Moneybag Democracy

To view the original art, please travel to “Moneybag Democracy” [Archive No. 9703]

copyright © 2008.  Andrew Wahl.  Off The Wahl Perspective.

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.

“Now, that doesn’t mean that questions of Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the whole range of challenges that we often engage on with the Chinese, are not part of the agenda. But we pretty much know what they are going to say. We have to continue to press them but our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crises.

~ Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (February 20, 2009)

The news appeared in cyberspace on Friday, February 20, 2009.  As Yogi Berra once elucidated, it was as déjà vu, all over again. International and domestic activists have come to realize, once again, America is a democracy dependent on dollars.  Amnesty International advocates shook their heads, wondered, and worried of what might be.  Students for a Free Tibet collectively shrugged their shoulders and expressed a shared distress.  Citizens at home, in America, barely blinked.  An avid Obama supporter, was resigned to realities that, only weeks ago, she might not have thought she would willingly accept.  Moneybag democracy lives.  Hillary Clinton serves the President, the precedent past, present, and perhaps, future.

Days ago, with Secretary of State Clinton abroad in China, the world was given an opportunity to witness America’s new direction.  Most anticipated dollars would no longer have a greater influence on United States policy than humanitarian concerns did.  Globally, people waited to cheer for the change that had certainly come.  Then, Secretary Clinton, pleaded with Beijing to buy United States bonds.  Contrary to her pointed comments on human rights, made during her presidential campaign, as a representative of the Obama Administration, Secretary Clinton spoke as though she no longer believes as she had, Chinese ownership of US government debt had become a threat to national security.  

Perhaps, Hillary Clinton, and her President, surmised Capitalism, or a democracy devoted to dollars must survive at all cost.  Certainly her husband, and his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright had reached this conclusion near a decade earlier.

Like Secretary Albright, Hillary Rodham Clinton, chose to sell America’s soul. When the first woman Head of State spoke of her decision, few United States citizens said a word.  In the 1990s, then Head of State, Albright, in a 60 Minutes interview, discussed the American policy decisions that caused the deaths of more than half-million Arab children in Iraq.  She said without hesitation, the loss of young lives were the price the Clinton Administration thought wise to pay.   Madeline Albright mused; the sacrifice of little ones was “worth it.”

Hardships on fellow humans are the cost citizens in a comfortable and “civilized” society must pay for democracy.  Apparently, Americans, even the most Progressive amongst us, seem to agree.  Then, as now, few if any said a word.

Today when news came over the wires, Secretary Clinton stood firm in favor of economic relations with China, regardless of human rights violations, only a few countrymen responded.  Activists were ‘shocked’ when they heard the American Ambassador, Clinton, take such a stance.  Representatives from Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet spoke out.

T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was “shocked and extremely disappointed” by Secretary Clinton’s comment.  The advocate for honorable and equitable civil liberties may have trusted that at least where China was concerned, the Clinton’s had a record, or at any rate, had offered respectable rhetoric.

James Mann, a Johns Hopkins scholar who wrote a history of U.S.-China relations, also recalled.  When asked of Secretary Clinton’s most recent comment, Professor Mann stated he was struck by the contrast.  Bill Clinton, he said, as president more than eight years earlier gave strong speeches on behalf of political freedom in the People’s Republic.  “Bill Clinton told the leader of China he was on ‘the wrong side of history,'” Mann recollected.  “Now, Hillary seems to be giving them the reverse message: that China is on the right side of history.”

However, historians might consider the statement that President Bill Clinton is better known for was his truer agenda.  “It is the economy stu***!”  In March of 1997, writer for China Daily, Ren Yanshi avowed the Chinese government certainly perceived the United States had a record of human rights violations, during the Clinton years.  In a “Moneybag Democracy,” the United States of America caters only to the rich.  In the States, a consumer culture allows the prosperous to profit further.  The people, the poor suffer greatly.

In recent years, as the rich got much richer, this truth was revealed in radical ways.  The word “Katrina” evokes much empathy.  “Bank bailouts elicit more emotions within the ranks of what once was the Middle Class.   Some might say, these truths are the reason that change has finally come to America.  Until today, the thought was coins and currency would no longer guide an Administration or US policy.  Barack Obama brought hope to the world.

Students for a Free Tibet embraced the new Administration.  They believed the current White House could and would make a difference in the lives of all people.  Surely, a President Obama would not serve only the affluent.

As a Senator, Barack Obama was among the sponsors of the act, which bestowed the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, on the Dalai Lama.  Senator Obama urged Chinese president Hu Jintao to “meaningfully address the Tibet issue.”  After the election, Tibetans were encouraged.  They sent President Obama letters of Congratulations.  Thus, it was an unexpected and an unwanted surprise to hear Secretary Clinton cavort, cajole, and say as she did.  The proponents of social justice stated, Clinton’s remarks “sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time.”

“The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda,” said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group.

Long-time activists, domestic supporters of Barack Obama, persons such as Jessica, see Secretary Clinton’s statement differently.  This woman who energetically endorsed Barack Obama from the moment he announced his campaign would have welcomed a more mindful position.  She yearns for United States policy to be benevolent as she believes Barack Obama, the man, is.  Jessica, who organized her community to come out and work for what she craved, an Obama White House, now thinks America cannot “afford” to do other than cater to the wishes of the Chinese government.

A jubilant Jessica has been joyful since her presidential candidate was chosen to serve. She avows; “Unfortunately, due to our greed, China owns us.  If they pulled their money, this country would die.  Sad fact but true.”  

American lives would be lost if foreign affairs focus on humanitarian concerns in China.  There can be nothing worse.  Who would buy the wares that please the people in the States, or Jessica might say, in her own defense, furnish jobs for those born in the Far Eastern nation.  The argument could be made; and certainly, descendants of Wal-Mart founder, Sam Walton, would be the first to offer it.  US dollars support a much-improved Chinese culture.

George W. Bush might have mused the latter claim an important one.  Perchance, that is why the former President chose to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics.  United States indebtedness served to justify relations with China, a country well-known for human rights violations.  The desire to feed a Capitalist market, the need to assuage the hunger of citizens who habitually consume on credit, and a country famished for cash, will do all that they can to appease those who beat and brutalize Chinese citizens.

The people of China, many Americans cried at the time, cannot be punished because they live under totalitarian rule.  Nor can US athletes be penalized.  Cruel and inhumane treatment is not acceptable, or at least it would not have been months ago, to Jessica who did all she could to help place the now President, Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

In primary season, Jessica stood staunchly against what she then thought were Hillary Clinton’s hawkish views.  She, might have agreed with essayist Stephen Zunes when he wrote for the Foreign Policy in Focus on December 11, 2007, “(F)ront-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.”  

