Once Upon A Time, There Was A Wall

Once upon a time there was a wall. It divided the areas of East Berlin from West Berlin in an effort to stem the population of communist East Germany from migrating to the democratic capitalist side of West Germany. When it was erected it divided not only political sides, but also friends, families, and world attitudes. It was the ultimate barrier to the overall peace and unity of a single country .. until it was torn down. That wall itself was the epitome of a symbol of the Cold War. The act of tearing it down was one of the most shining moments of world peace and solidarity that any nation has ever accomplished. Are we doomed to repeat history?

Donald Trump has taken the U.S. Presidency to a new level of demented millennialism. The first president to have zero political background, the first president to consistently tweet his personal Twitter account without thought for repercussions or his administration. In some ways it could be viewed as awkwardly admirable. This man took office with a mindset to treat the country like a corporation and right the U.S. economy as such. His tactics, however, are some of the most abysmal the world has seen since Hitler promised Germany jobs and economic fixes after the Great Depression.

Hitler blamed economic downfall and socioeconomic issues on the Jewish population. At that time in history, the world had just come out of the hell of WWI, and was on the tail end of a worldwide economic depression. It wasn't difficult for someone with a semblance of oratory skill to convince a terrified country's population that there were a specific group of people that were to blame for their financial woes, no matter how misguided the accusations. The terrified, the scared, the misguided; those were the people who voted Hitler into office and blindly followed his directives which ultimately resulted in the most horrific wartime atrocities the world has ever seen.

Fast forward to the internet age. What do you get when you place a silver spoon kid turned real estate mogul and egotistical narcissist into the White House? You get a similar result. A population on the tail end of recession desperate for relief, despite the efforts of previous administrations. A glimmer of light opening for a wide variety of right wing fringe sects to actively espouse their beliefs; their flames fanned by the incinerating rhetoric of a man who has never known a day of hunger or basic need in his entire life.

The wall that Trump wants to build, that he is essentially holding the U.S. hostage to build, is the same type of symptomatic governmental narcissism as the wall the post WWII Germany built. Not only are his tactics holding the U.S. hostage in the realm of government, but they're putting the entire world at risk in multiple areas like aviation safety, agriculture, military assistance, and even the borders that he claims to hold so dear. Those who count on government assistance or government based jobs to feed their families can kiss that goodbye.  Apparently this wall, that makes the United States appear more like a scene from "A Handmaiden's Tale," is far more important than the needs of anything else in the nation.

It is incredibly unfortunate when world leaders take their own personal egos and views, and make them more important on the political and humanitarian front than the needs of the population. It's even more unfortunate when those same leaders actively espouse rhetoric that inflames views and actions of bias, bullying, and racism.

So where to go from here? In a utopian universe, the aberrant leader is ousted by a shining knight on a white horse and the kingdom becomes whole and peaceful. However, just because I started this blog in fairytale form does not mean that the shining knight theory is one that is applicable, or will actually happen. Here's where I get to say what I actually think (it's a blog, so I get to do so).

What this country needs is people working and taking care of their families. This country needs common courtesy, empathetic citizens, and common sense. It does not need egotistical leaders, hateful rhetoric, and unintelligent accusations from those in positions of power that are supposed to be working for the greater good of its population.

I hate to use a movie line here here, but there's a line from "The American President" that this situation that keeps bringing to mind. "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."  America is a nation of free speech, of tolerance, of open-mindedness, and of the dream that if you work hard enough it will happen. It is not a nation of close-minded idiots, closed borders, biased rhetoric, and bullying of its citizens. Not saying that the onset of Nazi Germany is akin to Donald Trump's America, but .......... #justsaying!!

Let's finish the fairy tale, since we began it that way .... and the knights on their speckled horses shattered the wall with their mighty swords, then rode off into the sunset with their multi-nationality brides .. all of whom had jobs that were highly paid, well fed children, and a nation that they believed in!


~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress

"Common Sense" .. still true in modern day?

