder at the thought of what the male response would be if men’s fashions became as daring as those of the female of the species. God help us! Common decency requires that some aspects of our humanly conduct be within the realm of what is considered to be “private.” We need to refocus on common standards of decency rather than on what is “in.” But, that requires individual standards of conviction and the attendant courage that must of necessity go with them. There doesn’t seem to be much of that around anymore.

For a civilized society to exist, it must rest on a foundation of moral values. By “moral,” I am not limiting my definition to sexual mores (although that is usually the first thought that comes to mind nowadays). It refers to the character of the people who comprise that society. Character is a learned set of values, not genetic or inherited. Parents can teach character, but only the society of which they are a part can enforce the prevailing standards of morality that make a civil society possible.

I vividly recall, a few years ago, when I was invited to meet with a couple of classes at a local high school for the purpose of recounting and discussing my experiences from working and living in an Islamic country. As I walked into each of the classrooms, I was stunned to see the complete antithesis of what I had expected. There were no desk. Rather, there were circular tables around which was seated the biggest bunch of poorly groomed and disinterested young humanoids imaginable. There was no discipline and, obviously, no standards of conduct. Some were reclining in their chairs, others were slouched over with their heads resting on the tables. Others were distracted by electronic devices or other “toys,” with no indication of a modicum of interest in what the class was all about. However, what most negatively impressed me was how the teachers looked exactly like the students! All were wearing the uniform of the culture - blue jeans, athletic shoes and tops that looked as if they were purchased at a rummage sale. I could not help but wonder who convinced the educators that the only way to penetrate the calcified cranial tissue of the students was to look and act just like them. The entire scene was not only depressing, but more an exercise in assimilation than in discipline. Who decreed that youth has a corner on what is savvy and relevant, rather than the teachers who are supposedly educating them and shaping their minds? Who should be looking up to whom? There is no doubt that the students were getting short-changed, big time. I could find absolutely no semblance of what could remotely be called a role model that could and should command respect.

I believe that we, as a society, have a solemn obligation to clearly reflect on what we should mirror back to the youth of this country. By abdicating that responsibility to the media, celebrities, sports heroes, etc., we are surely well on the road to a lost civilization. We need to seriously reflect on what made this country great and how we got to where we are. It used to be that childhood and adolescence was the apprenticeship for adulthood. I think we have lost sight of that fact and now might just be the time to re-visit that concept, for our own individual and collective welfare, and that of our children standing on the threshold of inheriting all that we have wrought.

When it comes to education, there has to be a shared responsibility between parents, educators and society. We must all work in concert with each other in order to provide the stability and continuity required for a sound journey leading to a lasting set of values that will sustain our children from youth to and through adulthood. The hopes, dreams and successes of just one child is infinitely more important to the world than are all the diversions we set before them in the name of entertainment, and prematurely fostering independence long before it is wise to do so. There is more to life than having fun, hanging out and blankly staring into an electronic device that enables our children to isolate themselves from the world around them. The richness of this one life can only be found by raising our eyes and actively engaging our fellow human beings. To the extent that parents and teachers, working in concert with each other, foster that as something to be valued and cultivated, the destructive estrangement from all that is distinctive and wonderful about God’s greatest creation - people - will be lost and the world will be the poorer for it.

We cannot have a system of education that is not based on sound discipline. By “discipline,” I am not referring to fear and corporeal punishment. That is wholly inappropriate and is much too prone to excesses for any serious consideration. On the other hand, there should be a set of standards and expectations to which students, teachers and, yes, parents all subscribe. Instructors and staff should be required to dress as adults and to a standard that sets them apart from their students, and reflect the professionals they are.

There should be standards of conduct and expectations codified and committed to writing for the benefit of parents, students, teachers and school administrators. At the beginning of each academic year, that document should be executed with a clear understanding of the consequences for violating those standards. Parents should not be allowed to intimidate educators, but should be required to assume their rightful responsibilities as one part of the triumvirate shared by educators and school administrators for the benefit of the student. Teachers and educators deserve to be protected from the whimsical ignorance of doting parents.

I view the process of education as falling along a continuum from K through university, beginning with training, followed by teaching and leading to education. From basic skills to intellectual pursuits. For that to be a meaningful and developmental process, students and parents must, of necessity, defer to the professionals to whom we have entrusted that responsibility, at every step of the way. Parents do not tell NASA how to launch satellites into outer space, nor should they tell educators how to educate their children. The latter is no less a professional pursuit than the former. Realizing one’s own limitations is the surest sign of maturity, so parents “listen up!”

I believe there is much to be said about the European model of education where, at some point, by objective means, students are identified as having either an aptitude for vocational careers or academic pursuits. Further, the Europeans respect the value of vocational endeavors, far more than do we Americans. For example, I am at the mercy of every skilled tradesman there is. Am I suicidal because of it? No, but I certainly know and defer to my many limitations, and I am only too pleased to acknowledge what they have that I don’t.

Today, however, I see an erosion of the intellectual pursuits and ferment that should be at the apex of our college and university experiences. My fear is that we have become the means for a fast track to wealth (business schools) and hi-tech schools that are beholden to the engineering, electronics and information technologies at the expense of liberal arts and intellectual disciplines. I fear that studies of the knowledge and wisdom of the ages that have served as the basis for pushing back the barriers of ignorance and indifference are receiving scant attention in the priorities of academia. I would submit, do we need a foundation in government, ethics, philosophy, morality, logic, literature, etc., any less than in days gone by? The value of a liberal arts education is timeless and eternal. When it comes to those virtues, the world seems to be on a starvation diet. Doing is “in;” thinking is out. That is not only dangerous, but frightening to contemplate.

By the time students graduate from high school, they should be firmly grounded in a well-rounded education that prepares them to be knowledgeable and responsible citizens. They should, also, know that they are embarking on a path that will prepare them for a vocation or career in life that will develop their potential to the fullest for a rewarding life as responsible and valued members of society.

I recall once seeing a photocopy of a sign pinned to the bulletin board in the office of one of my colleagues that read, GOD DOESN’T MAKE JUNK! Reflecting on those words gives pause as to where we are and where we should be going. It is time we tore down the barriers that make so many of us believe that we are inherently better than others and, ipso facto, entitles us to a larger share of the pie. Better to embark on a goal of cleaning up the junkyards of humanity and open the doors to all who simply want a piece of the pie.


Cowboy Bob
February 27, 2009

“With All Due Respect …………….”

........ Mr. President. Who are you, really, and what do you stand for? After having watched your meteoric rise throughout the campaign and having shed tears of joy when you were elected, I now find myself totally bewildered as to who and what the real Barack Obama is. What do you represent? Where on the political spectrum are you?

I thought it was a bit imperious as I watched the series of your speeches that started with your run for the presidency on the steps of the Old Capital Building in Springfield, and culminating with your victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. I first wrote them off as building momentum for the finish line. Then, I began to wonder if this guy believes his own press. Is he a man of the people or a front for the established political and economic influentials inside the Beltway? I am still uneasy and my unease is growing.

The appointments to your administration have raised even more questions and have deepened my doubts. It is almost as if the vestigial remnants of the Clinton Administration were freeze dried in 2000 only to be reconstituted in 2009. That scares me. Why do the Clintons seem to have a hold on positions of prominence in your administration? Where are all those people who were going to come riding into Washington on your coat tails, who think outside the box and who were going to help you bring about the sweeping changes you so eloquently promised over the preceding two years? I can’t put my finger on one.

I will admit to being a simple man. However, I come from the school that believes certain character traits are absolute, not situational or transitory. It is kind of like the old adage to the effect that a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either she is or she isn‘t. You are either a person of character or you are not. You are either squeaky clean or you are not. There are no shades of gray. I see several examples of people brought into your administration who have backgrounds that are cause for pause by those of us in the hinterlands and who are on the receiving end of what is wrought by the powers in Washington. Character and integrity that are solid foster confidence; those that are transitory do not. For example:

1. Bill Clinton signed into law the legislation that removed controls from the
Financial industries. He, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers aided and abetted Phil Gramm in letting the wild horses out of the corral. Robert Rubin, in particular, stands out as an opportunistic rogue. He left his post as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury for a lucrative job as CEO of Lehman Brothers, only to leave following the recent economic meltdown for a better deal at another Wall Street firm. It only stands to reason that, fortunately, he was only an advisor to you on your transition team. However, Larry Summers followed Rubin as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and, voila, he is now your Chief Economic Advisor. How can you reconcile those disparities with the integrity your administration has led us to believe you hold inviolate?

2. Tom Daschle went down in flames, as he should have. There was nothing subtle as to how he capitalized on his years in the United States Senate after he was voted out. His role as a “consultant” was much more egregious than his failure to pay taxes, and would clearly have placed him in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as Secretary of Health & Human Services. His wife is an even more glaring example of how connections in Washington can be turned into pure gold.

3. Then there is the rather glaring example of Timothy Geithner, another
refugee from the Clinton Administration. He managed to squeak through despite his “mistake” in not paying his taxes. Another example of being a little bit pregnant, no doubt. There are still unanswered questions as to his relationship to Wall Street while he was head of the Fed in New York.

4. Another example of how fluid your standards seem to be is making an exception for a major lobbyist at Raytheon, a huge defense contractor, to serve in a position of prominence in the Defense Department. Are you not familiar with Dwight Eisenhower’s dire predictions of the dangers from a growing military-industrial complex? If there was ever a government agency that hemorrhages money, the Pentagon is surely at the top of the heap.