Nonetheless, today, Jessica, the proud Progressive, a self-identified peace lover offers, “If there is no money, people will die.  Fact.  I hate it (almost) as much [as an idealist would.]  I also agree we are a soul-less country.”

Then, she quickly deferred to her disgust for the George W. Bush years.  She stated the crimes committed by the former Administration were deplorable.  Jessica concludes, “(W)e have to hold the previous administration accountable for their crimes.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose position on censure has wavered would concur with Jessica, today. If the subject were an investigation or possible prosecution of the Bush White House, Nancy Pelosi would be on-board.  However, Speaker Pelosi may, or may not, think the United States can ignore human rights violations on the part of China.  One never knows.  History and statements made in the past, are often inconsistent.

Almost a year to the day, on February 21, 2008, Secretary Clinton’s good friend, the esteemed Representative from San Francisco, Pelosi, spoke eloquently of what she did not publicly discuss with fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton, now in 2009.

“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world,” House Speaker Pelosi told reporters during a visit with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India.

Indeed, America, the Moneybag Democracy has forfeited ethical influence.  Economics has replaced principled certitude as US policy.  The press understands the priority.  The commercial media knows dollars deliver.  Damn the lives and liberties of our brethren abroad.  In the United States there is but one mission, moneybag democracy.

Perchance this truth explains why coverage on the decision to forego human rights concerns is limited.  An article appeared here, or there.  Yet, few commentaries focused on the human rights aspect of the Secretary Clinton’s travel.  The Los Angeles Times reported, Clinton added environmental and security issues to economic talks in China.  Most say Secretary of State Clinton has sealed the deal.  She has merged the past with the present. Former First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton has performed laudably for her President, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or for the precedent moneybag democracy.

References for varied reality . . .

On The Issues


copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.

Wherever Americans turn, they are asked the same question; what issue is most important to you.  If you could, what would you tell the President of the United States to do?  What do you think must be his priority, or the country’s greatest concern.  Television commentators turn microphones on citizens.  Radio announcers inquire; what does the audience think.  Newspapers poll.  Organizations count survey ballots.  Legislators look for constituent answers in electronic mailboxes.  Each attempts to usher in a new era.  They want the common people to help shape the discussion.  

Is the war in Iraq or Afghanistan the subject you believe he, or we should address first.  Do you have faith that Universal, Single Payer, Not for Profit Health Care would cure this nation’s ill?  Could education, or an equal opportunity to compete be the solution to our problems?  Must Congress restore the Constitution with the support of our Commander-In-Chief?  Might it be that Climate Change is our most pressing problem?  Civil Rights afforded to gays, straights, Blacks, Browns, persons, no matter their race, color, or creed certainly needs to be a serious consideration, as does the oft-identified issue number one, the economy.

Democrats say they will deliver solutions.  Republicans repeat the contention, they know what we should do first and last.  Independents insist neither political Party addresses their anxieties.  The apathetic feel there is no reason to participate.  Partisan politics polarize the nation’s ability to act.  

A few might muse; pragmatism may be the most powerful position.  Surely, the stream of replies to this issue-oriented inquiry will vary.  Each will test reason.  Yet, no lone logic will satisfy everyone within the electorate.  Thus, I submit  an inclusively that is more true for me.

Were I able to speak to the President of the United States of America, if I could stand before Congress and address what matters most to me, I would say there is no interest of greatest import.

For me, all issues are interrelated.  None can be considered more important than another.  Perhaps if people acknowledge that no man is an island we will become better as a world, as a country within a whole.  A lack of green technology starves the people and the planet.  Inadequate health care and education exacerbate the emptiness felt by any or all.  A hungry globe spawns war for dominance.  People want what they need.  Too frequently, individuals and nations are willing to fight for what they think is right, whatever will ensure their own existence.

Mother Nature is no exception.  As she struggles for survival, she does all she can to sustain balance.  Her cries unheeded cause greater harm.  Wounds, left unattended bleed.  The pus from these lesions spills out on Earthy beings.  If we the people allow any of our ills to thrive, surely, no one will survive.  

Please Mister President, do not ignore that we are one.  United we will stand.  If we divide the issues, we all will ultimately fall.

Sources for surveys . . .


To view the original art, please travel to Might

copyright © 2008.  Andrew Wahl.  Off The Wahl Perspective.

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.

On November 8, 2004, Artist and Political Essayist Andrew Wahl, penned his thoughts on “Might.” Then, the current war in Iraq may have been on his mind.  Fiscal policies that ruled in favor of the wealthy could have evoked his visual essay.  Way back then, religious factions, each of which was ready to deem the others wrong, were engaged in combat.  That thought, coupled with the rest, may have brought this toon to be.  Today, all these realities remain true.

Four and five years ago, bombs blasted abroad.  Bullets whizzed past the heads of innocent mothers, fathers, sons, and Iraqi daughters.  The same is true today.  Had the acclaimed Andrew Wahl sketched the same political cartoon in 1996, it would have been no less accurate.  

Then, a Democrat reigned in the White House.  Nonetheless, innocent Iraqis were victims of the American Superpower.  Sanctions were put in place.  The “mighty” United States government gave no money or aid to children who starved in the streets of the Middle Eastern nation.  Americans offered no medicine to the ill or injured young ones who would ultimately die in their homeland, Iraq.  It seemed the sentiment of sanguine Americans was, “Might makes right.”  

In the 1990s, then Secretary of State, Madeline Albright spoke to this truth on 60 Minutes.  When Reporter Lesley Stahl asked of the more than half-million Arab children left to die in Iraq, the American Ambassador declared; “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”  

Worth can be a woeful venture.  There was a time, when the rich certainly thought, what they may do to increase their income was right.  The affluent had the might.  Profits, made persons more powerful.

Years ago, the Puget Sound Business Journal published an article titled, As the rich prosper, low-income jobs multiply. In April 2008, Peter Gillespie, a Toronto Star Journalist opined, Rich prosper, as society suffers.  Yet, while that was true then, ultimately many learned, when money is seen as the “might” many fall.  

More recently, as the economy crumbled worldwide more realized, the rich lose more. Surely dollars do not deliver the might countless believed they would.

Perhaps, devotion to a deity is the source of greater supremacy.  Pious persons often deem they or those who follow the will of the Lord are the mightiest.  Moral ethics can be the only omnipotent guide.  However, Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, a minister, lawyer, and author cautions religions may be killing us.  For the writer Thomas, the proverb, “Be fruitful and multiply,” from the book of Genesis, has caused the planet much harm.  Three hundred (300) million individuals in the United States and more than 6 billion abroad, he says, may be our global doom.

Cleric Thomas sites scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as reason for grave concerns.  He notes, the might of virtuous copulation has created a population too vast to be supported by natural resources.

