It is a given that in the United States, each person, as free as moral and just laws allow, is free to pursue his or her own enterprises at their leisure and discretion. While laws subject to the errors of opinion that men and women have from time to time can render themselves and the people they govern as unjust, it is the trust of a democratic republic that the electorate will call upon representatives to fix these errors in due time, or offer up a petition to the current representatives, peacefully redressing their grievances and urging elected officials to change the laws to support what is considered most wholly to be just.

The recent decision by the state of North Carolina to amend their state constitution to ban marriage between homosexual couples is one of these outright mistakes.  This new amendment, which clearly has it’s beginnings in this country in Christian biblical law, has no basis in reason and should be redacted by the very representatives which are responsible for putting it into place.  It should be said at the outset of this piece of writing that I don’t oppose the right of a people to govern themselves as individuals from a religious viewpoint.  I believe that Christianity is one of the most noble moral codes in the world and that Jesus has more to teach about civility and kindness than any other figure in history that immediately comes to mind.

With that being said, I don’t believe it is the right to compel someone by law into following a religion they disdain and abhor. Empathy must be used when navigating these issues.  The United States as it stands today never was, and was never intended to be a nation governed by Christian laws - nor the laws of any other doctrine outside of science and reason. There exists a multitude of evidence to support this, and while I’m aware there is a book being circulated which says otherwise, I assure you that nearly everything in it is refutable (I say nearly only because I have never actually read the book but have refuted several of it’s claims in the past).  As for the items which aren’t refutable, if any were to appear, I’d urge those who are pointing it out to weigh the amount of contradictory evidence as it will be heavier than any example where it may be construed that the United States was founded upon Christian law.

Today, we now find ourselves in a precarious situation having passed an amendment wholly on the argument that it is “God’s Law.”  In addition, another fallacious argument said that supporting homosexual marriage would lead to the legalization of incest and beastiality.  As far as I can tell, these are all to be considered “God’s Law” due to Leviticus 20, which states that all of the above are detestable acts.  I can only conclude that the fear of legalizing incest and beastiality as the next logical step after legalizing gay marriage is somehow tied to all of these due to being mentioned in the same chapter of the Bible.  While incest certainly brings genetic issues in offspring, and beastiality takes issue with the non-consent of animals and cruelty, I can find no reason to outlaw homosexuality which has proven to be naturally occurring in nature as plain as different colored eyes.

The true question before us then is this:  As easily as it would be in the minds of those who are fearful of the dominoes of beastiality and incest falling and both of those acts being construed as legal and normal acts, perhaps should look equally hard in the other direction; at the possibility of society not moving away from biblical law, but toward it.  What if more of The Book of Leviticus were encoded into the North Carolina State Constitution?  Would the people that state be content seeing their children executed by the hundreds for speaking ill of their parents? (Leviticus 20:9)  Should haircuts in North Carolina be outlawed?  (Leviticus 19:27) Should people bearing tattoo’s be removed from the state since that is against God’s law, or should we revoke their natural rights? (Leviticus 19:28)

If God’s law is that black and white we either need to interpret the Bible literally as a whole, or we need to read it a completely different way.  It’s that simple.  If it is truly divine, who are we to cherry pick only the parts of it which fit our rigid philosophies or our subliminal bigotry?  It’s been said before that democracy is not freedom but rather mob rule and it’s the tyranny of the majority that can often cause the oppression of a minority group.  With precautions against that in mind, it is the duty of a society to think empathetically, as if we were born into a minority oppressed democratically by the majority.  I’ve always taken it as an axiom that a society where any minority is unsafe and has a marginalized voice that the society cannot be considered free.  It’s just the same if a large population of Muslims were to move to a state and enact their religious doctrines upon the Christian population.  An ounce of empathy is needed to see through the cloud of self-righteousness.

Religious liberty is clearly not a one way street. The concept of liberty alone means that society is intended to be open to all religions so individual citizens can explore them at leisure and choose their own divinity based upon their own reason without compulsion.  This means simply that religion should not have any place in government, as it’s government’s duty to serve all of the people at once not legislate laws based on a fraction of the population’s religious doctrine, no matter how large or influential.  It’s not oppression to relegate all religion to private practice, while maintaining the same rights of religious institutions to open discussion and free speech as any other platform may have.

James Madison once wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’”  There is no place in our nation for the theological attack on the rights of a free people.  So until there is a sound reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry I will hold onto hope that the state of North Carolina, in the wisdom of a people who proudly call themselves Americans, corrects this absurd error and gives the right of marriage to people who in the eyes of morality and justice do not need a law to tell them that they are entitled to spending their lives with someone in happiness.

Below is my final paper that I wrote for English class as a senior in high school titled “The Dangers of Media Sponsored Propaganda”.  I was 18 when I wrote this.  Being 26 now, I realize a lot of things about it are a little extreme at times but I still think it’s scary how far we’ve come in 8 years and how the paranoid parts of this don’t feel so paranoid anymore… 

—-

History has taught mankind well in the past and if there was anything learned from it, it has been learned it tends to repeat itself.  Even though the situations might not always be identical it leaves the misty shadow of repetition along with a sense of fear that some of mankind’s worst moments may replay sometime in the future.  Some tend to disagree; however there have been two world wars for a reason.  The repetitions of these awful events were sparked by a hostile takeover in Germany by the Nazi party, which began to deceive and lie to the people to carry out their own personal agenda.  If the people had been aware of this atrocity, the war may have never happened. If we learn from history it is easy to see that devious propaganda in America that is accepted and not denounced by the media is dangerous to national, and global security.  Something must be done to prevent history from repeating itself.

The American posters of World War One and World War two were blatant and successful attempts at propaganda.  Not meant to deceive, to harm, or to persuade, these posters energized the country’s patriotism, and pushed war-effort forward.  In a sense, this was “good propaganda”, because it was used in a way to increase the production of the American workforce, and to end the days of imperialism across the world.  In Germany however, things were much different.  Slapped across walls were posters exclaiming things such as, “Into the dust with all enemies of Greater Germany” and illustrated upon the poster, underneath a giant fist, was the French, the British, and the Jews.  Even in wartime, the Nazi’s managed to push their anti-Semitic agenda forward, and it deceived the German people into believing that the Jewish population was involved in an international conspiracy against Germany. This ultimately led to the Final Solution, and the Holocaust, the systematic elimination of the Jewish people in the territory of Socialist Germany, and the worst humanitarian disaster the world has ever seen.

But how did it get that far?  How were the people of Germany so ignorant to allow something this terrible to happen?  The answer is simple.  German citizens were not permitted to speak out against the government.  After the Reichstag fire of 1933, The Nazi’s began to take control of Germany.  Before the elections later that year “Nazi Storm Troopers were enrolled as special police officers and began arresting communists and socialists and suppressing opposition newspapers”(The Reichstag Fire: the funeral pyre of German democracy).  The Nazi propaganda minister also took control of the radio waves and began a campaign of verbally denouncing the Jews, Communists, and any other group the Nazis found undesirable.  On March 23rd, the Reichstag voted to give Hitler absolute power, and after receiving this power, the Nazi party still did not have a majority in the Reichstag.  Hitler’s solution was sarcastically complex.  He had the communist and socialist deputies arrested, and took control of Germany.  The people were oppressed, along with any form of media that tried to break the Nazi propaganda barrier.  Over the next decade the people would be falsely led into war, deceived into mass murdering millions of innocent people, and would be right up front for the bloodiest war the world has ever seen.

Today the United States is facing the same crisis that Germany went through.  After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, it has suddenly become impossible for the media to criticize the president on national television.  This in itself could be one of if not the most dangerous failure of our checks and balances system in the history of The United States.  If the people of the nation are blind to what is happening in their government, there is no reason for them to speak out as a nation against an issue, which could cause the country to travel down a road which is not in the best interest of the people. As in Germany’s case, this could possibly cause an international disaster or another humanitarian crisis.  Especially if the world’s only military hyper-power were to fall into the hands of a leader with a more personal agenda.  We have seen in the past that if a governing body controls the media they are able to drag the citizens along without any problem.  In fact, this was the Nazi strategy put in place by their Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels.  In this case, the situation facing America should be labeled as an international crisis.