The foregoing are but a few examples of why I am inclined to believe your character may well be more a matter of ideals for public consumption, than they are principles which you hold to be inviolate. You have led us to believe there is only one standard of justice for all Americans. Yet, we see evidence that the old double standard that differentiates Washington from the rest of us is still very much alive and well. How can this be?

Why are we being led to believe that some of the exceptions in appointments to your cabinet and staff positions are because there are no others who are as well qualified? If anything is universally true, it is that there is no such thing as an indispensable man. Surely, you don’t believe otherwise.

Are you naïve or just another politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth, and whose principles are as fluid as the waters of the Potomac? Do you genuinely believe in change and the urgent need to fix the system, or do you, also, play to the entrenched interests and power structure so firmly ingrained in the Washington Establishment, New York Banking Houses and the Eastern Elite, all the while assuaging the heartland of American that any doubts it may be having about you have no foundation in fact. You profess to be one of them with their best interests at heart. On the other hand, credibility is when a person’s words are consistent with his deeds. I don’t see evidence to necessarily support that.

I genuinely commend you for your position on the bi-partisan effort to reach out to the Republicans and involve them in your efforts to turn the current economic catastrophe around. By meeting with them on Capital Hill, inviting them to the White House, etc. further demonstrate to me your sincerity in that regard. What have you gotten in return? A unified front against you and the Democratic majority in Congress on your efforts to attach any sense of urgency to your programs on behalf of the American people. They have failed to draft a comprehensive alternative plan that would provide some semblance of critical and creative thought. Rather, they nit-pick what is on the table, citing the old tired latitudes and platitudes as the end all for curing the nation’s ills -- tax cuts and an unencumbered free market. Where in God’s name have they been for the last 30 years?

You have performed within the context of the classic definition of an “appeaser.” You kept feeding the alligators hoping they would eat you last. As a result, you forfeited a significant part of your personal power and that of the office you hold. It will take some doing to get it back.

I think it is time for the Democrats to unite and play hardball. They need to understand that extending the presidential hand of kindness is not synonymous with weakness. Let them filibuster so the American public can see how little they have to offer, when all they are doing is obstructing and delaying the urgent relief needed for the nation, naively hoping it will enhance their chances for re-election in 2010. They don’t deserve compromise and assuaging in order to preserve what little image they still have, and to help them burnish their reputations for 2010. Better to leave that to Sarah Palin.

I carry one big disappointment specific to you, Mr. President. Progressives are a large part of the base of support that got you elected to the presidency. I expected to see that fact reflected in your administration, which is instead painfully absent. I think you owe us more. Although the ideals of Paul Wellstone may have long ago faded into the vastness of time, his was a vision that extended far into the future and deserves to be a part of the national discourse on what this country needs in order to thrive and prosper, now and into the future. I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that the advice and counsel from that school has been sought as part of your efforts at inclusiveness. If Honest Abe were at the helm, I rather imagine that school of thought would be prominent among those he would count among his collection of adversaries.

Progressives are, by nature, idealists. They have put a lot of stock in you. However, that idealism will only last so long and it will begin to evolve into cynicism. When that happens, those among them who are now prominent among your staunchest supporters will become your harshest critics. There are already indications that it may well have started.

Whether it is by choice or out of necessity, you appear to be a true centrist. Perhaps that is the only viable position most likely to survive within the insulated bubble of Washington, D.C. Why? Perhaps it is just a reflection of the tendency by those who go to the polls, crying for dramatic change, but all too willing to accept a state of equilibrium pegged at the lowest level of mediocrity. If that is indeed the case, we are all the poorer for it.

On second thought, is it not the mark of a true leader to raise the level of awareness among the common folks as to what is worth fighting for and is in their best interests and, hence, those of the nation? This is not a time for consensus building, but a time for bold and decisive leadership. Let that be the foundation upon which we build our future.


Cowboy Bob
February 13, 2009

"The Daschle Debacle"

I have to admit that I was more than surprised that Washington cronyism did not do a better job of insulating Tom Daschle in his bid to become the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. I really expected him to sail through to confirmation without a glitch. Hmmm. Was it just a minor mistake that he failed to pay $128,000 in overdue taxes or was there something more behind it all?

I am inclined to think it is something much more egregious than we are to believe. His many years as a “consultant” to healthcare and other clients since leaving his senate job have been a real boon to his net income. Why hasn’t there been greater exposure in the news media of this rather cozy relationship? I see an inherent conflict of interest in his consultancies and his ascension to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It would have been an interesting balancing act to witness.

As if all that wasn’t enough, his wife is, or was, a very prominent lobbyist in the corridors of power in Washington. No doubt, she benefited a great deal from her husband’s long-standing tenure in the U.S. Senate and the reputation he gleaned from those years of public service. It almost seems sordid to the point of being incestuous.

Have you ever noticed the fat cats living within the Beltway only commit mistakes, simply forget or overlook questionable behavior? On the other hand, some poor bastard who breaks the law is presumed to be a criminal, outright, no matter the severity of his mistake, forgetfulness or oversight which, at that level on the food chain, we refer to as ‘crimes.’ Kind of smarts of a double standard to me.

Daschle’s conduct must have really been something, compared to the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury and the newly appointed Undersecretary of Defense, all of whom have compromised the standards of conduct we should expect of our public servants, and what I thought President Obama was going to require. I guess, rather than dealing in absolutes, what he meant was analogous to the notion that “it’s OK to be just a little bit pregnant.”

When it comes to certain human attributes, I tend to believe in absolutes. Either you are or you are not, and there is nothing in between. Unfortunately, we live with and accept a double standard when it comes to what we expect of family, friends and associates vs. what we will tolerate from our elected officials, the rich and the famous. That just doesn’t fly with me. Do phrases like “All men are created equal,” “No one is above the law,” “Justice is blind,” etc., only have transitory meaning when uttered within the context of lofty speeches and admonitions on ceremonial occasions? Were that the case, the whole concept of equality would ring hollow in the ears of us all. Therefore, why do we tolerate it, much less condone it?

Is that why, when someone kills numbers of people, he/she is a serial killer or mass murderer, destined for life without parole or death by lethal injection? On the other hand, when the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, their associates and minions consign thousands to an early death, or enable their cronies to engage in profiteering, torture, etc., they get a free pass. Are not their crimes just as abhorrent, or more so, than are those of petty criminals? Does justice not shout out for them to be held publicly accountable for their acts before the nation and, indeed, the world? However, our newly elected president has said he prefers to look to the future and not dwell on the past. Sounds like a free pass for some of the worst criminals in our national history. There is nothing fair, right or just about that position at all.

I was really pumped up during Barack Obama’s long journey to the White House. I really believed he was different from those who live within the bubble of our nation’s capitol. I truly believed he marched to a different drummer, and held himself to a higher standard than the run-of-the-mill politicians. It has taken just two short weeks for me to begin cooling on what I believed vs. what I am seeing. As far as I am concerned, the times call for strong and decisive leadership, consummate statesmanship, and an ironclad respect for and commitment to the rule of law. What I see in the President is more akin to the group facilitator in organizational development striving for consensus. That is not what we need and I am somewhat uncomfortable that isn’t what we are getting.

Another thing that sticks in my craw is, whenever there is a scandal or criminal conduct by one of our nation’s leaders, the excuse we are given for letting them off Scot-free or with a slap on the wrist, is that the nation cannot be put through the agony it would cause. That is nothing more than an unmitigated pile of crap. It is an insult to the savvy, moral stamina and inherent decency of the American people. We want justice and fairness for everyone, not just a select few. We don’t buy into the notion of privileged characters. We have the fortitude to bear adversity and carry burdens far greater than our elected elites give us credit for.

The time has come for those we put in office to stop blowing smoke up our asses, give us the respect we deserve and hold every damned one of us to the same standards of conduct and to the rule of law. You owe us more and we deserve no less.

Time to get real!

Cowboy Bob
February 3, 2009

"Hippocrats and Hypocrites"

I am watching, with utter fascination, as events unfold in Washington, D.C. re: the stimulus program and the politics surrounding it. In the background lurk the denizens of the financial industries with their insatiable appetites for more and more of the largesse from the national treasury, being aided and abetted by those suffering from the common malady of greed.

I wrote off the theory of trickle-down economics and free-market purists a long time ago as a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who will screw the common man at every opportunity while they lace their own pockets with the spoils of their skullduggery. After what they did to this country during the last twenty plus years, their pathetic attempts to claim any credibility ring hollow. What they consistently fail to acknowledge is that, for such a system to work, everyone has to be squeaky-clean honest. The human race simply isn’t wired to that standard.

I really want to see Barack Obama succeed, but I have long had a haunting doubt as to where he really stands and who is likely to benefit the most from his programs. Given that he has only been in office for a little over a week, it is too early to tell, but I am not at all optimistic that those who need help the most are likely to receive the lion’s share of any stimulus package. What causes me to have these haunting doubts? The resurrection of members from the Clinton Administration brought in to fill so many key positions in Obama’s Administration. Some are the ones who, before leaving office, were party to setting the stage for the wholesale plundering of the treasury by the Bush Administration through de-regulation of the financial industriesoffice. Why does Billy Boy still get a free pass for this, plus NAFTA and CAFTA? The Harvard goon squad seems to be firmly ensconced and I am not so sure it will accrue to the benefit of the common folks of this country.