Other observers of the holiest warn religious war may be our disastrous destiny.  These battles raged when Artist Andrew Wahl wrote of might, just as they did centuries ago.  Religious Wars never resolve the question, who is the mightiest.  Today, the tide has not turned.  The seas have yet to part.  Peace, anywhere in the world is still threatened by religious differences.  One only needs to consider the Middle East.  In 2008, Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, reflect as he might today.  There must be a The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War, or the many foolish fights for control.

Might each of share and care rather than rule militarily.  Might mankind realize money is not the power.  Might we ponder moral efficacy does not eliminate Earthly resources; nor do the ethical kill their brethren?  Might is more than dominance.  The mightiest live, let live and love.

References for right, might, and reason . . .

Geithner; Economic Expert?

Geithner Apologizes for Not Paying Taxes

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.

There  are conventions, customs, and words, thought to be complementary.  Consider; Fat and jolly.  Short and sweet.  Tax-and-spend-liberal.  These words, while often far from tantamount, are in the minds of many, inexorably tied.  

I was fat.  However, I did not feel jolly during those days, months, and years.  I am short.  Sweet?  I am not especially so; nor am I sour.  Balanced might better describe me, which takes me to the next paired, or triad of adjectives.  I like my taxes progressive, my spending minimal, and I am a liberal.  

However, I do not support the oft-titled tax-and-spend-liberal Democratic President’s appointment, Timothy F. Geithner.  Perhaps, some would say, I do not appreciate the need for an economic expert.  This duo of descriptive qualifiers, I believe, can be an oxymoron, just as the others might be.  It seems those farthest “Left” on the political aisle may concur.

Russell Feingold [Wisconsin Democrat], Thomas Harkin [Iowa Democrat,] and Democratic Socialist, Bernard Sanders [Vermont Independent] voted nay when asked to approve Timothy Geithner for Secretary of Treasury.

The case of Timothy F. Geithner and his confirmation may enlighten Americans and alter conventions associated with language.  

The new Treasury Secretary, his history, and who approved his appointment might help Americans understand that conjoined words provide a contrary perspective.

Timothy F. Geithner has a troublesome history of unpaid taxes.  While he apologetically addressed this serious concern in Senate hearings, he could not negate the fact that he, an “economic expert” made more than a slight error.  A man who works with ledgers, looked past his own numbers.  For four years, he left levees unpaid.  Only an Internal Revenue audit, supposedly, helped him to realize his records were wrong.

The most Progressive Senators thought this tale difficult to swallow.  Legislators frequently labeled as the more extreme liberals, Feingold, Harkin, and Sanders pondered economic ethics.  For these few an awareness for dollars due is required if one is to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.  Hence, these Democrats decided the President’s selection for the Cabinet position was not a suitable choice.  

From their vote, it might be assumed, the three thought morals must be considered in the definition of monetary expert.  Perchance the Senators mused; if a fiscal guru is not immediately responsive to his or her own legal responsibilities, liabilities, how could that person be put in charge of the nation’s currency.

As one who is frequently characterized as a tax-and-spend-liberal, I know that moral values, and a code of consciousness concern me, especially when I consider Timothy Geithner as an economic expert..

I am exceedingly conservative, especially with money.  I may not be an expert; nevertheless, I believe legal liabilities must be paid.  Currency cannot be spent frivolously.  Coins, I believe are meant to be saved.  These pieces of eight add up.  

This tax-and-spend-liberal, me, thinks people, no matter their rank or royalties paid to them must be responsible for what they owe society.  The radical rationale I embrace dictates that as a part of the populace I must pay my fair share.

I think it vital that I, as a citizen, contribute to the greater good.  Unlike Timothy F. Geithner, President and Chief Executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since November 2003, and as of moments ago, Secretary of the Treasury., I would never withhold my taxes.  The idea of it troubles me as it does my fellow so-called tax-and-spend-liberals, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Bernie Sanders.  

An economic expert, I will never be.  Yet, I trust a levee, thoughtfully used, can strengthen the community.  Admittedly, I observe that in America, much money is spent with reckless disregard.  Witness, the credit crisis, and how a financial sage such as Timothy F. Geithner, does not sparingly dole out dollars.

That said, I remain secure in the knowledge that when we, the people, pool our resources, we can ensure that adequate educational facilities exist for all.  Fire and police protection can be provided for everyone.  When we pay the levees, libraries can be constructed, a supply of clean and fresh water flows, and waste is managed.  A cultured and civilized community can thrive.  

Tariffs afford us safety, sanity, and a sanitary environment.  With the help of fellow citizens, the good life that taxes allow for is possible, even for Mister Geithner, who pays his duties selectively.

The monetary expert who played a prominent role in the management of the financial crisis that has engulfed Wall Street, failed to pay federal taxes for Social Security and Medicare from 2001 through 2004.  

The fiscal sage had the funds.  The current Secretary Geithner was a gainfully employed Senior Official at the International Monetary Fund,

In 2006, after the Internal Revenue Service audited the esteemed economic guru, Timothy F. Geithner paid his taxes for 2003.  He presented a partial compensation for 2004.  Secretary Geithner was able to avoid recompense for 2001 and 2002.  The statute of limitations for these liabilities, fortuitously for the fiscal wizard, had expired.  Hence, he was able to retain the gains that might have helped pay for schools, streets, libraries, water and waste management.

Likely, this respected representative of the people spent the money on personal pleasures.  Now, with the authority vested in freeloader Timothy F. Geithner, he will have the ability to spend more of the tax dollars.  Money, the most liberal among us,  do not wish to squander.

The three tax-and-spend-liberal Senators, in practice, honored the adage, a book cannot be defined by it cover.  People must peruse the pages carefully if we are to comprehend the content.  The Democrats who did not approve of the appointment extrapolated and said, before we determine who is an economic expert, we must consider the ethical way in which that individual spends cash.  A Treasury Secretary must, at least, consistently attend to accounts payable.

Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders, and I would say, perchance, it is time to examine conventions, customs, and words, thought to be complementary.  Perhaps, Americans could better define tax-and-spend-liberals and economic experts.  It would seem countless of those whose politics are more progressive pay taxes and do not wish to spend.  Those who think it fine to avoid the fees that contribute to the greater good of society, fritter the funds.  They are not more liberal, just more liable.  

Sources for spending . . .

The Wolf Barack Obama Feeds

Pt 1 – National Cathedral Message – Story of The Two Wolves

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.

It was 11:22 Ante Meridian, on January 21, 2009.  I did as I rarely do.  I stood silently and watched television.  As one who listens to what is aired, and does so from another room, this was an unusual occurrence.  However, the Cherokee wisdom of wolves, an illustration that represents the internal strife within every human being beckoned me.  