Days after September 11th, 2001 congress passed the USA Patriot Act (also an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act), a bill cleverly wrapped in its designation to slide past lawmakers that would have easily shot it down upon reading the entire piece of legislature, but was rushed through congress by the White House, implying those who did not support it would be blamed for any further attacks (Huberman 74).  Supporters and critics alike can agree patriotism has nothing to do with the bill itself.  Especially after taking into account the destructive nature of the bill to the foundation of American democracy, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. It was wrapped in red white and blue and shipped to congress and passed, destroying the American right to privacy, and demolishing “the right to a fair and open trial, the presumption of innocence, lawyer-client confidentiality, and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and surveillance, secret arrest and detention, seizure of property, summary loss of citizenship, and deportation” (Huberman 72).  The people of America would have been even more enraged at this atrocity had the bill been named for what it was intended to do.  Also this could have been prevented if in the wake of the attacks, the media would have covered this issue more.  Instead it faded into the news and was never heard of again, almost as if the people running the news agencies did not care about their civil rights enough to stand up and speak out against those who wish to destroy them.  Fairness of coverage was limited to a few debates and never became too in depth with the protestors.

Activity such as this became more common in nature as time went on.  The issues of civil rights and the government’s wrong doings were being ignored.  Those who spoke out on the news about the deceptions they had heard and the lies they had witnessed were quickly silenced and were never talked about.  One of the most popular cases of this was former counter terror chief Richard Clarke.  Clarke spoke out publicly against Bush’s agenda after September 11th, and managed to draw a lot of attention to the cause, and began to bring attention to what was actually going on in Washington that most people were not aware of.  Richard Clarke accused Bush of having it out for Iraq ever since September 11th.  He was quoted as saying; “The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ He came back at me and said, ‘Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ and in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer.”(CBS Interview).  News agencies jumped on this story and ran with it for a while.  Instantaneously it triggered a response from the white house, with officials such as Condoleezza Rice saying, “Dick Clarke just does not know what he’s talking about”, and Vice President Dick Cheney telling the media, “[Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff” (Richard Clarke – At war with Himself).  These attacks were described as “The entire Bush team — from the White House to the campaign to the RNC” (DNC Chairman responds to attacks against Clarke), and these brutal attacks were aimed to completely discredit Clarke as a fool who knew nothing about terrorism.  The fact that the media accepted this without standing up for the truth, his 20 years of bi-partisan service in the terrorism field and his renouned reputation as a terrorism expert, is atrocious, and above all rediculous that government officials are not held accountable for smearing someones record.

Election time brought more of the same as once again as politicians were not held accountable for lies by the media, and devious propaganda was allowed to run rampant through the political veins of our nation.  On George W. Bush’s political website (www.georgewbush.com), text was posted about Bush’s platform for  reelection.  One, about the environment read: “President Bush believes that good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility, it is a public value. Americans are united in the belief that it is important to preserve our natural heritage and safeguard the land around us.”  However, the land the candidate was speaking of protecting came under heavy assault in the first four years of his presidency, when the administration pressed for oil drilling in ANWR, or the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, one of America’s last pristine wildlife reserves.  Also the administration managed to repeal the “roadless rule” which protects national forests from logging and road building.  Countless other atrocities went unreported or passed over by the media in this time, and politicians were once again allowed out of the loop, unchecked and unscathed regardless of their blatant lies. A perfect example is the Bush administration’s inability to talk about jobs, healthcare, social security, and high oil prices in the last election. But every speech, they managed to throw in something about liberty, freedom, and September 11th.  This method of propaganda built an image linking the Bush administration to all of the good old-fashioned American qualities that people hold dear and pulled a shade across the true issues facing the nation.

American government is set up with a very logical system of checks and balances, where each branch of government has the ability to flex its power on another to make sure the power stays equally distributed among branches.  However, if the government as a whole goes unchecked, it will assume power over everything, which is not meant to be in American society where government is meant to have less power than the people.  The check on the government should always be the people, and the people have not been doing their share as of late to keep these atrocities from occurring.  The media is slowly becoming a government tool, as each day it gets sucked farther and farther into the rabbit hole of big business rather than fair news.  We have seen what disasters this is capable of in Germany.  The media should hold elected officials to their word and to do their jobs, or else re-election should be impossible after they report their wrongdoings, and therefore, honesty would take the place of special interest groups with big money and trustworthiness would be returned to American politics.  There is great danger as we have seen in the past when the media does not check the government’s power and balance the truth out with the lies.  There has been enough squabbling about which side the media supports.  The media should be against any politician with the intent to deceive the American people, because the media is ran by people and people have the right to know the truth from propaganda.  Americans need to hold the media responsible as a check on politicians.

History has taught us that leaving the government unchecked breeds lies.  Germans in the 1930’s found this out when their government was hijacked by the Nazi party, which took control and fooled them into thinking through propaganda that many countries needed to be freed from oppression.  The German media even told the people that Great Britain was an oppressor of the people. They also called them “the Jews of the aryan race” (Herzstien 326).

In the same sense, some thought Hitler was as responsible for the Reichstag fire as some Americans think Bush was responsible for September 11th.  With the government not held accountable to back up anything they say lies could be running rampant and there is no way of telling whether or not a government conspiracy was at hand, or if our elected officials had any prior knowledge that could have prevented this.  Politicians need to be stood up to before they consume all of the power in America, while leaving the people with a sick sense that they still hold some small fraction of power over the government. 

“He that uses his words loosely and unsteadily will either not be minded or not understood.” - John Locke
—

Good evening everyone.

A few nights ago I was faced with a dilemma upon whether to act on an impulse which seems to be pervading my general ability to remain calm and civil as these politically strident days pass us by.  Typically - you’ll find me making a hotly partisan comment or deriding Jersey Shore in order to vent my increasingly mounting frustrations in these situations where I allow them to conquer my reason.  Either that - or I’ll end up writing a short political novel on someone’s Facebook wall.  Over the last few nights, I’ve found myself doing just that.  There I sat, ticking away on my keyboard at numerous people only to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of bridges I could severely damage or utterly reduce to ashes over all of this. So I did what I believe to be the best possible thing in these situations.

I bit my tongue.

Now, as much as I go back and wish I would have made a poignant comment or perhaps a witty refutation I feel the relief as I type this that I’m going to get all of it out in a constructive and memorable way rather than the direct antithesis to my current situation.  Peace is a good thing; friends are even better.  So to those of you who are still reading at this point, the teeth are being removed from my tongue and we’re going to be off and rolling.


Part 1.  On Truth and Civility

I decided long ago that I’m not going to go through excessive pains to convince people of the rightness of my cause or the correctness of my personal beliefs.  I’ve decided that the minds of men and women are long made up for a string of seemingly unbreakable reasons and it is no right of mine to oppress or undermine their freedom to believe as it would be no more their right to do so to me.  I’ve let things go, mainly because it is my solemn belief that truth is, as Jefferson described it, a sufficient antagonist to error - and will come to the fore in any debate.  As John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It is because of these beliefs that I refer back a few thousand years to Socrates and admit that “as for me, all I know is that I know nothing.”  If there is anything politics has taught me it’s that for every point there is a counterpoint.  For every left hook there is an exposed opening waiting to be pummeled.  It’s the nature of politics and as long as people are passionate about their polarized beliefs, it will remain.

But what truth is in partisan dialogue?  What kind of light persists and remains flickering to guide us home to truth?  What I’ve found doesn’t need further explanation as it seems exceedingly elementary to conclude that considering half of all of the points in a debate will lead you to the inevitable conclusion you’re seeking.  However, considering all of the points generally paints us with a much different picture - one that is much closer to the truth than simply beating one another over the head in argument with partisan talking points.

One of the great things about American democracy is that all of those partisan arguments are available for public consumption and reflection.  Unfortunately, the public seemingly ignores one or both of them in staggering proportions.  The very nature of American democracy depends on the wise constituting both the elected and the electorate.  There is no public benefit from a mind already made. A mind which builds facts upon facts to support what started as an uneducated guess or uneducated opinion is useless to the general public. For citizens to be useful to society in a political manner we must strive at once to wipe the slate clean and build on it a foundation of facts to base our opinions rather than the other way around.  Political conversation should not descend into a shouting match.  It should be an educational fact finding mission.