I find the current, pointless, sophomoric government shutdown situation annoying at best, and ridiculously pathetic at worst.  Recently, I read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and realized that, while we are definitely not struggling with secession from a government on another continent,  under current conditions our government seems almost equally as far removed and unaware as the colonists felt about the British Crown. Below are my thoughts on the document itself and my subsequent thoughts on its application to the current political climate.

Thomas Paine makes many valid points in his document "Common Sense" that can still be applied and deemed true in today's government debacle.  He begins by citing a theoretical example of a society that is forged in a new land though common community needs in which all members equally share and assist each other. He furthers this idea with the notion that as the community grows larger that representatives from each area of the community should be chosen by their peers to represent each area's interests for the good of the whole, and that logically, these representatives should be re-chosen on a regular basis so that all represntatives are active, aware members of their individual communities and its needs. He even goes so far to say that this group of elected representatives should choose a leader, but that it should be via a process that rotates throughout each community,  or in this case, colony, so no one area or person has the ability to become too egotistically filled with power and/or detached from the real daily needs and issues of the society as a whole that they represent the interests of.   He contines his logic by likening the English monarchy, its rules of aristocracy and hereditary succession,  as well as the supposed checks and balances that are in theory, only to the Papacy and the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs.  He points out that God should be the only true governing Lord and that the idea of government rulers as heads of both church and state are the same as the practices of heathen religions of ancient times. He further points out that under the colonies' current conditions with the English monarchy, aristocracy,  and House of Commons, that their money is simply going to a government that wants to keep them in check to the point of slavery to the Crown.  He continues to note that much of the population of the colonies is not of British descent, and seeing as the British government has no affiliation to or understanding of the burgeoning society of America, that being considered British subjects only sets them up to be at odds with any government Britain is at odds with, instead of working with, trading with, and at peace with all other nations which are truthfully represented in the population of the colonies.   Paine then makes valid points about the continuation of a government simply because it is what people are accustomed to and not because it is what is appropriate or best for the populace. I particularly liked his point "We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true; for I answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe." He also points out the various industries and agriculural ventures in which the colonies have the ability to be self-sufficient, including the building and maintaining of their own naval fleet, and ultimately gives us an initial breakdown of what a Constitution, a Continental Congress, and subsequent American President would be structured like in the best interests of the Colonies and the Colonists themselves.  

In my opinion, many of the points made in "Common Sense" are valid and should be readdressed by the American population today.  We live under a government that tends to be so far removed from the real, daily lives and issues of most of the citizens in our society, that they appear to spend their time consorting only with those that will line their pockets, keep them in positions of power via buying out the politcal process, and currently, find it okay to argue so much among themselves that the government is in a shutdown period because internal bullheaded quabbling about their own interests and needs has caused an inability to reach any sort of agreement. While the original precepts of our Constitution are still valid, they are being abused and misquoted by this group of narcissist individuals who claim to be looking out for the best interests of the population. As Paine pointed out, force and revolution are only a final, last case option, but under current conditions it would seem that we as citizens need a modern day Thomas Paine figure to bring our government back to its basic senses, back to the roots of those whom they represent, and quite possibly, quietly and logically remove from power those who have made a career of basking in it.

Simply my opinion. I realize that it may ruffle the feathers of some who read it, but theoretically our democracy allows for opinionated freedom of speech, so we are all entitled to our own.

~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress

Debating the Annoyance of Political Posturing

So I was watching the presidential debate last night, and a number of thoughts occured to me.  Let me preface my thoughts with the fact that I am a registered INDEPENDENT, meaning that I agree and disagree with entirely too many points on all sides to officially affiliate myself with any one political party.  Personally, I think all of them are rhetoric spouting hypocritical con artists.  That being said, I shall begin .....