I don’t see that the barons of the financial industries have changed their stripes very much since this crisis was dumped into the laps of the American taxpayers. They are just as brazen as they ever were and seem to be getting away with it, save the token sacrifice of a 50 million dollar corporate jet and other lavish screw ups, when the heat is ratcheted up by the press. Mind you, nothing they do is a matter of conscience. Rather, it is whatever the traffic will bear.

The industry that irks me almost as much as the money men are the key players within the broad spectrum of those subsumed under the banner of healthcare. They are just as bad if not worse, in some instances, than the high-profile ones in the financial business. They are still screwing our economy and the consumer public with nary a hint of shame. They aren’t bad. They are absolutely obscene. Every licentious opportunity that was given to them by Billy Boy and Georgie Porgie are still intact and they are raking in untold millions of dollars they don’t deserve, all at the expense of a society (and indeed the world) so badly crippled by their antics.

The most glaring example of greed is on the part of the drug companies. The most recent example is the buy-out of Wyeth by Pfizer. There doesn’t seem to be any problem with getting the money they need to consummate this deal. And who will benefit the most from this move? You can bet your bippy it isn’t the consumer!

And where does Obama stand on all this? How compromised is he through his association with the high-powered associates of his wife, who was recently in a high-profile position at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics? Is that why he seems less than enthused at the notion of a single-payer national health plan? Rather, he seems to favor something short of that which will keep the “private” sector comfortably in the healthcare business?

I regard our healthcare system as one of the most self-serving and corrupt within the arena of our national economic structure. Talk about greed! They share the national spotlight with the bankers in that regard. Drug companies, hospital management companies, managed health care plans, etc. bleed the consumers for all they can get. And the most egregious accomplices to all this are senior executives in all sectors of the healthcare economy, making high six-figure salaries or more, all based on their “entrepreneurial” skills, and their ability to screw their victims without benefit of kiss.

Amid all this are what I regard as the most insidious and self-serving of the whole bunch - those esteemed practitioners of medicine - the good old doctor. They have come a long way since the days of driving a black Buick, carrying a black bag and making house calls. They have long maintained effective control over members of their elite club in order to ensure the viability of their own financial interests. They have manipulated private hospitals through their economic and political power. They have a history of an unhealthy relationship with drug companies by favoring and promoting brand-name drugs that are much more expensive than their generic equivalents. They scratch each other’s backs through their network of referrals to other physicians and healthcare practitioners. They do a damned good job of looking out for themselves, all the while basing their actions on what they profess to be “in the best interests of their patients.” Give me a break. Watch what they do when one of their patients falls on hard times, goes on Medicaid or Medicare or suffers some other financial misfortune. If these patients don’t have the money or insurance to pay full tab, the doctor dumps them as if they had the plague. My experience has been that damned few doctors give one hoot in hell about anyone except the patients who have the means to pay full price for the cost of the medical miracles they render. They do a good job of talking in lofty and noble terms. However, what they care most about is a healthy return on their revenue-generating capabilities.

Have you noticed, when you visit a doctor, a dentist and, yes, even your veterinarian, they all seem to have gone to the same charm school on how best to “market” their services and garner as much money as the traffic will bear? The first questions asked are most often those having to do with your ability to pay for their services. They all have the same phony lingo and fake sincerity that makes one want to rush to the nearest vomitorium!

Mind you, not all doctors are bad. There is a whole host of doctors and other healthcare professionals who are genuinely dedicated to helping suffering humanity. Unfortunately, most of them ply their skills outside the affluent environs of metropolitan practices, in government owned and controlled hospitals, in less than desirable geographical areas, inner-city clinics, etc., that pay far less than what they could command in a lucrative urban group practice. But, who said dedication is worth much in this industry? In the eyes of their cohorts who have made it in the profession and are regarded as the professional elite, these types don’t count for much and wield very little political and economic power within the circles of their profession.

As tattered as those at the bottom of the food chain may be, without the dedication of those who really do care and those who have given their lives in the service of humanity, I cannot imagine how much worse their lot in life would be.

Those who I hold in very high regard are the ones who live and work in the tier just below that of our esteemed medical practitioners. It is they who work with and enable the doctors to ply their trade. They are often the ones who catch the mistakes and who discreetly bring them to the attention of the “attending physician,” so he/she can continue to appear to be one in good standing among the lofty paragons of medical perfection. They are the nurses, the pharmacists, the therapists, the technicians, etc. who make up the bulk of the team that takes care of us when we seek medical care. And, from my perspective, they get far less in terms of money and recognition for all they do and what they genuinely deserve.

Those who have traditionally been the staunchest advocates for patients are nurses. Anyone who thinks they continue to play an active role in their profession for any reward other than their dedication isn’t very well informed. I have known damned few nurses whose primary reason for working was to make money. God knows they have had a long struggle towards economic equality, but through it all they have never abandoned their role as advocates for patients. They still hang in there despite the extent to which they have been taken for granted by medical practitioners, healthcare managers, boards of directors, etc. At the end of the day, they make them look far better than the majority of them deserve.

There is an urgent need to rectify the excesses that have created what seems to be a bottomless pit in the escalation of costs in the “healthcare industry.” It isn’t going to come about by allowing those who feed must gluttonously at the trough of unbridled greed in order to manipulate and control the system. Their rewards for “service to humanity” stand proudly with those of their financial counterparts on Wall Street. To continue with a fragmented healthcare system will only allow them to find new opportunities in their continued efforts to exploit the system for their own personal gain. It is like trying to squeeze a hand full of mercury. It can’t be done.

There are significant numbers of physicians who are actively supporting a national single payer healthcare system. They are to be commended for their tireless efforts in this regard. Unfortunately, they are still very much in the minority among their more conservative colleagues. After all, the AMA is probably one of the strongest unions and most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. As we all know, money and power talk - big time!

It is time for serious consideration of a single payer healthcare system. The California Nurses Association has recently put one of the best proposals on the table that I've seen. Not only will it improve access to the system, but it will create a huge number of new jobs that will serve to improve the economy at a time when we desperately need it. It deserves the attention and study of our political elites in Washington, D.C. As of this writing, I have seen precious little attention paid to it within the hallowed halls of our nation’s capital. It will pump billions of dollars into our economy. It will remove the burdensome cost of healthcare from the backs of industry and commerce, thereby enabling them to regain a more competitive edge in the international world of business and commerce.

All the while keeping an eye on them, the time has come to take some of our focus off Wall Street and shift it to the excesses and self-serving practices going on within our healthcare industry. It has been said of lawyers and physicians that they have purged two words from their vocabularies; ethics and economics. They have instead combined the two into just one word: Ethinomics!

Mind you, there are a lot of good and decent physicians out there who genuinely care about the issues of the day, and who are active in national healthcare agendas. However, those are not the ones with whom I am concerned. The ones who I regard as the most insidious are those who are members of the “club” that regularly meets in the doctor’s lounges and country clubs. As for those of us who are on the receiving end, persistence, good oversight and sound regulation are the only remedies we have. Otherwise, the fox will continue to guard the chicken coop at our collective peril.


Cowboy Bob
January 30, 2009

"Our Common Journey on the Road to Damascus"

I must confess that I was somewhat surprised by the passage of Proposition 8, amending the Constitution of the State of California to prohibit same sex marriages. I was even more surprised to note that the majority of support for passage of the proposition came from Latinos and Blacks, given their history of being marginalized within the context of the broader society.

I, also, find it all rather incredulous that any rational and enlightened person could buy into the belief that homosexuality is a choice. That is yet to be proven and, until it is, I regard it more as a societal prejudice that has absolutely no foundation in fact.

The person is yet to be born who would deliberately choose a life of ostracism, persecution, alienation and violence from their families, churches and society. I have known too many with the same sad tale. They realize they have a different sexual orientation at a formative age and struggle with what they suspect they are vs. what they feel they should be. They may go to churches where they are subjected to a tirade from the pulpit or the altar condemning their kind as an “abomination of God. “ When they do come out, there is often faint sympathy and little or no attempt at understanding and acceptance. A goodly number are literally thrown out of their homes and disowned by their families. They must either live the life of a hypocrite or seek acceptance within a community of their own that is rife with prejudices specific to their subculture. For some, the only way out is suicide.

It is yet to be proven that homosexuality is genetic, but it has not been conclusively proven that genetics does not play a part in it. Frankly, I am inclined to believe it has its roots in a combination of factors that causes them to be attracted to another person of the same sex. The scientific community needs to continue devoting the effort and resources necessary in order to resolve this question. Current scientific evidence suggests it may be a combination of genetics, environmental influences and family history.

When I was in college, I recall research conducted following WW II which focused on men in the armed forces who were isolated from the company of women for a sustained period of time. They found a greater incidence of homosexual behavior among men while they were isolated from women than was the case when they were not. Much the same findings were also found among male prison populations. However, when they returned to a normal environment, the majority of them reverted to heterosexual behavior, but a minority continued to prefer the company of men. The conclusions pointed not only to the strength of the male sex drive within the population but, also, to the identification of a minority who had a latent sexual orientation toward members of the same sex. As to the causal factors, as of today, that is yet to be conclusively determined.

Of course, we cannot leave out the religious institutions that believe they, and only they hold our salvation in their hands. Their personal and institutional hypocrisy knows no limits. They all rail on, in one form or another, about the evils of homosexuality, the remedies for which range from ecclesiastical condemnation to divinely ordained death. I am always amused by such invective when I hear of clergymen of professed piety sneaking out under the cover of darkness, or to the anonymity of a distant city, in order to procure the sexual favors of one of the same sex.

