aldenswan.com

When I was young, I was taught that America was the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Bullshit. America might have been the land of the free, once; but (if it ever was) those days are long gone. That is, unless you redefine “freedom” as meaning freedom for those who happen to be in power, which has been the historical understanding of freedom.

I’m starting to think that very, very few people are really concerned about freedom as an ideal or even a general principle. Again, they may be “all about” freedom, but mainly, people are only concerned for their own freedom, with little concern for freedom across the board (especially if it infringes on their freedom). What makes this work is that many people are also wiling to trade real freedom for a sense of security (even if false) and irresponsibility. For some, a lack of responsibility is freedom: “freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” This tendency of sheep to be sheep and leaders to be fascists creates, for some, the ideal state of affairs, and works well for fundamentalist preachers as well as for politicians. Fascism, therefore, is alive and well, all over the place.

From the end of WW II into the seventies, we saw a major cultural shift take place as those really concerned with freedom for different sets of people than those in power, such as blacks, women, and even liberals (prior to this, even the liberals were conservative). It was a good thing, freedom for everyone. But, was it really freedom for everyone, or just others wanting to create new fascisms? I think it probably started well, but these kinds of things often turn into tools of the new wannabe fascists. I won’t mention any names.

Today, it seems we have a variety of fascisms fighting for control. We have, of course, the Homeland Security boys, who have been dismantling our personal freedoms in the name of security and patriotism. On the other hand, we have our education systems, which are under the control of another fascist regime, secularism. Certainly secularists were the oppressed of years ago, but what they’ve accomplished is not equality or intellectual freedom; no, they’ve now become the oppressors. As I understand it, this is the main point being made in Ben Stein’s new documentary, Expelled, which I won’t discuss any further here. While some may laugh this off as an absurd, extremist claim, I think it is impossible to examine the situation objectively and not conclude that there is a type of fascism at play; it’s certainly not “freedom.”

The latest strike in the war against freedom, this too involving an educational system, is this week’s California 2nd District Appellate Court ruling that parents do not have the right to teach their children at home. The Cal. Dept. of Education (with the obvious support of the teachers’ unions) has been fighting the rights of parents for years, under the general principle that “the state knows best.” Now, if this isn’t fascist thinking, I don’t know what is. Yes, I know that it is phrased “in the best interest of the child,” but seriously, if they really cared about the children, don’t you think the state would do a better job of educating the ones they have? We have the worst educated children of any industrialized nation, and homeschooling children are shown to outperform those in public schools. If you were concerned about the children, which side would you be on?

I don’t believe that the state is concerned about the children. I think their first concern is Federal funding - based on head counts - to keep the system alive, and their 2nd concern is placating the teachers’ union. It’s about power - in Sacramento as opposed to the local school boards - and money. I also suspect that it’s about indoctrination, as it seems more money is going into various indoctrination programs (no free-thinking allowed) than teaching kids to read.

You can call it fascism, or you can call it greed; but what it is, is another loss of personal freedom.

Super Tuesday is nearly over (some final counts not in yet), and one thing appears certain: our choices for President this year are a liberal, or a liberal.

Obama is in a slight lead over Hillary, which is the good news. McCain has enough of a lead to make victory for anyone else nearly impossible.  Depending on what you look at, you can argue that there’s little difference between Obama and Clinton, or that there’s little difference between Clinton and McCain.

Here are my thoughts for the rest of the race:

1. McCain is calling for Republican party unity. Well, then, I first suggest that he actually become a Republican.
2. Obama needs to stay on the high road, and give Hillary (who historically takes the below the belt road) enough rope to hang herself.
3. Who I end up voting for may hinge on who the VP candidates are.
4. This would a good year for an independent to join the fray, and really mix things up. Only an independent could really make the major party candidates deal with issues.
5. The problem is, I don’t know of any potential 3rd party candidate with any real chance. Obama won’t break ranks, and I doubt Hillary would (though you never can tell about the Clintons… they’re only real loyalty appears to be to themselves).  Lieberman, where are you?
6. 4 years of true liberalism (even Bill Clinton wasn’t a true liberal) and high stinkin’ taxes may be enough time to mess things up enough to cause some new voices to raise up, or at least give conservatives legislative control once again.
7. Hang on, folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. (i.e. grab your tax rebates while you can get them.)

I’m starting to read the news again, now that the Presidential race is underway for real. So far, I haven’t become depressed, which is a big step for me. Actually, I am surprised at how detached I am about the election. I can actually see photos of Hillary without my blood pressure rising. I guess my “news sabbatical” paid off.

This year’s race should prove to be interesting. It looks like for the first time in history, we are guaranteed that the Democratic candidate will be a minority. Barak Obama, is more or less black, and Hillary is technically a female, although she appears to have more testosterone than some of the male candidates we’ve seen. And, contrary to the bizarre fundamentalist e-mails making the rounds, Obama is not a Muslim.

On the Republican side, we now have three “iffy” candidates. Romney, of course, is a Mormon; perhaps we should see who their new “prophet” is before we decide on him. Huckabee is a radically beyond-conservative Christian, who has some very not-mainstream ideas about the role of religion and politics. He scares me, but it looks like we won’t have to worry about him, as he’s falling way behind. And then there’s McCain, who scares me more than anyone. It seems apparent to me that he’s got some issues, and I wonder if he may not have some latent PTSD. Besides, he’s pulled some sneaky underhanded stunts in the last year or two, and I don’t think we can trust him. Of the three, I’d have to choose Romney, who overall seems like a nice, honest guy.

Overall, the Republican race is boring, and in my opinion none of them really deserve to be President. The Democratic side, on the other hand, has more intrigue than a David Baldacci novel. Obama is doing his best to keep the upper hand, while Bill plays the hatchet man for Hillary. Although, Bill has been so over the top - and now it comes out that he’s still selling his political clout to the highest bidder - that I wonder if he’s really trying to tank Hillary, or at least give her someone to blame if she loses.

Hillary is the most interesting candidate, mainly because she’s so hard to figure out. I don’t think we’ve ever seen the “real” Hillary; I suspect everything she does is an act. We should be calling her “the chameleon,” as she tries to blend in to whatever situation suits her. She’s liberal one day, conservative the next, an overcomer one day, and a victim the next. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone would vote for her. I dont’ think that anyone really likes her; I mean, how could you, really? Friendship usually implies some kind of trust - and from what I’ve heard from ex-”friends,” trust is one thing you can’t do to Hillary.

Obama impresses me, even though I probably disagree with much of his politics. I think he, of all the candidates, is the most humble and even-keeled. He is able to present his thoughts in a very clear, well-reasoned way, and he - as Caroline Kennedy has said - is inspirational in a way that we haven’t seen for a while. He also presents his Christianity in a very sound way, and seems to have really thought through the issues of faith and politics. He, and perhaps Romney, have the greatest potential to unite the country.

At the moment, I’m supporting Obama - the first time I will have voted for a Democrat in my life. If Hillary gets the nomination, then I’ll vote against her. But, if McCain is the Republican candidate, I may just stay home.What will be really interesting is if Hillary and McCain end up on the final ticket. That, at least, will be a campaign to watch. As BTO sang, b-b-b-baby, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.