Historically speaking, many presidents who are viewed as achieving great things, were opposed, fought against, and ridiculed during their terms as president.  George Washington (Federalist), Abraham Lincoln (Republican), FDR (Democrat), George H.W. Bush (Republican), Bill Clinton (Democrat), are just a few of our past presidents that achieved great things but were opposed by various factions of Congress and other political ideologists while in office.  Under the current economic landscape, I cannot imagine anyone taking office that will not have opposition of some form.  There will be agreements, disagreements, arguments, self-righteous congratulations, and water cooler grumbling gossip on every single issue addressed as we go forward into this next presidential term, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.  Additionally, our economy tends to be a "trickle down effect" in itself.  The true effects of changes made to policy and programs put in place aren't actually seen until those changes and programs have run their course for a couple of years at the least.  If you look at it logically, FDR, with his unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, was really the only president that was able to truly see and reap the benefits of his decisions while in office.  While other presidents are credited with certain economic gains or stability, a good portion of what occured while they were in power should actually be, at least in part, credited to their immediate predecessors.

One of the major points that I noticed, and that was pointed out by both candidates, is that both are striving for many of the same ultimate goals.  The lowering of rates for middle income families and small businesses, avoiding adding to the deficit, improvement to healthcare options for everyone ... they both agree that these things should be achieved.  The differences lie in how they each think we should go about achieving these things.  Again, it should be pointed out that the issues in the current economic landscape, and the gains that have been and will be made going forward over the next 4 years, should be, in part, attributed to those who were in office before them and the policies and decisions that were made during their term(s).  As far as I could tell from last night's debate, bipartisan effort is going to be extraordinarily important to whomever takes office, unless we're looking for 4 years of stalemate.  Regardless of whose policies and programs are better or more effective or logical, if all sides do not quit the posturing rhetoric and bury the hatchet to work towards the common goal of improving our economy at both a national and international level, our situation is only going to go from bad to worse.  Whether the person sitting in that fabled office is black or white, Mormon or Protestant, privledged childhood or poor, does not matter.  What matters is that all parties rally behind whomever is there so that positive steps can be achieved instead of just talked about.  If we could get all candidates to list out specifically their plans for growth in the aforementioned areas, then have a impartial group assimilate those plans into an excel spreadsheet comparison, that would be most informative and ideal, as the lack of specificity on how each side plans to achieve said goals was, and is, annoying at best.

I'm still undecided, and sticking with my Independent registry.

~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress

The Protections Of An Actual Democracy

There are some people who need to take a good, long, difficult look at themselves and their own lives, before they open their mouths to speak. 

The catalyst behind this particular post is a certain Republican spout-off, whom I shall not name (except for in the tags).  Let's start with a fact that I've stated before, we live in a country where everyone is absolutely entitled to their own opinion and may vocalize it without fear of repercussion.  That applies to you, to me, to this particular person of whom I speak.  However, to throw out opinions as facts, into the media, when no research into the issue other than one's own side has obviously been explored, is ... overstepping at best.  In this particular case, someone who has spent his career accusing and ostracizing others, while, in many cases, doing the exact same thing that he speaks out against himself .... Seriously, those who live in glass houses...

The following are my thoughts on the subject.  Again, they're My Thoughts, which I'm allowed to voice and am afforded that right under the same Constitution that allows the human I speak of to voice his!

If you're going to declare hard-line right wing family values and call someone a "slut" for using birth control, don't have 3 divorces, cheat on your wives, & live in seperate houses while you're married.

If you're going to talk about the "poverty line" as something you understand, you probably shouldn't have grown up in a well-off politically-endowed midwestern family, and make $45M per year.

If you're going to spout un-ending hardline support for the military through a voice that's emphatically against anything non-military, you shouldn't have used a loophole to stay out of the draft when your number came up during the Vietnam War.

If you're going to damn anyone who suffers with an addiction, you shouldn't have been addicted to prescription drugs and busted for illegally purchasing them yourself.

Basically it boils down to this, everyone is absolutely, unequivocably entitled to voice their own opinion, but if you're going to voice it, then it's better to be able to back it up with your own life, or at least be sensitive to the other side (that you may have been on). 
Actions  Speak  Louder  Than  Words.


~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress