The Language of Faction

Is anyone else disturbed by the language being used by some of the GOP hopefuls? I personally have trouble with the terms “state’s rights” and “cession”. These terms were last used rhetorically during desegregation of the South in the 1960s, and during the violently factional discussions leading up to the Civil War in the 1850s. Rick Perry says he is reborn – and I think he might have been George Wallace in a previous life, or maybe John Calhoun. I can only assume Texas A&M didn’t offer a US History class in their Ag Program. The idea that a state has the right to secede from the Union was settled in the bloodiest War in American history, at the cost of 618,000 American lives.
Some of the GOP candidates have demonstrated an extremely shaky knowledge of US History. Bachman believes that the US Constitution was intended to form a theocracy. I am sure that would surprise the hell out of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay. The only mention in the US Constitution of religion is in Article VI which specifies that “no religious test shall ever be required as Qualification of any office or Public trust under the United States”. The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights starts out: “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
In the Federalists Papers, authored by the same people who wrote the US Constitution and served in the first federal government, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison “the Father of the Constitution” both argue against the danger of factions to the Union. Madison, in Federalist 10, defines the most serious source of faction to be “the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred.” This doesn’t really sound to me like they were thinking about a theocracy.
I'm admittedly a liberal, and definitely not a registered Republican, but I am looking at this use of language from the point of view of a teacher. The thing that bothers me the most is the intentional twisting or horrific ignorance of US History. These two candidates are making George W. Bush look like a genius.

Taking the Elderly Hostage

The recent Debt Ceiling disaster in Congress made me wonder if the people we have elected to Congress could actually pass a basic 8th grade Civics test. We do not send people to Congress to hold senior citizens hostage. We send people to Congress to govern, political agendas aside. The function of Congress is simple; they are to distribute the revenues which are raised by the taxes they create.
My son’s grandmother lives on her $1010 a month Social Security check. She lives in subsidized senior housing. If she didn’t get her check, she wouldn’t be able to pay her rent. Yes, maybe she wouldn’t be in this situation if she had saved more when she was working. But like many elderly women today, she lived during the time that the man was the breadwinner, and women stayed home and were housewives and mothers. When she was widowed, she went to work. Then when she was 62, she chose to take the Social Security that her husband had earned.
The debt ceiling crisis frightened her. She has trouble making ends meet as it is, even with some help from her family. She and other seniors living in the housing complex were extremely worried as this debate was broadcast on the nightly news. And most of them did not understand the debate other than there was the possibility that they might not be getting their check on August 3rd. They were just scared.
There are many points of the Tea Party agenda with which I agree. I am a proponent of tax reform. I believe that government spending is out of control and money is spent on the wrong priorities. I believe in a balanced budget. But I don’t believe in taking the elderly poor hostage to achieve these goals. Shame on those who do.

Too Much Stuff

In a city I recently visited there are 3500 - 5000 square foot houses spaced ten foot apart, no yard. Rows and Rows of these huge new houses. I have traveled to the city to see other peoples' stuff. What in heaven's name is wrong with those people? What are they thinking? Why would anyone want to live like that?

Three car garages and cars parked outside are common, too much stuff in the garages. All the houses are new and maybe not just alike, but very similar. The people in the houses have lots of stuff. They probably have a TV in every room, stereos, game players, computers, and more stuff. Like as not, it takes both parents working to pay the mortgage.

I just do not see the point. This is a juvenile attitude -- my toys (stuff) are better than your toys (stuff). Or even worse - the guy who dies with the most stuff wins. Yeah, but he is still dead. And someone else has to deal with the stuff left behind.

Maybe this is just overreaction to moving into my parents' house. I had to move my stuff on top of their stuff, and now I have way too much stuff. And if I had a bigger house, I would have more room for more stuff. I can see why people do not want to move; it is just too much trouble. And the more stuff you have, the more trouble it is. And worse yet -- my stuff, it is good stuff, the kind of stuff you can't really throw away.

My parents had been married 59 years when my mother passed away. In that time they had acquired lots of stuff. My mother liked to entertain and in the 50s and 60s that meant china and crystal. Entertaining meant sterling silver trays and flatware - fancy stuff. She had (I have) stemmed glasses, and sherbert glasses, linen napkins and tablecloths - delicate stuff. There are crystal toothpick holders, silver place cards, mint dishes, butter dishes, salt cellars, and I could go on and on. There are 12 silver goblets (shiney stuff) used exactly once -- on their 25th anniversary. Mother had crystal flower vases in all sizes, tiny individual silver salt and pepper shakers, and a, for Pete's Sake, silver candelabra. Who was coming over, Liberace? What do I do with all this stuff?