Then there is the issue of the rule of celibacy adopted and institutionalized by the Catholic Church, causing centuries of cover-up, denial and hypocrisy at what has gone on in parishes, orders and monastic orders. It will take a long time for the church to recover and, in my opinion that will only come about when celibacy is made optional. I just don’t believe it is possible to ignore and suppress one of man’s strongest and most basic biological needs without breeding hypocrisy on a grand scale. If the protestant faiths can support a married clergy, then I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same.

As for criminally and sexually predatory behavior, statistics show the incidence to be much less in a homosexual population than in the population at large. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that children adopted by gay couples have any greater proclivity to homosexuality as they mature than do those raised in heterosexual homes. The evidence thereby negates the prejudicial conclusion that such adoptions are likely to lead to some sort of a conversion from a heterosexual makeup to a homosexual lifestyle. Gay couples, generally, have shown themselves to be exemplary adoptive parents, who are actively involved in their children’s school and social activities.

Personally, I am put off by the overt and exaggerated expressions of being gay. I see no positive reasons for gay parades, and the antics and forms of dress likely to be found amid their protests. On the other hand, I can understand why they engage in such activities as one way of saying “f--- you” in response to the almost total ostracism and alienation the gay community at large must feel. At the end of the day, I think they would be better served by being accepted and assimilated into mainstream society. That, of course, presupposes an open minded society that still has a long way to go before reaching that objective.

As for sexual activity, it is pretty much a given that most people engage in such activity, be they straight or gay. When the clothes come off and people jump into the sack, it is at that point I believe we separate ourselves from the spiritual side of our nature to the physical, try as some may to think otherwise. Other than as it relates to the creation of life, I rather doubt that God has any interest in that activity, as well. I know of no Divine proscription as to style and conduct for sexual activity. I rather imagine, whether those involved are heterosexual or homosexual, the inclination to engage in variety is just as pronounced for one group as it is for the other.

I cannot imagine why any religion would want to concern itself with this aspect of our human nature, must less engage in elaborate prohibitions as to what is acceptable or unacceptable; what is normal vs. what is abnormal. However, as always, we have left those issues to the elders of the faith who have, historically, done a laudable job of subjective judgment and condemnation. The laity has also done a very good job of rising up in righteous indignation about such matters. Frankly, I don’t think God gives one hoot as to what two consenting adults do in privacy. What I do think He cares about is the moral dimension of it all which, as we all know, is based more on conjecture than on fact.

I believe what determines the morality of it all is whether it occurs within the context of a promiscuous relationship or within the context of a committed relationship. Lust vs. love. The same applies to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals. That doesn’t mean some of us may not be weaker than others, but it doesn’t change the standard.

That marriage applies to the “union of a man and a woman,” is pretty clear in its definition and seems to be a generally accepted. Perhaps that is because only from the union of a man and a woman comes the power to create human life. I can think of no other rational explanation. If that is indeed the case, I will yield to that definition, and it seems rather futile to belabor the issue and prolong a long overdue reconciliation. Nothing will be solved by the conflict. It will only continue to separate the two sides of the issue without any meeting of the minds. In reality, is the prize really worth the price of the Cracker Jacks? What is of importance, from my perspective, is whether a union of two human beings occurs within the context of a loving and committed relationship. That can be accomplished by means other than labeling it as “marriage.” Why can we not accept that the traditional definition of “marriage” applies to the union of a man and a woman? On the other hand, the term “civil union” does sound overly legal and sterile in its connotation. Instead, why not consider “a pledge of commitment” between members of the same sex that can be legally performed in a ceremony, either by a religious cleric or a civil servant, just as a marriage ceremony may be for a man and a woman? If churches want to formally bless those unions, as I think they should, all the better.

To deny anyone who is striving to live a moral life from the life of a church, regardless of their religious persuasion, is self-defeating for the church and fosters an estrangement of millions of good and decent people from the fabric of our community simply because they happen to be gay. To continue to gore each other’s ox over the definition of “marriage” will only continue to separate us from each other. Nothing is to be gained from that posturing.

I believe the time has come for churches and religious clerics to heed their own counsel to “Judge not lest ye also be judged.” If anyone seeks to become a part of your community and comes to you with a sincere heart, then I think the only decent avenue for them to take is to set aside their own prejudices and welcome them into the fold. In the final analysis, it is a matter of the individual’s own conscience for which they, and only they, will be held to account before their Creator, not that of the church. That will be the Day of Judgment for each of them and, indeed, for us all.

Let’s face it, as long as we persist in having our own way we will never get to where we should be. At the end of the day, whether in the eyes of God or whatever higher power one may look to for spiritual guidance, we are one people. The time has come for us to divest ourselves of the petty prejudices that divide us from one another. We might just as well accept and make the most of who and what we are, for the sake of everyone. Why would the God of Love want to condemn any human being for the simple need to love and be loved?

At the end of the day, that which we must all share is our common journey on the road to Damascus.


Cowboy Bob
January 15, 2009

“Still a Mystery”

What I am about to commit to paper is the product of my own thoughts about religion, the answers about which remain elusive as they have throughout my life. I neither credit nor blame anyone for what you are about to read. I am not trying to convert anyone to my system of beliefs nor am I attempting to denigrate anyone else’s. For me, this represents a whole host of unanswered questions and conclusions. I do not pretend to have all the answers. They remain eternal questions, which I have been unable to prove or disprove to my complete satisfaction.

Of all the phenomena, that which I simply cannot get my head around is that of the universe. It totally baffles me. Try as I may to conceptualize otherwise, I just cannot comprehend that anything can exist with no beginning and no end. The best I can do is accept my own limitations at having been born into and lived exclusively in a universe that is linear in time. Therefore, my comfort zone is within the constraints of the existence of a Creator. There is nothing absolute about my conclusion. It simply reaffirms that nothing of this nature can be empirically proven nor can it be disproved. If it cannot be proven, empirically, that God exists, similarly, it cannot be proven, empirically, that God does not exist. In the final analysis, it boils down to a simple belief, providing a small dose of humility for those prone to absolutes at both ends of the religious spectrum.

The notion that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh overwhelms me, based on the sheer magnitude of that accomplishment. Geology does not square with that either, so I am more inclined to think the absolute truth of that assertion must be based on a celestial measure of time we have yet to comprehend or it simply is not true. Suffice to conclude that the creation of Mother Earth was a magnificent accomplishment, however it came about. That is, until the avarice of mankind set itself to the task of systematically destroying its perfection, which may well result in our collective and eventual doom.

I have chosen to believe in God. However, I have yet to encounter any evidence that I am right. On the other hand, religious scholars and authorities abound throughout history who professes, with absolute certainty, that theirs is the one true religion led by the one true God. That they cannot prove their assertions is summarily dismissed in the face of their own religious fervor. The veracity of their assertions is predicated on the existence of holy books, the contents of which can neither be proven nor disproved, but are, nevertheless, quoted in absolute terms. I do not buy into the notion that the holy books are necessarily the inspired word of God, but I do not discount the notion that His hand may have played a part in them. Each spans periods that preclude absolute accuracy and the integrity of one or more authors exposed to the same events, both of which cannot overrule the possibility of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Why does every form of institutionalized religion appear to rest on a set of written works that are absolute, supported by an anointed group accepted as possessing unquestioned knowledge and authority, supported by and through Divine inspiration and/or the written word? As more and more questions have been raised, over time, as to the absolute truth of those works, it seems to me that organized religions have tended to become more rigid by rejecting anything that might cause one to question the absolute certainty of their assertions. I do not necessarily question that there may well be a thread of truth running though any one or more of those belief systems. However, as knowledge becomes available it seems to me intellectual and moral honesty require religious leaders and scholars to keep an open mind that might shed more light and understanding on what we are to believe.

I am more inclined to believe that, as those religions have matured, rather than keeping an open mind about new knowledge, they have tended to cling ever more tenaciously to their official system of beliefs, ever more shrouded in mystery, secrecy, and absolute authority in order to affect greater control over their followers. That has resulted in a disinclination for us to question what we are led to believe, and to accept extremes in our system of beliefs that may cause us to become less rational and more emotional about any challenges that are presented to us about those beliefs. To the extent we are not accepting of contrary evidence and fail to question, we create and till fertile ground for extremes in what we believe and the ends to which we will go in enforcing those beliefs. Hence, we are left with a few “major” religions that allow for extremes that foster and accept violence on the one hand and total passivity on the other. As the schism has widened between the followers and religious authority, we have become increasingly dependent upon what those authorities profess to be the truth and their interpretation of the truth. That being the case, wherein lies the kernel of truth that is at the heart of a particular religion?

Why have the “believers” become passive in their acceptance of religious beliefs, abdicating their responsibility to question and to seek a deeper understanding of what they are to believe, and how they are supposed to conduct their lives within a particular system of beliefs? With the failure of the followers to actively participate in the teachings and affairs of their religion, greater license is given to the authority of religious leaders, whose commitment may or may not be as much to the needs of the followers as to the needs of the institution itself. As institutional authority becomes more absolute, it seems to me there is a natural inclination for greater misunderstanding between “what is” and “what should be.” To the extent that occurs, I suspect there is a tendency for the “flock” to become more passive and the “shepherd” to be ascribed greater authority. The notion of community and a shared responsibility for the institution becomes ever more tenuous. As members opt to leave the “flock, “the authority of the institution is further eroded and becomes less relevant.