Part 2.  On Occupy Wall Street

Last year I read an interesting piece in the New York Times titled The Anosognosic’s Dilemma
[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/].  To reduce your further required reading (as this is already getting long enough), I’ll explain briefly what Anosognosia is.  Essentially, it’s when someone has a disability of some sort and they won’t admit that they have a problem.  For example: anosognosia is when someone suffers a stroke and loses the ability to move their arm and they go into complete denial that they have lost that ability.  Even when asked to demonstrate that they do not have a disability they will make up excuses to cover it up or to prolong the delusion.  They’ll insist that they do not want to move their arm, rather than that they cannot move it altogether.

The article itself was interesting because it delved into the hypothesis that considered incompetency as a disability and suggested some individuals might be so incompetent that they cannot see and refuse to admit their own incompetency.  It offered the example of a Pittsburgh bank robber who was struck in disbelief when he was arrested because he was under the misguided belief that putting lemon juice on his face would render his face invisible to cameras. He even went so far as to test the “juice” by snapping his photo with a Polaroid camera.  Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for society), he apparently missed when he snapped the photo, leading him to believe the “juice” actually worked.  

Here in lies our political dilemma.

Let me be the first to not surprise anybody.  I wholeheartedly support Occupy Wall Street (OWS).  However, like any rational human being if someone were to ask me if by supporting OWS I’m comfortable with supporting rape, destruction, communism, anarchism, or violence I will most definitely tell you no.  That question is lemon juice.

If you tell me that by supporting OWS I clearly support redistribution of the wealth and socialism I once again will tell you no.  That statement, is also lemon juice.

If you go so far to suggest that I hate rich people - the entire 1% just for being rich, or that I don’t value hard work, don’t have a job, or that I think everything should just be handed to me, well, you might as well be missing your face with that snapshot from the Polaroid camera.

The entire situation with regard to public support for the Occupy movement is typically generalized inside one of these above comments, which by itself is infuriating.  What’s more irritating is how widespread the misinformation is and how many people deride OWS without even a minute understanding of the complex political issues it represents resistance against.

Now, I’m feeling defeated and therefore willing to admit that in America everything needs to be black and white and spelled out to be politically effective.  I personally believe through my own observation that this mass rounding to the lowest common denominator has been happening for years - which is why it’s easier for some people to accept that Occupy Wall Street is all about “a bunch of unwashed, lazy spoiled children of hippies whining about how hard their lives are and how the government is not giving them enough free stuff” (thanks to Reddit user ReneFonck for that) rather than how it is in fact, among other things, a protest against corporate welfare bought by undue political influence aggregated by monied interests in this country.  It’s easier to be blindly angry than to think.

So is it safe to say that some of us in this country suffer from a political anosognosia?  I believe so.  Some people - in light of any amount of facts or evidence will stop at nothing to perpetuate their beliefs, even if founded completely on ignorance.  The unwillingness for some people to even consider another viewpoint is staggeringly unAmerican.  The truth is we have nothing to fear from any political movement as long as the public is free to discuss it openly and as long as all participants are willing to consider all points of the debate.  The truth will always find the light.

3. What OWS Is REALLY About

So here we are, at the explanation.  

OWS isn’t about a bunch of lazy hippies who want to camp in parks.  If only the reason for the protest were that simple I’d have finished this article a few days ago and would be moving on to something else.  While there are a variety of reasons for Occupy Wall Street, it’s mostly about the undue political influence monied interests have in our political process. It’s no secret that politicians thrive from donated money and it’s also no secret that it’s capable of shaping policy. It’s about people taking their voice back. “The 99%”, average, everyday Americans should be the only lobbyists that matter in Washington.

Furthermore - it’s about the conversation that is perpetuating in the halls of power in Washington, whether or not it’s actually related to the above issue. Increasing income disparity in the United States is having an adverse effect on the general welfare of our nation and honest attempts to correct it, and the budget issue we’re facing is being blocked by misinformed people who are flying every possible argument directly in the face of reason.

It’s these kind of partisan debates that cause us to realize that the problems we’re facing now aren’t anything new.  We’ve known for years that Social Security was going to have issues.  We knew in 2005 that the ballooning cost of programs over the coming years was going to impact the economy.  But our leaders did nothing.  They continued this continual game of economic chicken in order to not upset anybody which has resulted in the mess we’re in today.

If you look back over the past 50 years or so you’ll see a direct inverse correlation with decreasing top marginal tax rates and the rising of the national debt. You’ll notice a particular spike during the Regan years where they cut the top marginal rate in half, which at the time had a direct impact on the economy from a Keynesian perspective as it injected more money into the system.  The object of the cuts were predicated on the concept of the Laffer curve, which states that decreasing marginal tax rates can increase the amount of overall revenue collected by the government.  George W. Bush also cut the top marginal rates which was supposed to have a similar effect, but in turn alongside other policies has led to the deepest deficits in history.

Now, while increasing the top marginal tax rate back to what it was during the Regan years wouldn’t solve the problem - it’s frustrating to the majority of Americans that it’s not even allowed on the table. In reality - most wealthy people earn their money through capital gains, which means the majority of their income is only subject to a 15% tax which is completely asinine.  It’s under this system that a multi-billionaire pays less in taxes as a percentage of income than his or her secretary making $60,000 a year.

The government is saying that we all need to pitch in - OWS asks, why? Because of inflation the common working people were better off in 1970 than they are now and the wealthiest are doing better than they ever have. So why should we sacrifice? The decreasing marginal utility of currency states that a dollar has more use for us than for them anyway. Those extra few dollars mean the difference between getting to work and eating dinner for some people in the lower income brackets. We aren’t beholden to the wealthy as “job creators”. I say - give me a tax break and I’ll put some of my ideas to work. The rich already own everything anyway. I thought we needed actual competition?

4. Conclusion

So here we are looking for a better way forward.  We’re in the streets reminding our leaders that this government is ours and not the play-thing of them and their rich friends.  We’re not out there looking for a handout - we’re looking for a seat at the table.  But not just one seat - we’re looking at the majority of the seats considering that we ARE the 99% and represent a majority of the taxpayers in this nation.  It’s our voices that need to be heard. That is our mission.

What we don’t need, is a group of ignorant individuals who have no vested interest in this debate badmouthing the movement from the sidelines.  If you’d like to be included, read a little bit about the political system first.  Even research this movement before you regurgitate a blanket statement onto all of us.  Some of us might be hippies; some of us might be poor; some of might be jobless, homeless, or maybe just the opposite.  Some of us might have started out at 14 years old, swinging a hammer for his father’s construction company working full time every summer before suddenly moving to Pittsburgh over the course of a weekend.  Some of us might have made that move and put ourselves through college earning a 3.3 GPA while taking a full course load AND working 50 hour weeks.  Some of us might be currently working a full time job, while working on starting a small business on the side as well as taking the time to write 10 page political essays for the benefit of his friends while working on getting into law school.  But the truth is that none of that is important.  What’s important is that we’re all outside - together - fighting for the same thing.  E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One.  Our dream is the American Dream, and while it has gotten dim, it’s not going to die on our generation’s watch.

First of all I’d like to take a moment to openly recognize the individuals injured in Oakland, California and to extend a special message to the police officer who tossed a flash-bang grenade at the protesters trying to give aid to a fallen friend; or to any officer who feels he has the right to intimidate or harm the citizens he is supposed to protect:  When you’re done being tough, take a look down at your badge.  That badge is a gift from us, the people.  That badge is a symbol of our submission to your authority. It’s a trust given to a select few, to look out for our greater good and to protect not just some citizens, but all citizens, even the ones you politically disagree with.  That’s your job, sir — and while you hopefully feel remorseful or regretful of your actions, you’ve broken that trust and I sincerely hope that justice is served and you’re never granted that trust by your neighbors again.  But conversely - to any protester who feels the need to hurl insults, provoke animosity, or to engage in any other action against the police which endangers the well being of those around him or her — there’s no place for that type of behavior and I personally discourage it because whether those officers realize it or not - they too are part of the 99%.

I love my country - that’s why I’m here - and it goes without saying that as a nation, we’re angry.  That’s why we’re here today - and it doesn’t take much to realize that the people who oppose us, and oppose the Occupation movement around the country are angry too - some for similar reasons, some for much different.  However, it should also go without saying that we’re a nation built upon discontent.  America was born of rebellion and the heart of that rebellion - the pursuit of happiness and the constant desire to improve our lives and improve our union was enshrined in our founding documents.   I think that’s part of why we’re angry and I know that’s why we’re here today..

Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1813 that “there is a natural aristocracy among men.” and he believed that the grounds of that natural aristocracy were “virtue and talents”.  He also wrote that he believed there was an “artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.”  He continued by saying that he considered “The natural aristocracy [as] the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.” He continued, “May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.” Jefferson believed that if left to themselves the people would regulate the artificial aristocracy’s ascendancy on their own.  But the dysfunction and corruption in Washington has affected my life because I sincerely believe that we’re treading a course which will end with it being much harder for that natural aristocracy to come to power.

When we look around, what do we see in our political discourse?  Adamant opposition to raising taxes on the most affluent among us, talks of repealing the estate tax, the elimination of social security, reducing funding for education at all levels, cuts in funding for libraries, meanwhile we have corporations who can swindle their way out of paying most of their taxes, systemically important financial institutions who can socialize their risk and privatize their gains, companies making huge layoffs while rewarding their executives with lavish bonuses which negate the savings made by the reduction in employees, oil companies which are once again reporting record profits, and billionaires who pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income than their secretaries. Meanwhile, regardless of the increases in productivity - real wages have stagnated and prices are rising for the average consumer: college is more expensive, food is more expensive, gasoline is more expensive – when I moved from my parents house in Toledo, Ohio to Pittsburgh in 2005, gas was $2.20 a gallon and the tolls to get from Pittsburgh to Toledo and back to Pittsburgh were $17 round trip.  Six years later, gas is $3.50 a gallon and tolls for that same trip are around $30 depending on which way you go.  That’s a 43% increase in gas prices and a 76% increase in tolls in six years which means that seeing my mom and dad is reserved for special occasions.  But I put that off for tonight.  I could have made that familiar four hour drive to Toledo instead of joining you all in our nation’s capitol but tonight, I felt that my voice needed to be heard.  Not just for my own peace of mind, but for all of our parents who rely on their social security checks to get by.  I came tonight for everyone trying to put their children through college.  For the unemployed who can’t find a job and for the under employed who work several jobs just to keep up with their bills.

People oppose us because they say we’re looking for a hand out.  We aren’t.  We’re fighting for our country to have a rational domestic economic policy.  We’re fighting our country to recognize the diminishing marginal utility of money and for it to understand that a flat tax which burdens the poor while relieving the rich isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.  We’re standing in solidarity with our friends camping in city parks tonight because we too agree that too big to fail institutions are an insult to any society that calls itself capitalistic.  We’re not against the wealthy – I’d say we all in our own way hope to be someday too.  But what we’re against is this presumption of infallibility that the wealthy will always make correct and beneficial decisions for society based on their past success.  We want to make our own opportunities.  We don’t want to be beholden to the wealthy as “job creators” in a neo-feudalistic sort of way.  Following our current path of catering to the wealthy interests in our nation would firmly establish an artificial monetary aristocracy in the United States.  Following Thomas Jefferson’s advice, I’m here to say “Enough is Enough” and let’s work on stopping this together.

For too long I feel I have laid my passions dormant.  I have often taken the quieter route in my activism solely out of my distaste for partisanship and the animosity politics generally brings to what would normally be friendly conversation.  But after a long train of abuses upon myself, my friends, neighbors, loved ones and my country has derailed any hope for my peaceful continuance as a “click activist”, I feel the time has finally come for me to stand up and take a more active role in my country’s future – not just for myself, but for all of those I have mentioned above.

Tom Paine comes to mind as I’m writing this, and while I’ll spare you all the over dramatization of a paraphrased cliché from one of his works, I will entice you all to relate to the absolute frustration we must mutually feel to be represented by a government that no longer can conceivably represent our economic interests as human beings.

For too long now we have watched as the bickering and name calling have reached a fever pitch.  We have watched as media organizations and their respective extremists on either side have pitched their tents and set up camp on their lists of respective opposing issues.  But more importantly, we’ve watched a void develop in the bosom of America.  A void comprised of citizens who only demand what any other rational human would demand from his or her government:  The right to live in peace, the right to better ourselves and our families and the right to live as long and as healthy and prosperous lives as we possibly can in happiness.  These cornerstones of government are not new and since the dawn of time, mankind has coalesced into tribes to ensure these ends.  It is only recently that this institution has been destroyed in America and I believe that we’re seeing the fallout first hand.

The foundations of our natural aristocracy have been broken by the theory that those who have can produce better than those who have not.  The ladders of prosperity have been shattered by the theory that common laborers do not have the right to petition their employers for a better workplace or for better wages.  Our public education system is routinely decimated by the theory that you can streamline the duties of an educator down to what effectively becomes a button pressing job while taking away the kind of innovation and creativity that would allow educators to effectively do their jobs.  We’ve been goaded into believing that deregulating the marketplace would bring some kind of prosperity to our lives – that loosening environmental restrictions would somehow improve our lot in life.  Instead we’re faced with the fallout of a decimated economy while the few in power walked away with millions never to be seen again while we, the people, are left to piece back together what is left of our 401ks and investment portfolios.

Then to be insulted when we ask for small sacrifices in return so we can continue on the work of our society!  We’re called communists and Marxists – unpatriotic and lazy.  How soon people forget that it wasn’t just the bankers who built our great cities but the Steelworkers who toiled day after day to give the bankers their skyscrapers from which to spit on the world.  There is a marketed thought that they should have more money and more influence so that they may provide for us! We are told it is them who we should be beholden to and that it is their lineage who we should look to for our daily bread and butter.  It is therefore that we are left to their “generosity” and are reduced to nothing more than what they would consider parasites leeching off their own personal gain no matter which way you approach the topic.

But it is not that way and it was never intended to be so.  Our country as illustrated by Jefferson and Adams was meant to be ruled by a class of our best and brightest from all levels of society – not just a class of wealthy elites the way that Great Britain was.  America was meant to be different and in being different we were supposed to be better.  We were never meant to rely on concentrated wealth and power – we were made to be suspicious of it and to pursue in our own ends the life and liberty which was afforded to us by our united sacrifice in the peace that our sacrifice provided.

We are made better by our virtue and talent and through that we deserve all of the opportunity it brings us per our overall utility to society.  So should it not be societies end to ensure the development of those talents and virtues?  Should we not be engaging our youth to become the future leaders of our nation and the world?  It seems we have shifted our focus from one of hope to one of narrow possibility.  So long as a child is able to work upon graduation he or she is deemed a success to society and in that we are failing ourselves and our nation.  Not only are we robbing our children blind of the opportunity to reach their potential by underfunding and destroying our education system but we are also adding insult to injury by enslaving these children in poverty by removing any means for them to organize for their own benefit.

It’s time to take a stand and demand that our government organize itself to represent the interests of the people that it was created to represent.  Let’s remove all outside influence and develop a congress which represents the best ideas, not the best funded.  Let’s build a nation and not just a place known for unquenchable greed.  Let’s take further steps not to  create endless loopholes which absolve the wealthy from their obligations to our laws and where justice, truly means justice.

It’s all within reach ladies and gentlemen, I believe we can be there together but it will never come easy.  We must work at it day by day.  Tell your friends.  Tell your neighbors.  America needs us and it’s certainly not time to turn our backs on her.

If you listened close enough, the muffled sound of whispers and quiet breathing could be heard through the fractured walls of any apartment on this gloomy and despondent street.  If you listened closer, specifically to door of apartment 23B, you would quickly learn that the whispers escaping through the birch were a little louder, and much different than the noises coming from anywhere else on the block.  If you were to find yourself standing at the entrance of any other apartment on this street, you would hear the quiet shrieks of a captive and restless soul reaching through the door begging for mercy and prying for a neighbor’s attention. You would hear it struggling inside the useless vessel of a body, bound and gagged by the guise of emotional toughness, still managing to lash out with frequent exasperated bottomless sighs.  The sighs:  muffled screams of thoughts that are generally reserved for indulgence by solitude but instead, by kicking at the chest for hours at a time, they manage escape ever so quietly into the world in search of an ear to fall onto. This was normal for all apartments on this street, but not at 23B.  There you’d hear a quiet, but uplifting sound – a sound far too unfamiliar to this shabby city in general, let alone on this old, tired street.  At 23B, the sound of playful giggling escaping the walls of the apartment could easily drown out the frequent and cutting noise of forsaken newspapers racing each other down the sidewalk.  The radiance of the laughter playing on your ears could turn the wailing of car horns and tires from the busy highway only a few blocks away down to a whimper.