Then, at the very same hour on the very next day, again I was compelled to do what is odd for me.  I did not say a word as I glared at humanitarian actions took place on the screen.  President Barack Obama proclaimed, by Executive Order, the United States would not torture.  Nor would we, as a nation, detain presumed “combatants” without a just trial.  On each occasion, I was in awe as I gazed upon what I had not imagined would come to pass.  Upon reflection, the two events seem to be related.

On Wednesday, the voice of the speaker was unfamiliar to me.  The narrative, she share was extremely familiar.  Perchance that is why I was drawn into the calm drama as it unfolded before me.  Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, in her candid manner, in the Inaugural Prayer, brought the Chief Executive of the United States to task.  With knowledge of The Obama Administration’s agenda, a plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Doctor   Reverend Sharon E. Watkins shared a allegory and directly addressed the analogy.  The President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) spoke to the President of the United States with intent.  Her prayer was meant to be more than a homily, easily left in the home of the Lord.  The passionate cleric conceded, the circumstances that exist today are dire.

What you are entering now, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, will tend to draw you away from your ethical center.  But we, the nation that you serve, need you to hold the ground of your deepest values, of our deepest values.

Beyond this moment of high hopes, we need you to stay focused on our shared hopes, so that

we can continue to hope, too.

We will follow your lead.

There is a story attributed to Cherokee wisdom:

One evening a grandfather was teaching his young grandson about the internal battle that each person faces.

“There are two wolves struggling inside each of us,” the old man said.

“One wolf is vengefulness, anger, resentment, self?pity, fear . . .

“The other wolf is compassion, faithfulness, hope, truth, love . . .”

The grandson sat, thinking, then asked: “Which wolf wins, Grandfather?”

His grandfather replied, “The one you feed.”

The congregation was spellbound.  The camera showed a meditative Barack Obama.  The President, with his head in his hand, seemed to consider the parable.  He looked as if he might ponder the parallel.  Minister Watkins continued.

The frank Theologian furthered the thought when she said, “There are crises banging on the door right now, pawing at us, trying to draw us off our ethical center – crises that tempt us to feed the wolf of vengefulness and fear.”  

President Obama, from his facial expressions, understood.  He knew the weight placed on his shoulders.  As he oft expressed, the decision to serve the public was his, and he would do so to the best of abilities.  Yet, Barack Obama often proclaimed, he could not do the nation’s work alone.  Indeed, he would need help from the public.  The Reverend was ready to lend a hand to the Commander-In-Chief.  In service to her country, and perchance, more significantly to the Almighty and the people, planet-wide Sharon E. Watkins submitted.

We need you, Mr. President, to hold your ground.  We need you, leaders of this nation, to stay centered on the values that have guided us in the past; values that empowered to move us through the perils of earlier times and can guide us now into a future of renewed promise.

We need you to feed the good wolf within you, to listen to the better angels of your nature, and by your example encourage us to do the same.

In the hours before the erudite religious leader spoke, much laid in the balance.  Doctor Watkins likely heard the whispers; President Obama might not close Guantanamo Bay Prison as quickly as he had promised.  When asked of the possible release of detainees Barack Obama was hesitant.  He discussed what logistically would be difficult.  

Doctor Sharon E. Watkins seemed to inquire as an ABC News interviewer had not.  Mister President; which path will you choose?  How will ethical principles shape your policies President Obama?  

She too may have marveled at the statement a pious man offered just prior to the inauguration.  On “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama stated, homeland security is his top priority.  The “need” to fight back when terrorists threaten would be prominent features in an Obama Administration.  “We are going to have to stay vigilant, and that’s something that doesn’t change from administration to administration,” the then President Elect said.

Hence, in her homily Sharon E. Watkins invited the newly installed President Obama to obey the sacred principles he had oft professed to believe.

On Thursday, perhaps he did honor the ethical traditions.  As I again, listened to the television from afar, the baritone sounds that echoed in the next room were recognizable.  Barack Obama addressed a small audience of onlookers, each anxious to see him sign three Executive Orders.  Indeed, Commander-In-Chief Obama decreed that this country act on the “some” of the ethical standards the Minister spoke of only twenty-four hours earlier.

President Obama signed directives that authorize a Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.  A Review of Detention Policy Options, and he approved an order that would Ensure Lawful Interrogations.

However, what the President has yet to act on the poignant matters that affect every American, in truth all human beings every day.  War.  As I situated myself before the screen to watch the invocation, I saw a pensive man.  Barack Obama, unlike most in the National Cathedral congregation seemed to study Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins’ every word.  

The Commander-In-Chief appeared to recognize the depth of the sermon Reverend Watkins delivered. Indeed, that is what captured my attention.  While Doctor Watkins had command of her language, she commanded the person who is perhaps, the most powerful human being in the world.  This articulate Minister stood before the President, and eloquently presented parables and scriptures that spoke to the less than honorable and moral issue of vengeance.  

This uncommon; yet commoner, cleric addressed a reverent Barack Obama.  She welcomed reflections on stark realities in a manner that few might.  Doctor Reverend Sharon E. Watkins essentially confronted the new Commander and asked him to evaluate his ethics.  

Solemnly she said, “In international hard times, our instinct is to fight – to pick up the sword, to seek out enemies, to build walls against the other and why not?  They just might be out to get us.  We’ve got plenty of evidence to that effect.  Someone has to keep watch and be ready to defend, and Mr. President – Tag!  You’re it!”

The congregation laughed.  The air for them was light.  However, for Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, there was no humor in her words.  

G-d’s representative spoke of the change she, and I could, believe in.

While most Americans delighted in the news of today’s Executive Orders, I wonder if Reverend Doctor Watkins worried as I do.  Later, on Thursday afternoon, at 3:10 Post Meridian, when once again, I stood frozen in front of the “tube.”  I felt the futility of fight would be America’s fate.

The baritone, Barack Obama boomed, as if defiant of the deities.  “The world needs to understand that America will be unyielding in its protection of its security and relentless in its pursuit of those who would carry out terrorism or threaten the United States.”

I wondered.  Had Reverend Doctor Watkins heard the statement?  Does she now know as I do, which wolf Barack Obama will feed.

Update . . .

Two U.S. missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan, sources say,

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — Seventeen people were killed Friday evening in two U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal region, said one government and two military officials.

They are the first such strikes since President Obama took office Tuesday.

Both hits were near the Afghan border, said local political official Nasim Dawar. The Pakistani military sources asked not to be named because they are not authorized to release such information.

The first strike, which killed 10 people, occurred about 5:15 p.m. (7:15 a.m. ET) in a village near Mir Ali in North Waziristan, the officials said. Seven people died in the second hit at 7:30 p.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) near Wana, the major town in South Waziristan, 17 miles (27 kilometers) from Afghanistan, they said.

References for realities, real, and those imagined by vengeful, fearful, humans . . .