When members become disenfranchised from the institution, in the absence of any real authority, that is when I see people either rejecting their religion out of hand, or they seek to progressively redefine their system of beliefs less in terms of the ideal of what we should be, and more in terms of rationalizing what we have become. That is the point at which I believe the moral authority of our religion begins to erode and the vitality of the institution itself begins to wane, leading to a downward spiral with a declining emphasis on the finer aspects of our spiritual nature, and greater license regarding the various aspects of the physical side of our human nature. What results, from my perspective, is a gradual acceptance of the baser aspects of whom and what we are and a growing inclination to descend into a state of progressively greater depravity. There is no longer a moral compass with which to guide us. We become more disenfranchised from one another and no longer subscribe to a commonly understood and accepted code of conduct that is requisite for a civilized community.

I believe God intends for us to seek greater understanding of His plan for us and our destiny, more through the avenues of knowledge and understanding, than through ignorance and fear. The former fosters acceptance, unity and a common purpose; the latter fosters separation, isolation, mistrust and violence.

Now, to issues of complexity and simplicity in our religious beliefs. A deeper understanding of the mysteries of religion is the eternal quest of religious scholars and philosophers. That they have been the source of enlightenment throughout the ages is not in question. However, I believe the essence of religion is a constantly evolving process of discovery and learning. That presupposes an active relationship between the clergy and the followers. To the extent that does not occur, I believe we are more prone to be duped by views that may better serve religious institutions and the clergy than they necessarily do the followers. To the extent that occurs and becomes accepted, those of us sitting in the congregation become more likely to accept simplistic answers to very complex issues. The shared responsibility for learning withers, leading to a relationship of greater authority on the one hand and greater passivity on the other. Prejudice and ignorance abound. Therein is what I perceive to be the essence of extremes that are likely to be found within the context of any religion.

I happen to believe, if it is the will of God that His word be known and understood throughout the world, then that expectation applies far more to the common man than it does to scholars and the educated elite. Simplicity seems fundamental to an understanding and acceptance of the inspired word. After all, Christ chose, as his Apostles, those from the ranks of the common man.
I cannot accept the notion that only those who subscribe to one of the three “religions of the book,” necessarily have exclusive claims to Divine favor, and those whose religious beliefs place them outside that circle are necessarily relegated to a lesser status in the eyes of God. What about all of the good and spiritual souls who were born into societies that had no knowledge of those religions? Are we to summarily conclude that they are pagans whose destiny does not include eternal salvation? Are we to accept that people such as Mahatma Gandhi, the Dali Lama, and all of the other great spiritual thinkers, leaders and believers have no place in eternity? When we all reach the end of our earthly journey, either (a) our very existence (in any form) ceases to exist; or (b) we are all in for one heck of a surprise at what we are likely to find!

Then there is the perennial conflict between the theories of evolution vs. that of creation. The theory of evolution seems pretty logical to me. However, there seems to be a barrier when it comes to discovering the missing link. We have been taught to believe that man was created in the image of God. If we accept that assertion, how are we to interpret the “Image of God?” Is the traditional image of God as a male authority figure predicated on the fact that, historically, societies have largely been patriarchal? If our physical form is not His, then what is it? It seems readily apparent that our anatomy and physiology is a form specific to survival on planet Earth. However, if God were everywhere, His form would have to be compatible with the vastness of time and space. Where we are mortal beings with a finite life span, then I believe God is a spiritual and philosophical being free of any such constraints. He would have no need for the same characteristics that are essential for our earthly survival. So, in what way do we exist in His image? I have concluded that the image we share with God lies within the spiritual and intellectual aspects of our makeup. Because God’s survival is not dependent upon anything akin to our physical makeup, then the image we share with Him must necessarily lie in the spiritual aspects of our nature. That calls into question the image of a mortal man as the traditional image of God. How are we to know?

So, where does all this leave us? What binds us to or alienates us from God? What is pleasing to or engenders the wrath of God? Obviously, it is beyond my ability to provide exhaustive answers to either. However, I do subscribe to a few. I believe those aspects of our makeup specific to our physical survival and procreation is limited to our mortal existence and has no relationship to God. Further, I see those aspects as the seat of our greatest temptations and, consequently, our greatest excesses that can lead to our moral demise in the absence of any constraints. Then the spiritual aspects of our makeup would seem to comprise the finer aspects of our nature and are those qualities we share with God. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, there seems to be greater reverence for the physical than for the spiritual. That leads me to believe that from the physical come the more aggressive aspects of our nature, which, if taken to the extreme, results in violence. I do not believe it is in the nature of God to be violent.

There are some issues within various religions that remain unresolved questions with me, and their professed relationship to God. Following are but a few examples.

1. The rationale behind the rule of celibacy and the attendant consequences that have dealt such a serious blow to the moral authority of one of the world’s great religions.

2. Ministers of mega-churches and televangelists that rake in huge sums of money which appear to be more for the support of their lavish lifestyles than for the support of God’s work on earth. My suspicions are further aroused when the offspring of the “clergy” follow in the footsteps of their father. Is that more a matter of a religious calling or a conscious business decision to market religion in order to pursue a lucrative career path?

3. I do not believe God was ever in the real estate business. To use that as a pretext for disenfranchising an entire nation of people is a ruse perpetrated by a bunch of hard- line zealots in the name of religion. The Israelis have learned the lessons of history well, as evidenced by sixty years of brutality they continue to inflict on the Palestinians. They never waiver from their unspoken goal of a pure Jewish state. While they talk of their support for a peace process that will result in a two-state solution, they continue to establish Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. They continue to physically isolate them, break up their families and impede their ability to have a decent standard of living. Would any reasonable person expect them to behave like a bunch of sheep waiting to be led to their slaughter? If I were to be asked to come up with three symbols depicting the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States, I would (a) mention the name of the USS Liberty, (b) mention the name of Jonathan Pollard, and (3) draw a caricature of an elephant recoiling in stark terror from a mouse.

4. How religions that foster and support international terrorism can be anything but the complete antithesis of what God is and expects of us.

5. How religions that suppress women, minority groups, and those of different religious persuasions can profess to enjoy favored status with God.

6. Religions that condone the importation of cheap labor from third world countries that are among the poorest of the poor, and treats them like beasts of burden in both the way they are forced to live and the conditions under which they labor.

7. Religious splinter groups that live in isolation from society while they practice polygamy, pedophilia, etc. I see that more as institutionalized perversion than living a religious life.

8. Religions that rule by fear, ignorance and intimidation, rather than knowledge and enlightenment. All that can result from this mindset is submission to authority and a total abdication of any personal responsibility to pursue an independent understanding of what God is all about.

I deeply admire people who can quote from the holy books with ease and fluidity. I must confess that, a few times during my life, I made an honest attempt to read the Bible, but I was never successful. I found that effort to be either a sure cure for insomnia or I simply got lost in all the begetting. I now know that, in order to comprehend what is written in the holy books requires not only a great deal of discipline, but the assistance of good teachers, as well.

Basically, I regard myself to be a simple man. For me, true wisdom is to be found in simplicity. Given that, let me conclude with what I believe to be the essence of what God is all about.

1. I believe God embodies all of the finest attributes of our human nature, but billions of times greater than we can imagine. I believe the essence of His make up is essentially based on --

a. Unconditional love.
b. Unconditional acceptance.
c. Unconditional understanding.
d. Unconditional forgiveness.

God expects no less from us in our relationship to each other.

2. I believe that the Ten Commandments have served humanity well as the foundation for a virtuous life.

3. I believe the Beatitudes are one of the best repositories of principles by which to live that are to be found anywhere.

4. I believe, when faced with any problem, to the extent we follow our heart rather than our head, we increase the probability of coming up with the right solution.

5. And, finally, the old standby, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

To the extent I may have offended anyone by this treatise, I regret having done so. To the extent that I may have provoked some serious thought, reflection and soul-searching, then the time and effort spent on this rather modest work was well worth it.

The mystery of it all remains.


Cowboy Bob
January 10, 2009

“Seeking Salvation”

Let me preface this treatise by making it clear that I do not believe there is any scientific or empirical evidence that clearly establishes the existence of God. Further, I am not advocating adherence to any particular set of religious beliefs. That is a private matter and, in the final analysis, boils down to what one chooses to believe. I am no different.

I came from a family that, for the most part, did not subscribe to any particular religious doctrine. However, as tenuous as that commitment might have been, I think I can safely say their beliefs were rooted in Christianity.

The only one whose religious convictions were rock-solid was my Grandmother. She came from a long line of devout Baptists, and she made no bones about her beliefs and the strength thereof. She had a well-worn Bible from which she read passages everyday. She could quote scripture with no effort and never doubted that she was literally correct every time. She was singularly responsible for instilling within me a fear of the awesome power of that Divine Being who was poised to rein down all sorts of pain and suffering for the slightest infraction of His myriad rules and proscriptions.

My Grandmother was a staunch supporter of Vacation Bible School. In retrospect, I don’t doubt her commitment one bit. However, given the religious makeup of the rest of the family, I cannot help but wonder if they aided and abetted her fervor just to get the kids out of the house for a few hours. Regardless, I enjoyed getting away and having the opportunity to draw, color, sing and socialize with my peers. What was put forth as education was so alien to me that I gave it little attention.