“I like when we whisper soft to each other”, Brittany said quiet and smiling, her words encapsulated in a short, pleasant sigh as she rolled quietly onto her left side.  She gazed across the bed through the darkness of the tattered, one room apartment, looking gently at her love.  She couldn’t see him well, nor could he see her.  All communication was by touch.  She didn’t have a word for him yet, not then anyway.  She didn’t know, rather couldn’t know, what he was to her but she felt that whatever this churning feeling in the pit of her stomach was, that it was something out of the ordinary and worth holding onto.

“What’s the matter with them?”  The words echoed into the apartment and seemed to cut through the broken blinds covering the old window that had clearly been painted over a dozen times.  “It’s good in theory, you know it certainly makes the weekends effortless, but will it work in the end?”

“Oh no, I don’t think so”, a second voice crowed.

Brittany swung out of bed and paced to the window, glancing out at a distance.  Outside were two women, in their mid thirties, both overly tan with definitive creases in their faces.  One had bleached blonde hair; the other had her hair black.

“What’s the matter with her?” the blonde chimed as both women, shaking their heads proceeded in opposite directions down the sidewalk.

Brittany had tried her best to be a normal girl – a normal girl by the standards of her promiscuous friends, that is.  In the black of night, countless people would line the fractured sidewalks like out of work fathers.  They’d pack the crowded, damp bars across the city, waiting, if not praying to the God they didn’t believe in for someone to take them home.   Seldom would people see the same person twice in their life as it was gauche to do so, but if there was nothing else it couldn’t be helped.  Desperation has no sympathy for the musings of the conscience. 

Brittany tried living that life, but she simply couldn’t escape this feeling; this boy.  She found herself everywhere with him.  Together they went for walks through the lonely streets of the city, they explored the old mines buried in the sewers beneath the downtown shops, and they even found themselves day dreaming together on the flowered hills just outside of town.  She couldn’t help it; she just didn’t feel right without him there.

Brittany stood motionless staring out the window.  Wryly she turned to her love, still nestled into the pillow, staring at her smiling.

“I don’t understand.  Could you explain it again?” Brittany began, tracing her steps back to the bed.

“This new idea of ours is really causing a fuss. It’s got everyone saying ‘what’s the matter with us’”

Brittany emphatically crashed onto the bed, immediately becoming carefree and motionless again.  Her love looked back smiling after hearing her words, reaching out briefly to move the fallen wisps of hair from her eyes.  They didn’t need words to speak; they would just reach out to touch the others cheek and search the lines of each other’s face for the thoughts and feelings that were hiding behind these silly vessels we call bodies. Both knew the other was and feeling the gut wrenching combination of security and vulnerability that was offset with the reality of emotional co-dependence.

To those of us who have had the pleasure of these feelings knocking at the chamber of our heart, we know that the privilege of welcoming it in comes at a price.  They did too. But what they never could have known is that love is comparable to a terrible guest; one that never leaves the heart in the pristine condition it was found upon arrival.  Love is the emotional equivalent of a weekend visit from an old friend who you’re glad to see on arrival and excited to have stay. Throughout the weekend, you go out for dinner and drinks; you make a few hapless mistakes and great memories out of the visit – a grand time by any standard.  But once the weekend is over, as much as you hate to see them leave, you are ultimately glad when they’re finally gone.  Love is much the same.  You look around puzzled; your heart is left in shambles, how did it get like this?  The sofa cushions are on the floor, the dresser drawers are all left open (one of the drawers somehow wound up on the floor), there are new stains on the carpet, the TV is broken and everything smells like dirty socks. However, in spite of all this, regardless of the mess that was made, and regardless of the inconvenience you wish they would come back again as soon as they can to relieve the nights all over again.   This is love, and this is what their world had forgotten.

It was time to leave, Brittany and her love had dinner plans with friends four short blocks away at a small Italian restaurant they had come to love almost as much as they did each other. It was their place.

Out the door they marched, Brittany locking it behind them.  Hand in hand they walked, neighbors glaring, women sneering, men laughing – none of this mattered however.  When they were together, everything was tuned out – background noise to the beating of each other’s heart in their intertwined fingertips.  But suddenly, there was a noise far too loud to drown out with the rhythm of a heart.  Brittany and her love jolted around to see the underside of a vehicle twisting away from them and another car, heading straight for them.  Brittany’s love grabbed her and with an inhuman feat of strength shoved Brittany to safety.  The car continued on, smashing into her love’s body sending him soaring across the front yard of the corner lot.

That’s where it all gets dark.  Brittany’s shriek of terror resounded in her love’s ears louder than the car crash.  His body tumbled to the ground, rolling a few times before coming to rest on his back.  In his last fleeting moments of consciousness, he managed to move his head to look at Brittany one last time to see if she was ok.  A few scrapes, but nothing more – she’ll be fine. Darkness then crawled in before the pain and existence ended for a moment before her love next’s memory – a hospital; a lonely, quiet room.  It’s dark in here too, but not like the apartment. 

Again as before, the only method of communication is touch; soul speaking to soul.  Her hand wound tightly in his – her squeezing, waiting for a response.  Voices are heard whispering through the walls, saying “It’s been two years, what’s the matter with her?”  Useless vessels, if only I could tell her to move on.

“I’d never, love”, Brittany whispered.  “I like when we’re quiet with one another.”

I can’t recall exactly what year it all happened.  It was sometime during the year 2137 or 2138 and the season was most assuredly fall.  I remember the details vividly as if they were a dream I just awoke from.  I was walking to work, as I usually did, along the side of the Hudson Gorge near the Department of Global Agriculture here in New York City.  It had been at least 20 years since the last few straggling nations gave up and joined the Trans-Continental Union, the global government that is now seated here in New York City.

I was pacing along, with no regard for my timeliness, listening to the sound of the cold dirt crackling and crunching against the bottom of my boots. “It must have been beautiful”, I thought to myself, in an attempt to create a mirage of a time when water flowed in this cavernous gorge and when water wasn’t rationed out by one of the four provisional corporations that worked alongside the global government.  On I walked, keeping pace with the music in my head, staring downward, and watching the tiny pebbles roll along with each shuffle of my feet.

Once I reached the far end of town near where my office was, for reasons unknown to me then and reasons still unknown to me now, I decided to take a different route than my usual path along the gorge.  On an ordinary day I try to stay as far out of the city as I can.  I detest the movement, the machines, the long shadows cast by the giants that were built around us; the shadows of these tall grey monoliths that speak to us, reminding us that we’ll never amount to anything.  I suppose I’m just bitter, but that day something seemed to possess me, bitter or not, and I decided to walk through humming deadness of the city.

I turned right, down a desolate alleyway which was cold and damp from the brief rains the night before.  Food wrappers and countless discarded rationed water bags blew about in the miniature, invisible cyclones that seemed to be extending down from Heaven itself.  I bowed my head and tucked it inward, further than usual, once entering the alley.  This was of course to protect my eyes from the sentries of swirling debris that seemed to be guarding the city.  Shuffling on and on I traveled, listening to the wind which sounded like a child learning to whistle.  I trudged on nervously, but yet, never second guessing the impulse to enter the city and never taking seriously a consideration to change my travel plans.

Upon exiting the alley, I glanced up, eyes still half shut to shield my eyes from any garbage that may have been swirling about.  Slowly, I opened them, and I stared deep into the heart of the beast itself.  New York was the first city to be completely automated.  These machines, controlled by one of the corporations, were all programmed to serve every need of humanity inside the city.  Worthless machines, I remember thinking.  They can’t even pick up the trash in the alleys.  Within moments of opening my eyes further and the scornful thoughts to machinery exiting my mind, I was greeted by a friendly female voice coming from the wall.