The Elections and Ethics; Gas and Gratification

Will A Gas Tax Holiday Help?

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert

Americans speak of the divide within this country.  Most accept the labels.  We are a nation of Red states and Blue regions.  People define themselves as Conservatives or Liberals.  West Virginian primary election voters, who were asked, reinforced the notion in this nation we are not unified.  One fifth of those polled stated, skin color influenced their decision.  Former Senator John Edwards often expresses his distress for what he sees as “Two Americas.” The one time Presidential candidate reminds us of why the common folks clamor.  The rich get richer while the poor become more impoverished.  For some of those who fight to endure, a “gas tax holiday” is thought essential.  Others believe such a measure will negatively effect the infrastructure and the environment.  In Grand Rapids, Michigan on May 14, 2008 a Black man and a white man stood on a stage together united and equal.  Some, in this splintered nation of ours, thought this was a sign.  Perhaps, Americans would finally come together as one.

People applauded and expressed a sincere hope for the future.  However, what segregates us may not be easily transcended; nor is it obvious and observable.  Ethically, Americans are not united.  Often the person the public elects to govern does not share their values, although citizens believe the esteemed Representatives do.  Rarely do we imagine that there are a myriad of definitions for morality.  However, there are.  What one person or persuasion thinks rational and reasonable is heinous to another.  This is not obvious or observable, for we all feel certain there is but one truth.  Nonetheless, research illustrates what we might consider before we hire, the next President/

Holier Than Thou? Employees Who Believe They Are ‘Ethical’ Or ‘Moral’ Might Not Be


October 31, 2007

Bad behavior seems rampant in business [politics], and scholars are divided as to why people act ethically or unethically.  Many have argued that ethical behavior is the result of simple judgments between right and wrong.  Others suggest that the driving force behind ethical behavior is the individual’s moral identity, or whether the individual thinks of him/herself as an ethical person.

New research from the University of Washington suggests that both of these forces are at play.  In two separate studies, Scott Reynolds, an assistant professor in the Michael G. Foster School of Business, and Tara Ceranic, a doctoral student studying business, surveyed roughly 500 college students and managers about their ethical behaviors.

In the first study, researchers asked students if they would have cheated in college in order to score better on a test.  Those who explicitly considered themselves to be moral people and considered cheating to be morally wrong were the least likely to cheat.  In contrast, students who considered themselves to be moral but saw cheating as an ethically justifiable behavior were the worst cheaters.

“Our research suggests that a moral identity motivates behavior, but that accurate, ethical judgments are needed to set that behavior in the right direction,” Reynolds says.  “A person’s moral identity can interact with his or her judgments and actually push ethical behaviors to extreme levels, as we saw with the students who decided that cheating was justifiable and OK.”

According to the researchers, a moral identity specifically centers on a person’s moral aspects and acts as a self-regulatory mechanism that sets parameters for individual behavior and motivates specific actions that are moral.

Previous studies implied that moral identity is “good” when it is associated with and motivates individuals toward socially desirable outcomes such as volunteering and making charitable donations.

Reynolds and Ceranic found that this motivational force needs direction, and that without proper guidance a moral identity can conceivably push individuals toward socially undesirable behaviors.

“Moral identity seems to be more motivational in nature than ‘moral’ in nature,” Reynolds says.  “Managers and organizations should not just assume that a moral identity will necessarily translate into moral behaviors.”

Executives and the electorate must consider that a performance may not be as principled as it appears.  Adults are only children in older bodies.  Babies learn how to get what they want.  Boys and girls perfect the practice.  Men and women are masters.  As we age, Americans, become better actors, not more ethical, merely more expert entertainers, and obtainers.

In a prosperous nation such as the United States, when a baby cries, Mommy coddles her child with the candy he craves.  If she does not, mother risks the toddler will throw a tantrum.  Dad does not hesitate when his little princess screams, “I want it!”  Papa understands a young women’s scorn can be great.  Daddy has no desire to be part of a stressful situation.  

Parents have learned to pamper themselves.  Moms and Dads indulge themselves, just as their caregivers’ cosseted them in their youth.  In this nation, people expect to receive.  Here, we have more than we need, and the price is right, or it was until the cost of petroleum rose.  Granted, many struggled to survive before the bottom fell out of the oil barrel.  However, these impoverished individuals were and are virtually invisible to the mainstream.  Perhaps, those without never had the opportunity to grasp the notion that the ends justify the means.  Nor did these less than distinctive individuals fully comprehend in affluent America if you wish to be successful and fulfilled you must adopt a certain style, an ethical standard.

Give the people what they want and you will get what you need.  Presidential hopefuls, New York State Senators, Governors, and those who are groomed for political prominence are fully aware of this truism.  

Promise the public a holiday from gas taxes, and perchance they will award you with additional support or  a spectacular win.  If a political aspirant wishes to ensure greater success amongst the electorate, then pledge to punish those who the people envision as the enemy.  Large corporations, whose Chief Executive Officers profit off the petroleum people depend on, conglomerates such as ExxonMobil,  are always good targets.  It will matter not that experts define the plan as a quick fix. A person who seeks  the highest office in the land will not be concerned if members of Congress, friends or fellow colleagues, reject the proposal.  Words of woe from Economists will not deter a determined doctrinaire dilettante.  When a man or a woman thinks they are correct, experienced, and will be the “best” Commander, then a plan, a pander, are appreciated for the power they yield.  Hence, talk of what may be a terminal action. a holiday that might place our planet in peril, will not die.  

This truth is evident out on the stump.  A month after Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton were harshly criticized by fiscal and political policymakers for a proposed “gas tax holiday’ the scheme survives.  Indeed, the rhetoric thrives.  Americans are comfortable with cognitive dissonance.  They embody this demeanor.  Let us have our cake and eat it too.

McCain: I will not shirk, the mantle of leadership that the United States bears.  I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.

Bash: McCain promised  . . . To reduce greenhouse gases, he proposes a cap and trade solution which caps gas emissions but allows companies to trade emission credits.

McCain: As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy.

Bash: Portraying himself as a rare species of green Republicans is a regular part of McCain’s stump speeches.

McCain: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] I believe is a pristine place.  I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades.

Bash: But coming to Oregon to highlight his environmental proposals is all about the fight  . . . for independent voters.  It’s why McCain is using one of his most precious resources — campaign cash . . .

McCain: I believe that climate change is real.  It’s not just a greenhouse gas issue.  It’s a national security issue.?? End Video Clip) ??

Bash: (on-camera): Democrats and several left leaning environmental groups blasted McCain for what they call hypocrisy.  Putting out, for example, that he praised renewable energy here at this wind power plant, but voted against tax credits to promote research.  The McCain campaign insists that legislation and others like it collided with another priority, which is to cut excess spending.