When I had matured to that of a pre-pubescent boy, my Grandmother decided it was time for me to be exposed to church services, the most important aspect of all that being the revival meeting. She took me by the hand, and I dutifully followed, to a sandstone building with a neon sign that read “JESUS SAVES,” prominently perched atop the structure. There was a lot of smiling, shaking of hands and shouts of approval for the inspired word as preached by Reverend Pulis. The meeting built to a crescendo of excitement when the moment came to “go forward.” I was not just in awe of what was going on around me; I was absolutely terrified. When my Grandmother asked me if I wanted to “go forward,” I hadn’t a clue as to what that was all about. All I knew was that it resulted in making some sort of a verbal commitment from the front while looking out at all those rapturous people, to be followed by a complete immersion in a tank of water by Reverend Pulis. That was not my idea of a good time. I refused my Grandmother’s offer and was relieved when we exited that exercise in fear, and back into the cool air of the autumn’s evening. I never went back to the Baptist Church.

I aligned myself with the rather lukewarm religious convictions of my parental home and was quite content to forego any further ventures into the world of religion.

After I graduated from high school and joined the United States Navy, there was a growing desire within me to seek a religious foundation that would sustain me through all that my adult life was to throw at me. One could ask, and rightfully so, why did I find it necessary to engage in such a pursuit? As I matured, I became increasingly aware of the demons within me, something I shared with all my fellow mortals. There is that constant conflict that goes on within us from the beginning to the end of our lives. Within that conflict is the ease with which we can rationalize the less noble aspects of who and what we are, so often not just to our own detriment but to those of a whole host of others we will meet on the road through life. I felt a growing need to find and subscribe to a moral compass in order to maximize honesty with myself, minimize the propensity towards self-deception and treat others as I would like to be treated in return.

I first tried the Presbyterian Church. That quickly proved to be an uncomfortable fit for me. My next sampling was the Episcopal Church. The ritual and props of it all were a bit overwhelming, so my tenure was rather brief. I was becoming somewhat discouraged by it all, but one thing I did know for sure. I needed a compass to guide me on my mortal journey.

A couple of my shipmates regularly attended a local Methodist Church in Honolulu, and one Sunday they asked me to join them. I accepted the invitation and was pleasantly surprised at what I found. I liked the fact that it was not an emotional religion and that it had an intellectual bent to it. That made it appealing to me and my comfort zone. I stayed with that church for several years. However, when I was a university student, at the end of the academic year I received in the mail one of those “window” envelopes that was, in those days, a clear sign of an overdue bill. When I opened it, I was reminded that I was in arrears by $4.50 on my annual pledge. I was further admonished to remit the unpaid balance within ten days. The completely put me off and I never went back. I thought I had joined a church, not a commercial enterprise. There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and the way that issue was handled was, in my opinion, totally inappropriate for a religious institution. It was particularly offensive, given that I was going through college on the $110 per month provided by the G.I. Bill.

Prominent in my quest for religious enlightenment was that offered in the Bible. I tried reading that rather formidable tome several times, only to be discouraged at the thought of having to wade through all that “begetting.” It exhausted me just thinking about it. While I was a university student I signed up for an elective course titled “The Bible as Literature.” I looked forward to being guided through that work by a real pro. However, when the professor introduced the course as “the greatest fictional work ever written,” coupled with the requirement that a term paper had to be written as part of the course, I chucked it in. I didn’t like his rather flippant manner and I sure as hell didn’t want to take on five term papers that semester. So, that ended my flirtation with any notion I may have had at becoming an aspiring biblical scholar.

When I was engaged to be married, I decided I had to fish or cut bait. If we were to be a cohesive family, I decided that our family would be much better off if we all went to the same church together on Sunday. I was somewhat daunted by the mystery and the pageantry of the Church, and I knew I had a lot to learn. Over the years, it has proven to be a good fit. It has provided me with the foundation I was seeking and the privacy I prefer. I have had, and still have, issues with my faith but I am at peace with where I am. That is probably because I have never abdicated what I regard as a fundamental intellectual obligation to question everything, and reject nothing out of hand where the scales are tipped on the side of truth. That is one of the great gifts I took away from the traditions of the university from which I graduated.

I can assure you, however, that nothing has ever been quite as formidable or ecclesiastically terrifying to me as Reverend Pulis and that horse tank full of cold water at the JESUS SAVES Baptist Church.

I will pursue this subject further in a future column.

Cowboy Bob
October 8, 2008

"A Government for Whom?"

As the financial markets come falling down around our heads, the king makers in Washington and the barons of Wall Street have wasted no time in trying to corner complete control of the 700 billion dollar bailout that is now the big bone of contention in our Nation’s Capitol. As of this writing, it looks as if the power of the people may well have been louder than the corrupt influence of those who perpetrated this crisis, and who are seeking to cover their financial asses at the expense of the taxpayers. It remains fluid and the final outcome is yet to be seen. However, it says a hell of a lot more about the wisdom of those who opposed this stampede and their grass-roots movement than any credit due the Founding Fathers in setting up this so-called “democracy.” In the end, though, there is little doubt in my mind that the taxpayers will once again get the big screw without benefit of kiss.

Let’s face it, folks. The notion that we are, or ever have been, a democracy is nothing more than a grand illusion taught to us from the first day of school in the newly formed United States of America. We are, pure and simple, a plutocracy. Money and the power of money control and dictate what our government does, and who benefits from it. To be sure, it ebbs and flows, but the plutocrats always come out on top and the common man is left with the hindmost.

With the passage of time, we have come to believe that those who founded this country were a bunch of egalitarians who believed in the wisdom of the common man, and all authority flowed from them to the political and government leaders of the Republic. Not altogether true. There were those among them who held views to the effect that those of education and privilege were more suited to govern the country. Given the nature of negotiation and compromise, it only stands to reason that some aspects of that mindset carried over into practice with the newfound “democracy.” I happen to believe that same mindset and the effects of their wealth and privilege on our government, as well as the citizenry, still reside with what has often been termed, “Eastern money and power.”

Today, we have what is unquestionably an imperial presidency, more pronounced by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than any of their predecessors. They have thumbed their noses at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have trampled on the rights of the citizens. They have conducted business in secret, flirting with the very legality of their conduct. They have lied to the American people, leading us into an illegal war. Their deception has been further compounded by the periodic admonitions about threats to our safety and security, leading us to somehow believe that they, alone, were protecting us from the forces of evil and darkness. Much like the monarchs of days gone by, they have effectively gotten off Scot-free with what can only be regarded as criminal behavior, all because we and Congress have allowed them to behave as if they were reigning royalty! The term “Imperial Presidency” seems more apt than ever. They have gotten a free pass on conduct that would have landed Average Joe Blow a reserved accommodation in the slammer. If that were not bad enough, they will retire with a fat pension and a goodly number of the trappings of the offices they held.

That George W. Bush can claim he graduated from Yale and received his MBA from Harvard only underscores the fact that family and wealth play a far greater role in his credentials than does intellect and academic achievement. Also, the very size of the Endowment Fund at Harvard would further underscore its ties to big money.

Of the 43 presidents who have occupied the White House to date, 13 or 30 per cent have one or more degrees from Harvard, Yale or Princeton.

Of the 42 Cabinet positions occupied by Harvard graduates, 8 have served as the Secretary of the Treasury, 7 have served as Secretary of State, 7 have served as the Attorney General, and 8 have served as the Secretary of War or the Secretary of Defense. Of all the Cabinet positions, those would seem to hold the greatest power and influence.

Of all the Justices who have sat on the Supreme Court, 19 have been graduates of the Harvard Law School.

I categorically reject any notion of academic superiority by any and all of the Ivy League Schools. Despite the mystique they have cultivated, which most of us buy into, I am more inclined to believe it is more a factor of the power of wealth and family name than it is to the gene pool from whence they come. That they exert disproportionate influence over our lives by the positions they hold and the resources they control seems rather self-evident.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that, although all massive de-regulation of the financial institutions on Wall Street was fostered by Senator Phil Gramm while he was serving as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in a Republican Congress, for it to have become law it had to have been signed by then President William J. Clinton (Yale), with the concurrence of either Robert Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury (Harvard) or Lawrence Summers as his successor (Harvard). I, also, find it rather coincidental that it came out during the primaries that Chelsea Clinton worked for one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street. Coincidence? I am reasonably certain, if the issue were to be carefully researched, we would find that the same disproportionate amount of influence and control over the financial industries lies is in the hands of the Eastern centers of power, wealth and influence that have always been major players in our national destiny.

Two of the chief proponents of the bail out of Wall Street from the current financial crisis are (1) George W. Bush (Yale, Harvard) and Henry Paulson (Harvard).

I rather imagine most of us would like to believe that our institutions are a cross-section of America. The facts seem to suggest otherwise.

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution effectively created the Federal Monolith that lies within the Beltway of Washington, D.C. Up until the passage of this amendment, members of the United States Senate were directly accountable for their actions to their individual states through the state legislatures. Now, largely because they only have to seek re-election every 6 years, rather than every 2 years (House of Representatives) or every 4 years (Presidency), they are more insulated from the power of the people than any other branch of government except the Supreme Court and, as a consequence, tend to provide more fertile ground for self-serving and corrupt practices, as well. They are much more prone to respond to the influence of lobbyists and special interests, and all the other perks that go with their office. Is it any wonder they so readily dismiss the will of the people in favor of their own omnipotence? At least, because congressmen in the House of Representatives have to go back to the voters every 2 years, they are, generally, more sensitive and beholden to those who put and keep them in office.