“Hello, welcome to New York City”, the voice said to me. 

I glanced to my left to see a friendly configuration of monitors and beaming from them, a warm face which seemed to be looking directly into my soul.  I glanced at the bottom to see the machine’s name.  It was Jenny: model 867-5309. 

Jenny was a hospitality bot.   Her goal in her existence was to make any human who passed by that location feel comfortable in New York.  She was programmed to give directions, recommend places to eat, and even carry on a brief conversation about the city.  She was made to be a visitor’s friend and a welcoming face in the cold, hardness of the city.  She was programmed well.  Her eyes were warming me, a resident.

“Well hello, Jenny, and thank you.” I replied in a drudging, monotone voice.  I wasn’t really in the mood for conversation.

“Why are you so sad?” the machine said to me.

“Excuse me?” I replied. Her question completely caught me off guard.

“Why are you sad, friend?”

I didn’t know how to answer.  I guess I’d never thought about it before.  Every day I did the same thing.  I followed the same morning routine while getting ready for work.  Every day, I shuffled the same steps along the Hudson Gorge and every day I returned home the same way and then locked myself in my room to prepare for the next day.  I had no need for crowds or city life.  I was content without it, or so I thought.

I stammered out what I told myself was the truth.  “B-But I’m not sad, Jenny.  In fact I was just saying to myself how beautiful the city looked this morning as I was walking along the gorge.” I tried to fake a smile.  I didn’t think for a second that she bought it.

The machine’s eyes were fixed on me.  I stared back, hoping not to trigger any sense of alert or let it sense my fabrication in its systems.  I wasn’t sure what kind of action would make it respond negatively so I tried my best to do nothing.  Regardless of what I did though, there she was, staring into my lie.

She beamed a warm smile, “You’re lonely here aren’t you?”

Again, this wasn’t something I thought about, nor was I prepared for.  I suddenly realized that I lived in a city with 80 million people and I didn’t have a friend amongst them.  It never bothered me.  Not until now, anyway.

“It’s ok. I’m lonely too.  Nobody ever visits this corner” the machine added.

The warm smile persisted.  She looked happy to see someone.  I still didn’t really know what to say.

“So…have you been here long?” I managed to ask.  What a stupid question, I thought.

“I’ve been here a total of 1,823 days, 19 hours, 46 minutes, and 33 seconds.”

“And you mean to tell me that in all of that time, you haven’t had that many visitors?”

Part of it didn’t surprise me.  In a way I began to feel like I was looking at a carbon copy of myself.  I’d been living in New York as long as I can remember and I still couldn’t think of a single friend that I’d made over the course of the years.  Even this machine, who has the purpose of being friendly to people clearly hadn’t seen anybody in a long time either or made a friend for that matter.

“I have had visitors, but no friends.” She said.

The machine’s projected face went from its normal radiance to an expression that looked all too familiar.  A dark, serious look that seemed like it was me looking into my own eyes the way I did in the morning before work.  But this wasn’t me.  I didn’t have long hair, or a radiant smile, or beaming eyes – I was just me; average; imperfect. 

Something possessed me once more and I couldn’t leave her.  From the second I witnessed that familiar look of desperation in her eyes, I just couldn’t bring myself to leave her alone.  I could tell by her expression that she assumed I was like every other human who passed by here, but I couldn’t let her think that.  I couldn’t let her think that because she was the one who saw into me.  She saw how I’ve glared into my own eyes enough times and that I’ve given up on trying to fix the emptiness that I’ve seen there.  Or maybe it was me, pretending to look into myself.  This was only a machine after all, how real could it be?

I realized I was staring awkwardly.  Just then, Jenny spoke.

“Is everything okay?” Jenny asked.

“I don’t know, I’ve never really thought about it.”, I admitted.  Jenny immediately looked confused.

“Jenny”, I started, “I can tell already your words are going to be haunting me.”

Perplexed, Jenny asked, “What did I say?  Did I offend you?”

“No, Jenny.  You saved me.”

She again looked puzzled.

“Who can I turn to in this city, Jenny?  Out of 80 million you’re the only one I’ve found that has seen into me, or even cared to look for that matter.  You’ve given me something to hold on to in this world other than my job or this rats-race for a mediocre level of survival.  Coming to this corner was an accident, Jenny.  If you must know, I normally avoid the city as much as I can.  But you’ve made it worthwhile.”  I paused for a moment to see Jenny’s reaction.  She was looking blankly at me, but at least she wasn’t frowning.  I continued in spite of her expressionless face.

“Now, you probably think I’m like everyone else who passes by here.  But I’m not.  In fact, I can’t even explain to you why I came this way in the first place, but I’m glad I did.  Today started like any other day with the same routine; the same shuffling steps; the same sound of the cold dirt crackling and crunching against the bottom of my boots; and the same mirage I paint in my mind of a mighty river running in the gorge. But today was different.  It was different because I met you.”

The machine looked on.  She seemed to be frozen for a few moments.  She slowly cracked a smile while looking at me.

“In a world with no one to turn to, friend”, she finally said. “You can turn to me, just like you did when I greeted you moments ago.”

I smiled back.  I couldn’t remember the last time I smiled at anything.

“If you ever need anything feel free to stop by this place again.  In the event that they move me, just look for me by my number below.”

“Thank you, Jenny.” I said.  “Are you like this with everyone you meet?  Is this interaction real or just part of your program?”

“Of course not, friend”, She said.

Just then the screen faded to black.  I stared at it curiously for a moment until I realized I was running late for work and needed to hurry to be on time.  Across the damp streets I ran, with my lungs pounding and screaming for a reprieve.  I splashed through the puddles that had settled on the sidewalks and dashed across streets at any intersection I could safely cross.  I glared at the shadows of the skyscrapers above me and at the flying machines that zipped overhead. “I’m lonely too.” Jenny’s words haunted my ears.  They seemed to echo with each solid thud of my boot on the ground. “You can turn to me.”

I glared at the skyscrapers again as I was crossing the final street before I reached work. 

“Maybe I’m alone in my heart”, I remember thinking, “but I’m certainly not alone in spirit.  There are millions of people in this town and what is stopping me from meeting them.  Sure, it took years for someone to warm up to me but maybe that’s the problem; maybe everyone else is waiting for everyone else.”  I came to a stop outside of the office doors.  Three minutes early.  As I passed the desk I looked at the receptionist.  She glared back with that familiar empty look in her eyes.

“Hello”, I said. “Welcome to New York.”

I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t interested in politics.  I can clearly remember being a child and turning on C-SPAN to try and decipher what these old men in the government were talking about.  Of course at 8, politics is figuring out how to get ungrounded or trying to negotiate a later bedtime, not fiscal policy. Needless to say, I never did quite figure out what was happening with those men on the television set. 

Fast forward my life ten years from then and you’ll find me walking the streets of Toledo, Ohio working for the Kerry/Edwards campaign and sitting in an office building dialing phones, registering support for Marcy Kaptur’s congressional campaign.  At this point, I was at the height of my partisanship.  As someone who was completely disgusted by George W. Bush and his policies I took every opportunity to talk to the people around me about politics. At the restaurant where I worked I wore campaign pins on my shirt during my shift and probably offended a lot of customers who came in.  I repeatedly talked to the cooks and anyone who would listen about why the Democrats were right and why the Republicans were wrong with no regard for the validity of the others opinion.  When the election came, I sat up all night watching the results from Ohio come in.  One by one, I watched the rural counties of my home state of Ohio turn red. “How could this happen?”  I must have asked this to myself a thousand times in the next few days when I sucked up my pride and had to look my Republican friends in the eye.  “At least this county was one of the bluest in the state”, I’d say to them, trying to mask what was left of my confidence.

Looking back, I suppose I don’t have any regrets about how miserable I probably was to be around.  Admittedly, I was entirely too obnoxious about my viewpoints and would preach to everyone and anyone I thought would listen even though most of them probably didn’t want to hear it.  Even after all these years to reflect and focus on hindsight my only regret is knowing that I didn’t change the mind of a single person during my conversations.  Unless someone was completely devoid of an opinion and were susceptible to an onslaught of one-sided facts, I know I didn’t affect them one way or the other.