Indeed, the dollar dictates decorum.  Mores and expediency are often found in monetary policy.  In an opulent region, some pray to the Almighty buck.  It is no wonder the words “In G-d We Trust” are inscribed on every bill and embossed on each coin.

In this, the most affluent nation on the planet, all, but the hidden few, know it is possible to get what you want and not spend much.  Hence the harangue; Americans desperately want to ensure life is comfortable just as it once was.  Until now, in this country, petroleum was cheap . . . and that is the way the people like it.  Actually, comparatively speaking, the price Americans pay for petrol is still relatively low.

Our countrymen are as spoiled children.  They stamp their feet, hold their breathe, pound on the table and say, “Give me, give me, give me what I want, or else!”  Just as parents respond to the pleas of their babies, so too do Presidential hopefuls.  Moms, Dads, and potential Commander-In-Chiefs may be labeled as leaders; however, often they follow.  Ethical standards are often silenced in a time of turmoil.  Consequences can often outweigh principled wisdom.  We see this logic in our children, and in ourselves.

Perhaps, Americans might take a moment and reflect; are we children being coddled, the parent whose priority is to please, or the individual who will patronize just to get what they want?

Might we ponder when a Commander-In-Chief or a Presidential aspirant presents a plan that benefits him or her more than it does the progeny and the people seven generations from now.  Please remember the research; “Employees Who Believe They Are ‘Ethical’ Or ‘Moral’ Might Not Be.”

Consider the scenario.  Senator Clinton offers a glorious summary of her experience.  She is abundantly able.  When her future employer, the electorate, pressed her on an important issue, such as the cost of gas, Hillary Clinton offered her plan to the people who might provide her with what she most wants.  Just prior to the primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, the former first Lady Hillary Clinton called for gas tax holiday.

The Arizona and New York Senators were not the only government officials to suggest that Americans need some relief, even if only temporary.  Governors also thought to appease the masses.  One day after Economists everywhere pointed to the problems with such a plan, Governors from The Everglades expanse, in the Show Me State, in The Empire area and lawmakers in the Lone Star region signed on to the idea that citizens need a gas tax holiday.

States Get In on Calls for a Gas Tax Holiday

By Damien Cave

The New York Times

May 6, 2008

Slocomb, Ala. – Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has been fighting to cut 10 cents from the state’s gasoline tax for two weeks in July.  Lawmakers in Missouri, New York and Texas have also proposed a summer break from state gas taxes, while candidates for governor in Indiana and North Carolina are sparring over relief ideas of their own.

If experience with such gas tax “holidays” is any guide, drivers would save less than politicians suggest. But that is not necessarily the point.

“It’s about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they’re dealing with at the kitchen table,” said Mr. Crist, a Republican.

He added, “I’m supposed to respond to the people and try to make them happy.”

As talk of the possibility increases, throughout the countryside individuals are thankful.  To many Americans it seems, finally, politicians are listening to them.  The common folk forget that those who compete for elected positions never overlook the fact that the populace has the power to appoint a President, a Governor, or any other policymaker.  In a republic, many individuals who wish to “represent” Jane and John Doe have one purpose.  They wish to please [placate] the public.  If the people are content, the life of a politician is good.  If the public is displeased, they will act out as an angry child might.

Actually, parents [politicians] have learned to pamper themselves just as they were indulged in their youth.  Mother gives herself a present, or two.  She shops ’til she drops.  Papa purchases plenty for himself.  In the wealthiest country in the world, “Waste not; want not” makes little sense.  Here, we have more than we need, and the price is right, or it was until the cost of petroleum rose.  Americans, comfy and cozy with convenience do not consider the cost of a gas tax holiday.  Ordinary citizens look upon experts as overly protective.  Authorities always offer a doomsday scenario when they do not wish to give gifts.

Economists Criticize Clinton, McCain Gas-Tax Plans (Update1)

By Brian Faler


May 5, 2008

More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a letter rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a summertime gas-tax holiday.

Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin and 2007 Nobel winner Roger Myerson are among those who signed the letter calling proposals to temporarily lift the tax a bad idea. Another is Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was member of President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The moratorium would mostly benefit oil companies while increasing the federal budget deficit and reducing funding for the government highway maintenance trust fund, the economists said.

“Suspending the federal tax on gasoline this summer is a bad idea, and we oppose it,” the letter says. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution is among those circulating the letter.  Aaron said that while he supports Obama, the list includes Republicans and Clinton supporters.

If Economists from each political party convincingly challenge a plan proposed by esteemed and ethical persons such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain, how might the people evaluate the dichotomy.?  Who might, we the people, the electorate, those who employ a President trust?

Certainly, these political contenders have long been admired.  Senators Clinton and  John McCain would not  have risen though the ranks were they not qualified, quality candidates.  Americans can have faith neither, a respected former prisoner of war, or a revered former First Lady, would recommend a policy that would intentionally harm the public.  Nor would these leader postulate a proposal that would place the planet in peril.  Yet, Economists, and yes, even Ecologists caution constituents that the gas tax holiday is unwise.  Hence, Americans are left to inquire, how might this variance be explained?  

The answer may not be as obvious as we would wish it to be.  We cannot condemn or condone a plan as Conservative or Progressive.  While the strategies differ, logistically, symbolically they are similar.  Each hopes to allow Americans to continue to consume as they had.  A satiated society can and will simply dismiss ethical questions, and ignore environmental issues.  A child content with candy does not consider how the sugar rots the teeth.  A Mom, who is comfortable with convenience foods, does not contemplate fresh fruits and vegetables might be much more nutritious.  A father fine with his fleet of vehicles does not ponder how he pollutes the air.  

Americans happy to have a gas tax holiday do not think beyond today.  Few recall what was foremost on the minds of the people in the 1970s.  As citizens in this country realized the reality of an energy crisis, laws were passed to improve fuel economy.  Memories are short.  The desire for self-satisfaction is deep.  In 2005, near three years ago, a New York Times editorial addressed what was and continues to be true.

There’s no serious disagreement that two major crises of our time are terrorism and global warming. And there’s no disputing that America’s oil consumption fosters both. Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance both terrorist acts and the spread of dangerously fanatical forms of Islam. The burning of fossil fuels creates greenhouse emissions that provoke climate change. All the while, oil dependency increases the likelihood of further military entanglements, and threatens the economy with inflation, high interest rates, and risky foreign indebtedness. Until now, the government has failed to connect our crises and our consumption in a coherent way.

That dereliction of duty has led to policies that are counterproductive, such as tax incentives to buy gas guzzlers and an overemphasis on increasing domestic oil supply, although even all-out drilling would not be enough to slake our oil thirst and would require a reversal of longstanding environmental protections.