There is one more very important element involved in the balance of power between the players in Washington. That is the role played by a free and unfettered news media, a role that has served this country and our democracy extremely well until events of recent history radically changed all that. Historically, they have done an outstanding job of keeping the system honest. Through the political maneuvering exerted on the Federal Communications Commission, the role of the media has been radically changed and drastically reduced by permitting corporate ownership of our newspapers, radio stations and television networks. They are now anything but “free and unfettered.” They operate within the sphere of influence by which public opinion is shaped for the purpose of serving their corporate masters and shareholders. From a former diet of divergent opinion, discourse and debate, we citizens now live on a bill-of-fare prepared by big business interests and doled out to us in the form of corporate Pabulum of mediocrity, sameness, entertainment and advertising. Nothing that would challenge the mediocre mindset of most Americans. We are simply too ignorant, too lazy, too complacent or a combination of all three. We are there to be picked off at will in order to feed the insatiable appetite of avarice so endemic to our culture.

At the end of the day, I do believe that the parliamentary system of government has more going for it than the plutocracy that governs our national affairs under the banner of “democracy.” Why? Because there is more direct accountability to the people and less opportunity for limitless greed and personal power.

We have: (a) a President, (b) the Senate and (c) the House of Representatives.

The British Parliamentary System has: (a) a Constitutional Monarch, (b) the House of Lords and (c) the House of Commons.

Under a parliamentary system, the gargantuan egos and the propensity for corruption by the elite are given expression, but contained, through use of meaningless titles and the other trappings of exclusivity so dear to their need for superiority. At a price to be sure, but far less costly to the taxpayers than what goes on within the Washington Beltway.

It seems to me a palace on the banks of the Potomac, a summer palace in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a winter palace in Wickenburg, Arizona, a fleet of Cadillac and Lincoln limousines, a few diamonds and duties comprised of frivolous by ceremonies of one sort or another pales in comparison to what is included in our Federal Budget every year.

Though the “duties” of office are likely to be nothing short of burdensome, shall we start the transition by crowing me King Robert I? It does have a rather nice ring to it.

Cowboy Bob
October 3, 2008
.

“No Time for a Personality Contest”

There is both a science and an art to good leadership. Competence, no matter how one chooses to define it, is the essential quality of good leadership. It takes better than average intelligence. It is the ability to not only recognize one’s own strengths, but one’s limitations, as well. It takes courage, and the ability to recognize and admit mistakes. It takes sound judgment and a willingness to subject that judgment to the scrutiny of others. It requires impeccable honesty and integrity. It is the art the possible through collegial and collaborative relationships. It is the ability to gather the best minds around you into a cohesive and dedicated team. A good leader embodies the collective wisdom of his/her team, not run rough-shod over others because of a gargantuan ego. It is the ability to dignify one voice of dissent as much as those of a legion of supporters. It is the ability to understand that anything is possible so long as no one cares who gets the credit. It is the ability to make an unpopular decision and take full responsibility for it when your instincts tell you that is the wisest course of action. It is the ability to understand that power is most effective when used sparingly; and praise is most effective when used generously. Leadership is situational. It is the essential difference between being boss and playing boss.

I have watched Sarah Palin with fascination and the adoration for her that has emerged in just a few weeks. Her interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC News was most insightful. It is reminiscent of Bert Parks asking the “one burning question” of each contestant for the title of Miss America, with all of the substance and spontaneity associated with the exercise. She is attractive and poised, as one would expect from a former beauty queen. Her knowledge, judgment and experience are not particularly remarkable. I have over 40 years experience in senior management positions in large, complex and some international organizations. I hardly think that would, ipso facto, qualify me to be one heart-beat away from the Presidency. All of the orchestrated praise and fawning over her doesn’t alter the facts. She is what she is; a small-town mayor and a small-time governor. Nothing more. She is a lightweight when it comes to education and experience. I cannot recall that the University of Idaho’s program in journalism is regarded as one of the premier schools in that particular discipline, over which the best in the business compete for admission. She served on the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska for 4 years and 6 as the town’s mayor, the population of which is reputed to be somewhere between 5,500 and 9,000. It hardly qualifies as one of the nation’s major metropolitan areas. Alaska, with a total population of 650,000 could hardly compete with most of our major cities. I don’t regard either as heavy experience on any executive officer’s resume. Her latest ploy is to stonewall an investigation into her conduct while she was Governor of Alaska. Sound a bit like another 4 years of Bush - Cheney?

As for being a rather accomplished liar, I won’t hold that against Sarah. After all, that seems to be a malady that afflicts most politicians to some extent. But, as for being a leader, she doesn’t qualify. Rather, she is a tyrant who misuses the authority of her office to enhance her own personal ambitions. When I see her new-found followers in rapt attention, seizing on every word, almost in a complete state of rapture, the sheer absence of any rationality is sobering. I have only witnessed similar phenomena twice in my life. The first instance was when, out of intellectual curiosity, I went to a meeting of born-again Christians at the local Moose (no pun intended) Lodge. The second instance was at an Amway convention where Rich Devoss, one of the founders of Amway, was the cheerleader. There is something rather frightening about all that. I don’t regard the fundamentalist Christians and social conservatives, who thrust her into a position of prominence on the Republican ticket, as particularly rational human beings. Their religious philosophy seems to be predicated more on what preacher is waving a bible under their noses at any given time than any objective evidence. All I can say to anyone who professes to speak in tongues is that there is a huge market out there looking for a new hallucinogenic agent to try. Might be a good fund-raising ploy for the last few weeks of the campaign.

At the end of the day, Sarah Palin is about as qualified to be Vice-President as any waitress at Hooter’s. Pathetic, really. Her choice as candidate for Vice-President is the most egregious error in judgment by John McCain so far. However, not at all out of character with his record as a political opportunist.

Joe Biden has an education grounded in Catholic schools. Those Catholic schools have a reputation for discipline and academic excellence that is well known. He is a solid family man with decades of experience in the United States Senate, serving on the Foreign Relations Committee and as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. To be sure, he has stumbled and has made his share of mistakes along the way. However, he is a seasoned veteran in politics and government, and he has served this country with dedication, honor and distinction. He knows and has first-hand experience about the major issues of our day, and how to deal with them. Frankly, we could all sleep better knowing he is the one who is just a heart-beat away from the Presidency.

John McCain is touted as an exceptional and well qualified leader. He is ascribed qualities such as sound judgment and the ability to work by “reaching across the aisle.” Being fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy does not impress me as a particularly solid academic foundation for acquiring the knowledge and skills required of leadership. Serving as the squadron commander of a flight wing doesn’t seem like an overwhelmingly heavy challenge in leadership skills either.

John established himself as a playboy and womanizer while he was a midshipman at Annapolis, a reputation he seems to have carried with him into later life. I doubt that his rise up the ranks as a U.S. Naval Officer would have been quite as dramatic were it not for the fact that both his grandfather and his father were full admirals. Political influence carries significant weight in those circles.

Nothing is extolled quite as often, both by others and by himself, as the fact that he is a bona fide war hero. As for his POW experience qualifying him as a hero, I would submit that all of those who were POW’s under similar circumstances are as deserving as John McCain ever was for that same distinction. Without wishing to minimize his suffering, he has no corner on that claim.
One would think his experience in the Hanoi Hilton would have humanized John to some extent, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. He wasted no time in pitching his first wife (who was crippled in a car accident during his time as a POW), in favor of a wealthy heiress whose family could provide him with both the money and the influence to launch his political career. Otherwise, it is doubtful that he could have been elected to anything of greater prominence than that of dog-catcher of Maricopa County, Arizona.

His political acumen in both the House and the Senate seems to have been more a factor of his temper than his mastery of the art of negotiation and persuasion. A pall still hangs over his character because of his involvement as one of the now infamous “Keating Five,“ in the 1980’s Savings and Loan scandal, not to mention his later cozy relationship with Phil Gramm who was largely instrumental in stripping all meaningful safeguards from the financial industries, now tanking in droves.

His friendships appear to be more a factor of his political ambitions than any type of kinship. He did a complete turn-around and readily adopted the agenda of George W. Bush who was once his nemesis in the election of 2000. He has sided up to anyone who could benefit him, politically, despite his own rather fluid convictions to the contrary. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed and the like are only a few who readily come to mind. No one is a more persuasive liar than John, particularly when he adopts the facial expression and voice of a family therapist - cool, calm and soft-spoken. But, whatever works for the guy at any given moment, I suppose.

During his political career, John seems to have had some difficulty in deciding whether he wanted to remain a Republican or a Democrat. He flirted with changing parties, then flirted with running as Vice-President with John Kerry in 2004, but decided otherwise. It seems he can’t go anywhere, anymore without being attached at the hip to Joe Lieberman on one side and Lindsey Graham on the other. Hardly bulwarks of political acumen and personal statesmanship. Because of these relationships, I am still having difficulty reconciling John’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running-mate over either of these two. Maybe, while Sarah is cramming to become his understudy in affairs of state, he hopes to give each of them a spare bedroom in the White House so they can tuck him in at night and shore up his image as president.

John McCain is clueless when it comes to leadership. He just doesn’t have it nor is he to be trusted with the highest office in the land as his personal learning ground. Time for him to go back to the ranch in Sedona and pitch horseshoes.