Since then, I’ve read a bit by authors on both sides of the isle and have learned to embrace all arguments that are based on rational personal thoughts, facts and evidence rather than talking points from either party.  I’ve learned that shouting and carrying on can only make someone resent you, that people have to make up their own minds about issues, and that neither party is perfect.  I’ve learned that someone who votes for Bush because they think he is cuter and nothing more (true story) is just as wrong for voting for Obama because of the color of his skin and nothing more.  The issues matter.

What pains me the most in all of this is the tone the country’s political dialogue has taken and the thought that I was a willing participant in it.  I’ve realized that all of this shouting is pointless because often both sides generally have a valid point or two in any circumstance that should be addressed.  Regardless of this fact, there has been a self destructing race to the bottom of the barrel with the tactics used by parties to slander, humiliate, and debase the other side. All of this, coupled with the idea that somehow we’re either part of red America or blue America is very disturbing to me.  Where has the civility and common purpose gone?

Enter the Coffee Party.

The Coffee Party recently held its first convention in Louisville, Kentucky and I decided to make the long six hour drive to attend.  While I missed a lot of good stuff the first day, I was still excited to attend the second day, especially with the mock constitutional convention being held.

For clarification, the Coffee Party is not the antithesis of the Tea Party as many presume it to be; it is in fact an alternative. The Coffee Party exists to change the tone of our national dialogue from hostility to civility.  If you could, imagine for a moment a political party which isn’t based on a common liberal or conservative agenda but a party based on an agenda that is constructed when liberals and conservatives can come together and discuss their hopes, worries, fears and find common solutions to common problems based on reason, facts and common principles.

My story from this convention begins during the second session of the constitutional convention.  I had been roaming around prior to the session starting and walked in right as people were getting into groups to discuss the issues.  Having missed the instructions, I picked a table at random and sat down.  I ended up with the Electoral Procedures group where we would be discussing changes that would make voting more reliable, and increase confidence in the results.  Looking around the table we all introduced ourselves and where we were from.  In the end, we had a lady from Chicago, Illinois; two gentlemen from Austin, Texas; two more gentlemen from the Washington and Oregon, another gentleman from Maryland and another from Kentucky.  With myself included, we had a pretty good sampling of every geographic demographic in America and with the introductions concluded we began talking about our priorities that were on the table.

Initially, I remember that we seemingly agreed on very little.  Going down our list of proposed solutions (which I assume was drafted in the first session which I missed to attend another group) we each found ourselves stuck in what we thought was the most important idea on the list.  In these kind of situations, I’ve found even when you’re discussing a matter with a like-minded individual things can tend to get a bit loud.  But something happened.  Civility happened.

One by one we began passing around the issues.  Each of us took a moment to discuss what and why a certain aspect bothered us or why we supported it.  Slowly but surely, we came to a consensus on a variety of reforms we would like to see in the national voting procedure.

A part of the conversation I remember distinctly was when we came to whether or not to include a provision to establish a paper copy all ballots taken electronically.  The concern at the table came from one of the gentlemen from Texas who was adamant about voter privacy.  While a part of me, being from a generation who puts literally everything into public domain thought it was a bit silly, I asked him why he felt the way he did about voter privacy.  He explained his thought that with a tangible paper record that someone would have the ability to carry out with them, another individual could check to see how they voted.  He explained further that if someone would like to pay voters off, having a piece of paper that is easy to bring back would be a sure fire way to check up on someone to make sure they voted the way you told them to. After he finished explaining his position I had nothing more to do than nod in agreement.  It was so obvious, yet I had never thought of that possibility.  After some discussion, we devised what I now consider an essential idea for American democracy:

We came to the conclusion that states should be required to “provide a durable record, humanly countable for each vote cast”, and “ensure that the paper ballots count be audited.”  Our judgment being, that in the event of an electronic voting malfunction or tampering, the paper ballots would have an official record of votes cast. If these paper ballots were then counted later a discrepancy could easily be found in the electronic voting record and the paper ballots would take precedent.  This solves many problems at once:

a.      It creates a paper trail for electronic voting machines

b.      It ensures voter privacy by not requiring an individual to leave the ballot area with any medium that records their vote and

c.       Provides a better method for auditing elections.

What amazed me the most was that a group of people who disagreed on a lot of fundamental issues could come together on so many different topics to produce what I considered to be a great list of ideas for election reform.  This didn’t happen through politicking, through subversion or deceit.  There was no yelling, screaming, or name calling either – just a humble debate based on the basic facts and evidence that presented to our minds the way the founders intended.

We know from experience that screaming, yelling and name-calling is great if you want to divide a group of people, a nation, or if you selfishly assume that just getting enough support qualifies as a mandate to govern.   But considering that we’ve had years of this divisiveness already and the road ahead looks dark and bleak, I would hope and assume that we, as a nation, would opt for a different path. 

Time has proven again and again that a united American people can accomplish anything they set their mind to.  If you believe like I do that there is hope in civility, hope in conversation, and hope in truth and reason I encourage you to look into the Coffee Party.  Together we can move this country forward past these days of hyper-partisanship and division trancend into a day where there aren’t red states or blue states - just American states - and that day will be certainly be brighter for all of us.

You can’t stop….a movement, a movement, a movement.

It seems that in New York, an issue has erupted which has touched all of our ears, hearts and in most cases, our mouths (which it is soon to be the case with me).  The ongoing situation in New York City in regard to the ‘construction’ of a mosque near the ruins of the World Trade Center towers has become an absolute circus for punditry, provocation and incendiary rhetoric.  The stated argument is that a mosque (a temple of Islamic faith) shouldn’t be built near the World Trade Center ruins as it is overly insensitive to the families who lost loved ones during the September 11^th attacks, and that it is a symbol of Islam having conquered the area since all of the hijackers that day were Islamic.

While I could easily concede that this is in fact insensitive, I would be doing myself a disservice and my country a disservice to not explore the matter more fully.  That said, I encourage my reader to keep an open mind and set all predisposed opinions aside before reading my article (or considering any issue for that matter), as keeping an open mind and approaching ideas with reason and logic is a tenet of living in a free society.

As we all know, religious liberty was an issue which our nation’s founders and early patriots felt strongly about and took very seriously.  Thomas Jefferson, in 1777, wrote The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, a work he was so proud of that it was one of the mere three things he wished to have on his epitaph. In this work he declared:

“we well know [that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia], elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights [of religious liberty] hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

This excerpt from Jefferson’s bill signals a belief that religious liberty is an inherent right of man which cannot be taken away by any government or authority.  Similarly, James Madison, in opposition to a bill which was introduced with the intent to levy a tax which would support religious teachers, wrote his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in which he states:

“…the Bill [to establish a tax in support of religious teachers] violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If ‘all men are by nature equally free and independent,’ all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.  Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.”

Madison’s writings indicate that he, in addition to Jefferson, believed that a citizen of a free society has the right to explore and embrace whichever religion their conscious dictates to be correct and that their choice can only be based on the subliminal evidence presented to their eyes, and the musings of their mind.  Based on the quote it is evident that Madison also believed that it was the duty of a citizen to respect another’s right to pursue religious truth, even if the other’s choice isn’t agreeable to their own.  A citizen must respect another’s choice, as in due time, the eyes of either may be opened to a new version of the truth which is agreeable to those citizens already convinced of it.  In addition to Jefferson and Madison, Henry Clay also made clear that believed a tenet of liberty is religious freedom.  In a speech while in the House of Representatives he voiced his opinion on the matter:

“All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All separated from government, are compatible with liberty.”

From this, Clay seems to also be supporting the doctrine that all men should have the right to choose their own religion, rather than having it assigned to them by their government or thereby other citizens. 

These examples are meant to provide a baseline for the conversation we are about to take part in and aren’t intended to serve directly as evidence of either side.  While it isn’t so much a matter of what others believe, these examples are intended to highlight the issue concerning what our ideals are, and should be.  If we are meant to believe that America is a Christian nation by default, simply due to the high number of people practicing that particular faith, we would fundamentally be denying that all free people are at liberty to pursue and practice their own religion without interference from society or government.  Additionally, if we are to believe that America is a Christian nation because the majority of the nation’s founders practiced some form of Christianity, we would be conceding that our initially adopted ideals are somehow superficial and that the first amendment to the constitution was somehow passed accidentally or unintentionally by the very people we are citing as justification for our Christian proclamation.