Now, however, the energy risks so apparent  . . . have created both the urgency and the political opportunity for the nation’s leaders to respond appropriately. The government must capitalize on the end of the era of perpetually cheap gas, and it must do so in a way that makes America less vulnerable to all manner of threats – terrorist, environmental, and economic.

The best solution is to increase the federal gasoline tax . . .  That would put a dent in gas-guzzling behavior, as has already been seen in the dramatic drop in the sale of sport-utility vehicles. And it would help cure oil dependency in the long run, as automakers and other manufacturers responded to consumer demand for fuel-efficient products.

Still, raising the gas tax would be politically difficult – and for very good reasons. The gas tax, which has been at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, is painfully regressive. It hits hardest at poor people for whom fuel costs consume a proportionally larger share of their budgets; rural dwellers for whom truck-driving over long distances is an everyday activity; and the gasoline-dependent middle class, particularly suburban commuters, who, on top of living far from their workplaces, have been encouraged by decades of cheap gas to own large, poor-mileage vehicles.

Fortunately, those drawbacks can be overcome.  A bolstered gas tax would raise huge amounts of revenue, roughly $1 billion for every penny of additional tax. Some of that money would have to be used to provide offsetting tax breaks to low-income households, such as an increase in the earned income tax credit . . . Eventually, the gas tax would pinch consumers less, as revenues from it are used to finance long-term structural changes to reduce oil dependency, including mass transit and research into alternative fuels and technologies.

Might Americans be ready to consider, a policy that protects a lifestyle of over-consumption is not as ethical as it would appear to be.  Those who vie for votes, wish to be employed by the electorate.  A candidate may benefit from a simple solution, but what of the Seventh Generation.  Will American adults continue to be as children concerned with nothing but immediate gratification?

There is a better way. Truly dealing with global warming . . .  The good news is that doing so is far more popular politically  . . . Voters overwhelmingly support this objective, and Gallup found last year that 65 percent of voters support spending at least $30 billion a year to do it.

If the environmental movement is to finally translate its rhetoric into reality, it will need to shift its focus from making dirty energy expensive to making clean energy cheap.

Truly, ethical parents who care for the lives of the children in the present, do not indulge, pamper, or pander to the whims of those who have yet learned the art of patience.  The best Moms and Dads teach the young, or juvenile at heart, to plan for the seventh generations, Might we all reflect upon the Chinese proverb . . .

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

As we consider which of the Presidential candidates we will hire, perchance we might ponder.  Are solid solutions and ten-point plans as fish in what we are led to believe is an abundant sea of aquatic vertebrae?  Might a mentor who inspires us to catch our own schools of trout, bass, and salmon better serve us, the people better?  Think of the species yet to be discovered.  

As employers, the electorate, we, future fishermen must assess, who truly has our best interest at heart.  Which individual shares our sense of ethics?  May we acknowledge and act on the imperceptible.  Morality is often in the eyes of the beholder.

References, Research, “Realities” Revealed . . .

Informed Choice? Mandated Vaccines in America

copyright © 2007 Judith Moriarty

We would all like to naively assume that politicians – the medical profession – pharmaceutical companies etc, have our best interests at heart.  The ordinary citizen cannot relate to a world of corporate greed, absent conscience,  that puts profits above any considerations to the well being of public health (environmental protections).  How much is enough profit – apparently there is no limit?  If you have ever been involved in the vaccine program or are the first to jump in line for that flu shot, (other vaccines) it behooves you to take responsibility in not taking the word of every slick snake -oil- salesman coming down the pike promising you protections from the ills of life.  Men care about their bottom lines, stock portfolios, and opulent lifestyles, not you or your child’s health.  

Who owns your child?  Apparently the state.  On Nov 17, 2007, Prince George, Maryland’s State’s Attorney Glenn Ivy, and the county’s public health and education officials, brought the power of the State down on parents who had not gotten their children injected with various vaccines.  Ivy said that he was prepared to throw the parents whose children had not gotten their shots in jail.  “We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but it’s got to be done.  I’m willing to move forward with legal action.”  Glenn Ivy

Question?  How many more vaccines  these are double what they were a few years back) are children going to be forced to get to be able to get a public education?

I noted on the ‘news’ (brief report) that the parents lined up in front of the court house to comply to this order (or be jailed) were mostly Black.  I wondered if this were a test case – an example for other schools across the country?  No Jesse or Al Sharpton!

Could this be about money?

Dawn Richardson at PROVE ( decided to find out.  Dawn called the communications department of the Prince George’s County School District to ask them specifically some questions about the amount of money the school district gets paid per child per day.  They didn’t respond.  Thankfully, The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has some great information about Prince  George’s  County Public Schools.

According to this government website, in the 2006-2007 school year, Prince George’s County Public Schools received $11,325 per student per year).  Why is this important information?  The Washington Post reported that 2300 kids were being barred from school.  This adds up to $63 per student per day – a loss of $144,900 per day for the school district.

Chicken pox vaccine?  It doesn’t work.  A school in Round Rock Texas has more than 40 kids out with chickenpox even though they had all been vaccinated!

It never ceases to amaze me;  that today’s schools can ban cupcakes, peanuts, and institute zero tolerance polices against normal childhood behavior (supposedly to protect the children) and yet parents are not supplied a listing of vaccine (also for themselves) ingredients of the various  microbes, antibiotics, chemicals/heavy metals and animal by products?  In a compulsory inoculation program, it is the responsibility of the developers, promoters, and enforcers to prove safety and efficacy.  Vaccine Ingredients: Informed Choice

The same holds true for parents informed that their child needs to be medicated for their hyper activity, supposed depression, and learning disabilities; i.e. Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs.  What long range testing has been done on these drugs, are they additive, do the cure anything, what are the side effects (including suicide), and does this label my child as having a mental health problem on his/her records?  It is also (sadly many parents are apathetic – intimidated) is the responsibility of the parent to research any and all drugs administered to their child – including vaccines and their ingredients.

Liability: Should you or your child suffer a  disability (death) due to an adverse  reaction to a vaccine how are you protected?  Shouldn’t those mandated under threat of incarceration be made aware of their rights to secure compensation for life long medical bills and care?  Answer – NO.

Though not widely reported (it was the Christmas season) in December of 2005, Congress passed unprecedented legislation giving immunity to drug companies.  This legislation passed by the House of Representatives in the early morning hours of Dec 19, 2005.  It was muscled into the Department of Defense Appropriations, H.R. 2863, bill by Senator Frist (a physician!), and House Speaker Hastert despite assurances made to Representatives that this provision would not be attached to the Defense spending bill.

House Approbations Committee ranking Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, stated, “The conference committee ended its work with the understanding, both verbal and in writing, that there would be no, I repeat, no legislative liability protection language inserted in this bill.  That legislation was unilaterally and arrogantly inserted into the bill after the conference was over.  It was a blatant abuse of power by two of the most powerful men in Congress.”