Barack Obama is the product of a multi-cultural family who appears to be the product of a pretty normal upbringing. He manifested behavior at times that was typical of an adolescent and a young man, about which he has been forthcoming in both of his books.

He is a graduate of Columbia University, the Harvard Law School and was President of the Harvard Law Review, plus 12 years as a Constitutional Law Professor. No small achievements and testimony to his intelligence and his discipline. He has been married to the same woman for 19 years and is the father of two daughters, all of whom have been, and continue to be, followers of a Protestant Christian Faith.

Barack spent three years as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago among some of the poorest and most disenfranchised. He faced one of the toughest challenges of leadership in that whatever he accomplished was largely the result of persuasion and negotiation. He followed with 8 years as a member of the Illinois Senate, representing a district of 750,000 people in Chicago. As a state senator, he served as Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the Illinois State Legislature. He has served 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people. During that time he has sponsored 113 bills and has served on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veterans’ Affairs Committees.

Like all of us, he has made his share of mistakes, the most notable of which was his relationship to Tony Resco. The real estate deal involving his purchase of a home through this relationship was certainly an example of poor judgement, but he has been forthcoming about that issue and, in retrospect, he acknowledges that was not wise or prudent on his part.

Barack is commonly referred to as “young” at 47 years of age. From my vantage point, I would classify him as middle-aged. That presupposes a certain amount of wisdom that goes with it. I believe he has done a rather good job of demonstrating that attribute. He has shown his leadership abilities, and I am satisfied that he will do the nation proud as its 45th President. I have no doubt that he will manifest the finest qualities of leadership, if for no other reason than the fact that he already knows that real leadership is analogous to the conductor of a symphony orchestra, not in mastering every musical instrument. I have every confidence that he will surround himself with the best minds and experience he can bring to bear on the challenges and the burdens he will inherit, should he be elected.

Given what has befallen this country during the course of the last 7 plus years, not to mention the last few days, I just don’t see how we can afford to take a chance on one who seems to be a true believer when it comes to the policies of George W. Bush & Company. What has come down around us all is just too ominous and foreboding to entrust to John McCain and Sarah Palin, their hollow rhetoric and adoring fans not withstanding.

We aren’t focusing on the issues, we are fixating on personalities. This is not the time to cast our precious votes on a cult of personality or political opportunism. The tenor of our times cries out for real leadership. All things considered, I believe Barack Obama has clearly shown that he has what it takes, not only because of his education and experience, but because of the leadership acumen he embodies, and his choice of the man standing in wings.


Cowboy Bob
September 19, 2008

“It Only Gets Worse”

I should not be surprised by anything, but everyday seems to bring a new and more ominous revelation. However, in order to set the stage for the topic of this column, we need to go back to Kansas when Dorothy embarked on her journey to the Land of Oz.

Bill Clinton swept into the White House as the great champion of the average American, hell-bent on improving his lot in life. However, it did not take long for the label of “Slick Willy” to gain some traction among his skeptics, which only intensified with his tenure as President of the United States.

We soon learned that he was a great advocate of globalization and free trade. When he signed the NAFTA treaty, it should not have been difficult for any reasoned mind to conclude that, with the shipping of American jobs to cheap labor markets such as Mexico and China, there would be an immediate impact on the American working class. It hasn’t taken long for them to lose their good paying jobs and benefits, lose the safeguards of Taft-Hartley, shift to low-paying service jobs and accept a progressively lower standard of living as they move closer to their counterparts in third world countries.

As more and more of our industrial base was shipped overseas to pools of cheap labor and our working men and women joined the ranks of the working poor, the stock market soared. Fortunes were made by big corporations and those investing in their enterprises. But, those who were made to sacrifice their standards of living and job security had nothing to invest in this new found cornucopia of wealth. The new boom was beyond their grasp. Bottom line? They were snookered by the insatiable greed of big business and the politicians who facilitated their exploitation of those among us who have the least to sacrifice.

While Monica Lewinsky was demonstrating her undying love for Bill under the presidential desk in the Oval Office, he was demonstrating his ability to multi-task by taking phone calls during his romantic interludes. The world expressed its moral outrage but, nevertheless, was duly impressed by the prowess he demonstrated in a variety of ways.

Meanwhile, Phil Gramm was dismantling the safeguards by which our financial institutions were governed in order to ensure public confidence. For it to have become a fait accompli, the President had to have signed everything advocated by Gramm & Co. into law. At that point, it became open season on our financial health. The Secretary of the Treasury either chose to remain silent or he did not have a clue as to what was going on. The effects of all this would take some time to be felt by John Q. Public.

Billy Boy left office leaving the highest budget surplus in the history of the Republic. Everything was in place for the picking by his successor and his merry band of thieves. On his last day in office, Bill Clinton nullified his Executive Order forbidding members of his administration from serving as lobbyists for a period of five years. It was now open season on an unsuspecting American public. All of this may have provided us with some insights into why he and George H.W. Bush are such good golfing buddies. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4 on that one!

Georgy Porgie, Sinister Dick and their happy band of neocons soon set themselves to the task of fleecing the country of everything that wasn’t nailed down. They dismantled all they could of the safeguards that were in place to protect the consumer and working people. Our infrastructure took a hit that will require untold billions of tax dollars to recover. Big money and big business suddenly found themselves in the land of milk and honey. Executive compensation and severance packages ballooned. Seems no one could lose except, of course, the poor blokes at the bottom of the food chain. Huge tax cuts followed and every conceivable concession to big business and vast wealth was the order of the day.

Not only was the working class disenfranchised, the unholy alliance of business interests (most typified by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and a bevy of naive, wide-eyed do-gooders, politicians and church leaders have joined forces to open our southern borders to hordes of illegals --- a further assault on the wages and benefits for working Americans. They have the whole-hearted support of our national representatives in both political parties. Who is looking out for those who have suffered the most by what Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have brought down on their heads? No one that I can see.

The Bush Administration soon gave us the infamous “War on Terror,” with a contrived war against a country that had done nothing to us. But the propaganda machine was turned up to full force and an unsuspecting nation was duped into believing that it would be a short-lived war, that we would be greeted as liberators and the cost of the folly would be chiefly borne by Iraqis from revenue generated by their vast oil reserves.

Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater are only a few of those who have raked in obscene amounts of money through no-bid contracts, supported by politicians who have had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted with little or no accountability. I am, also, highly suspect of the military-industrial complex and the transparency of their business relationships. A budget appears to be nothing more than a petty annoyance and cost-overruns are little more than a minor inconvenience. We don’t even bother to question what the collective beneficiaries of this war are doing and what it is costing us. Who has been looking over their shoulders to make sure the interests of the taxpayers have been properly served?

And while the true believers looked up to our faux leaders in Washington with rapt adoration, knowing that they were “keeping us safe and protecting our freedoms,” our men and women in uniform were being sacrificed on the altar of their grand deception. The dead came home to Dover Air Force Base under a black-out on the news media, as if the fallen had somehow dishonored the nation. Thousands of others have been physically and emotionally maimed, and have received little recompense for all they have suffered. Let us not lose sight of the fact that a goodly number of those serving in our all-volunteer armed forces have served because they had no choice. After all, there were no longer any decent and respectable alternatives to go to in our decimated job market. A damned disgrace if you ask me!

So, where does all this leave us? Well, it sure doesn’t look promising.

1. There has been the largest mortgage meltdown in the history of the country.
2. Residential foreclosures are at an all-time high.
3. We are buried under a mountain of consumer and public debt.
4. Major financial institutions have failed, with countless others clinging to life. Were it not for
the taxpayers saddled with the brunt of the cost for their survival in order to protect
investors, the ripple effect would be disastrous. Taxpayers take all the risks and investors
claim all the profits.
5, Unemployment figures are climbing.
6. The cost of the Iraq war continues unabated, with no end in sight. The sink hole has no
bottom.
7. The cost of gasoline and other petroleum products have gone through the stratosphere, with
no significant relief in sight. Typical of Americans, we are clamoring for a quick-fix that isn’t
there and are poised to believe everything slick politicians promise as instant solutions.
8. We are a debtor nation going ever deeper into debt in order to finance the bottomless pit of
the Iraq war and growing demands for social and public works programs, exacerbated by
what is euphemistically referred to as a “recession.” A rose by any other name ……………..
9. We are borrowing money from other nations to finance “the war,” chief among them China. 10. Our infrastructure is in shambles with no funding available to fix it.
11. ………..and more and more, ad-nauseum.

Now, comes the latest revelation. The Iraqi government has recently announced that they are awarding a contract to develop the country’s oil industry to (guess who?) the China Oil Company! How about them apples? Bottom line: No matter how ill conceived the war in Iraq was, over 4,100 American lives have been sacrificed to try and bring them a better and kinder form of government than what was toppled. The gratitude of the Iraqi government for those lost lives is to shaft the United States by shunting their business to our biggest creditor. Isn‘t that just too cozy to contemplate?

We dance around the word recession, one re-definition after another, in an effort to deny the ultimate reality. Let’s face it, we stand on the threshold of a world-wide economic meltdown because of our individual and national folly, and a lot of misplaced trust.

The forthcoming national election is probably the most important since the Great Depression. Not one to be taken lightly. It is an absolute imperative that we cast our votes based on as much verifiable and objective information as we can possibly gather about the two presidential candidates. If we don’t, as so aptly stated from Macbeth, “It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”

Cowboy Bob
September 12, 2008