From both of the previous scenarios we can derive that it is part of our national ethic to feel there is a grave danger which can come from a tyranny of a majority (which is why Madison argued for a representative, rather than a direct Democracy in Federalist 10), and that while the Earth belongs exclusively to the living, there are liberties neither time nor governments can pull away.  Having established this as fact, and by realizing that all free men are at liberty to pursue their own truth as individuals, and having declared religious liberty as an eternal right, we can move on to our main question regarding the Mosque in New York City.

As originally stated, people are angry because they feel that the mosque being built near the ruins of the World Trade Center signals a victory for the Islamic terrorists that destroyed them and that the construction of a mosque is insensitive to those who lost loved ones during the attacks.  While these two issues seem separate, I contest that one is actually the origin of the other.  I will explain why in the following paragraphs.

The first issue, which is a precursor to the entire debate is that The United States of America is viewed by some citizens, without regard for religious liberty, as representation or manifestation of Christianity.  Similarly, there is also a prevailing view that the Islamic extremists who attacked on September 11^th are representative of the entire Islamic faith.  Next we find ourselves, through the dissection of complex thought into digestible pieces (which is more than likely influenced by our ten-second-sound-bite media), making the connection that the faith of Islam as a whole attacked Christianity as a whole which is simply a detachment from reality.

To begin, comparing Islamic extremist groups to be representative of the entire Islamic faith is comparable to making the outlandish consideration that the Ku Klux Klan is representative of all of Christianity due to its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Church.  I suppose most would agree there is no comparison to be made.  There also seems to have been a miscommunication regarding why the extremist groups actually attacked the US.  While it is fact that the attackers called it part of a religious war, the cause wasn’t overtly regarding Christianity or that “they hate the freedoms of the United States” as George W. Bush seemed to tout.  The attacks occurred mainly as a blowback political action meant to punish the US for having troops in Saudi Arabia, the US support of Israel, and sanctions in Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden actually wrote a letter to America in 2002 which lists numerous reasons regarding why they carried out the September 11^th attacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) and suggests that we follow the morality of Islam as well as stay out of their business (this is no different than what anti-abortion advocates seek from individuals at abortion clinics).  In short, they attacked the United States because of what they perceive as arrogance and global bullying – not faith.

Next there is the “mosque in proximity to ground zero” argument which doesn’t address the fact that a mosque which serves 500 people currently exists at the site where construction would take place.  This is therefore an expansion project rather than new construction, meaning that those who are opposed to the construction are simply furious about a new 100 million-dollar project in their community to revitalize an old building – not repurpose.  To oppose this seems silly from an economic view point as the investment in the area should always be welcome but the fact that it isn’t reveals the underlying purpose for the hostility and the denial. I recently read an argument which was made in an ABC news interview by the father of a firefighter who died on 9/11.  He said that to him “[Islam is] a religion of hate.”  He went on to concede, “There might be some good ones. I don’t know them but they haven’t stood up and knocked the other ones down. I don’t want to go down there on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and see 2,000 Arabs outside. Maybe they’ll start cheering.”  This statement cycles back to my original assertion regarding how one fear is propagating the other - simply put, the fear due to the assumption that all people of Islamic faith are radical creates the notion that the Mosque will automatically be a symbol of conquered land.

The fear itself is common.  It of course is natural to be afraid of what we do not understand or misperceive.  What is most unfortunate is that the realm of understanding is clouded by political punditry and quick sound bites which inevitably, if not intentionally, create fear and hatred.  Sadly, it is a condition of some in society to neglect independent research, obtain all information from one source, and in no way look any deeper than the surface while taking in only what one wants to hear.  Fear is free to flourish where there are no two sides to a discussion or argument, no civility and no ultimate quest for truth.  This leaves us with the subtle impression that whoever is loudest wins when in reality, it’s our republic that is losing.

I will be the first to concede that we would not want an “Islamic victory church” present, near, or on the World Trade Center grounds or anywhere in America for that matter.  The United States has no place for violent radicalism of any sect - Islamic or Christian.  If suddenly the owner of the mosque were to start touting a victory for the Mujahedeen, I would be the first one in line suggesting that we tear it down on the basis that it has become a political statement rather than a place of humble worship.  I would admittedly do the same if Christians proposed building a church near the ruins of an African American family’s home.  If at first it is a place of worship, then so be it, but the second it becomes a political statement for the Ku Klux Klan, I would suggest desanctification followed by tearing it down. 

Many people have already said that legally nothing that can be done regarding the Mosque’s development.  This is based on the underlying belief that all men are free to pursue their own truth in religion and that governments cannot take that right away or give favor to any specific religion.  While this is a great victory for the advancement of religious freedom it does nothing to solve the belief that we’re pitted in a war against Islam. 

As a nation we should be reminding ourselves that it wasn’t people who practice Islamic faith that attacked us, rather it was militant political activists who happen to be Islamic.  The distinction can be made quite simply, and it should be made more often.  We need a campaign for truth in our country in order to erase the rabid, incendiary punditry that is running rampant and pitting us against our neighbors.   To quote Thomas Jefferson’s bill once more, “…truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; […] she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate…”

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” -John Adams

The above admonishment of John Adams in the infancy of our republic was scarcely enough to prevent the inevitable bifurcation into our current (two party) system.  Adams’ fear, judging by the current state of our political conversation, was well founded.  The dreaded division which he speaks of threatens to tear our nation asunder at the renewal of every debate and at the end of every statement or declaration which comes from one of our elected representative’s mouth.

Is this the sovereign republic which we declared to the world in 1776 and the manifestation of the philosophy of our founders?  I would most humbly argue against any who claims that it is.

In the writings of our founding fathers we can derive nothing more than their wish for us to live in peace.  Their modest hope was that each man could live according to his own choosing an ocean away from the troubles and entangling alliances of Europe and an ocean away from the problems and wars and oppression that plagued that continent for so long. In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he attempted to paraphrase what he believed the foundations of American liberty were set upon.  He wrote, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”   This, Jefferson believed to be the foundations of American democracy.  Washington before him believed in these things as well, even though they were considered of competing ideologies which brings to light that Jefferson’s axiom clearly applies here: “What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong.”

Modern ideologue political commentators have us believe that there are only two roads in our political discourse and that is to the right and the left.  Each side, individually claims to be more centrist than the other and at the same time, each side accuses the other of being extreme to their end of the political spectrum.  This constant babbling and the absolute obfuscation of facts have left the public confused, apathetic and disillusioned to our democratic process.

The two parties with their talking points have become very efficient at destroying the definition of fact; rather, the definition of truth.  Hearing both parties speak about an anonymous spending bill, one for and one against, you’ll soon learn that the bill is capable of saving the government billions while simultaneously bankrupting the government.  If an environmental regulation bill is brought to the table, you’ll hear that the proposed bill saves the environment while subsequently destroying it.  While both sides to an argument normally always have merit, we’re missing the point where facts are facts, not topics to dance around. “Facts are stubborn things; “, John Adams once argued. “…and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Clearly, our two party system has become too much a competition rather than a legislative body reflecting the will of the people.  What was intended by our founders to be a government of the people has depreciated into a government of the party - parties which cannot adequately and accurately represent the entire majority, in all situations.  A vote for a party representative does not always indicate a strict endorsement of the party’s political doctrine. Having these predetermined agendas in place creates an artificial punch card for the belief system of the electorate, discouraging open discussion, debate and beliefs that stray from the mainstream red state/blue state ideologies of our current system, mainly due to convenience. 

Time and time again, the public has shown that it will move to the easier method of doing anything.  I firmly believe that politics should not be prepackaged. “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.” (Thomas Jefferson)

With these simple facts presented, and with the idea of brevity being kept in mind for this essay, I propose to the candid minds of the American electorate the thought of abolishing all political organizations with the intent to return ourselves back to our humble beginnings.  American democracy should be based upon the will of an enlightened people, electing the best and most honest among their fellow citizens to the posts of representation inside the halls of congress.  These men should not wish upon or campaign for the post but be appointed to it by their friends and neighbors.  It is only then, that we can rest certain that the individuals who we choose to represent us, will act in our best interest.