The  Senate voted for this newly amended version of the Defense Appropriations Bill in a 48-45 vote.  The Senate then passed the amended bill – including the pharmaceutical immunity provisions in a 93-0 vote.  Little opposition to the immunity provision was voiced prior to the final vote.  Senator Kennedy called the legislation ” a basic blank check for the industry” (for any vaccines – including a pandemic flu vaccine).

This legislation allows use of Thimerosal in vaccines:

If the Secretary of Health and Human Services designated that a vaccine is a ‘covered countermeasure” Thimerosal (a mercury containing preservative) can be used in the vaccine, even if a state has enacting legislation banning or limiting the use of Thimerosal.  Any state legislation covering vaccines would be rendered ineffective and Federal law would preempt all state provisions.  This applies to any state provision governing vaccines, not just those provisions pertaining to Thimerosal: Public Readiness and Emergency Readiness Act.

The legislation provides immunity for All Drugs and Vaccines: The language contained in the legislation applies to any drug, vaccine, or biological product that the Secretary of Health and Human Services deems a “covered countermeasure.”  This list could include any commercial drug like Tylenol and is not limited in any way to drugs or vaccines meant to treat a pandemic like avian flu.  The far-reaching nature of the bill was misrepresented in Congress and in the media, where the legislation was presented as primarily concerned with preparations to combat the avian flu.  Since the HHS Secretary has described everything from obesity to diabetes to heart disease as epidemics, under the term of this legislation many drugs and all vaccines can be covered, whether or not they relate to dangerous pandemics or terrorism.

Note: This legislation shows the actions of just who is writing legislation – and its not our elected representatives!

Under this legislation immunity can be granted to drug companies at ANY time:  The immunity language depends on the HHS Secretary declaring that a health condition cause a public health emergency or that some condition could become an emergency at some point in the future.

This legislation gives drug companies immunity for harm caused by their misconduct: The immunity conferred on drug and vaccine manufactures applies no matter what the drug company did wrong.  Even if a drug company operates a dirty facility in which a bath of vaccine is contaminated, and that vaccine kills thousands of Americans, the drug company is immune from liability.

This legislation gives drug companies immunity for all acts short of murder: This legislation explicitly protects drug companies who act recklessly or who are grossly negligent.  An injured person’s claim can go forward only in the case where a drug company acted with such willful misconduct as to constitute criminal assault or murders.  Anything less than criminal conduct is protected.  This language provides the highest standard of proof known to civil law and in unprecedented!  Even if a drug company knowingly kills thousands of people, if no official enforcement action is taken, that company is still immune.

Vaccine Safety is Compromised by this bill:

The express purpose of this legislation is to encourage rapid production of sufficient does of vaccine to inoculate most of the US population.  The vaccine manufactures used blackmail to push the legislation by stating they would refuse to produce new vaccines, the avian flu vaccine for example, unless the legislation was enacted.  

This legislation would permit new vaccines to be rushed to market despite risks that would otherwise cause a legally vulnerable manufacture to exercise caution.  There exist substances proposed as vaccine ingredients that have been insufficiently tested and pose potential health risks.  One such substance, a vaccine additive  called  “MF59” is an oil-based substance used to enhance the body’s immune reaction to a vaccine.  Our public health authorities wish to use MF59 in vaccines in order to enhance production capabilities.  In a recent broadcast of NBC’s Face the Nation Julie Gerberding, head of the  Centers for Disease Control, told Tim Russett that “hamburger helper,” public health’s nickname for MF59, would be used to extend the supply of vaccines.  What Dr. Gerberding did not tell the public is that MF59 is reported to have been used in an experimental anthrax vaccine given to members of the military causing a variety of autoimmune illnesses such as lupus and arthritis, and resulting in a number of deaths.

Those interested in more information on this may read Vaccine A – by reporter Gary Matsumoto.  Source for above: Advocates for Children’s Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning. A-Champ.

The Obfuscation of The Autism Epidemic: Letter by Pediatrician Dr. Kenneth Stoller (in part)

“As a scientist I find the current approach to the autism epidemic – “The Emperor’s New Clothes” approach to be deeply disturbing.  For years, the vaccine division at the CDC and others have said the reason for the dramatic increase (in direct proportion to increase in vaccinations JM) in autism is due to “better diagnosing” and “greater awareness.”  They have encouraged those like Paul Shattuck (researcher) to manufacture uncertainty.  Nevertheless, with 80% of autistic Americans under the age of 18, we will see, clothes and all, a dramatic impact on Social Security in the coming years as these children become dependent adults.  There are NO studies that have found the previously undiagnosed or misdiagnosed autistic individuals among older Americans.”

“We need to address the real reason for the alarming autism rate.  No more secrets or truth-spinning.  This is not a faux epidemiological epidemic, not an infectious epidemic, nor a genetic epidemic ( as there are no genetic epidemics).  That leaves an epidemic linked to some sort of exposure.  The federal government has never tested the type of mercury in vaccines for toxicity.  This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, at worst it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by the liars, thieves, cheats, killers, and the PR junk scientists they employ” Dr. Stoller’s complete letter:  The obfuscation of the iatrogenic Autism epidemic.

While licensing new vaccines and adding them to the mandatory childhood schedule, the government failed to add up the amount of mercury that a child could receive in one visit and cumulatively over the course of the vaccination regime . . .

Neuro-development disorders such as autism have symptoms similar to mercury poisoning.  It is well established that mercury is a neuro-toxin and is harmful to babies in-utero and to the developing brains of children.  There is a public advisory from the government about the risks of eating mercury-containing seafood, but there is no public health advisory about the risks of exposure to mercury in vaccines.  Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used in vaccines since the 1930’s.”

“My name is Lyn Redwood.  I reside in Atlanta Georgia with my husband Tommy and three children.  Hanna, Drew and Will.  My husband and I are both health professional.  My husband is a Physician and I am a Nurse Practitioner.  I also hold a Masters Degree in Community Health Nursing and I’m a member of our County’s Board of Health and local Planning Commission.”

“My son, Will, weighed in at close to 9lbs at birth.  He was a happy baby who ate and slept well, smiled cooed, walked and talked, all by one year.  Shortly after his first birthday he experienced multiple infections, lost speech, eye contact, developed a very limited diet and suffered intermittent bouts of diarrhea.  He underwent multiple evaluations and was initially diagnosed with a global receptive and expressive speech delay and later with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a form of autism.”

I would have never made the correlation between my son’s disability and vaccines until July 1999 when I read that a preservative, thimerosal,  utilized in some infant vaccines, actually contained 49.6% mercury!  The report went to say that the FDA had determined that ‘infants who received thimerosal- containing vaccines at several visits may be exposed to more mercury than recommended by Federal Guidelines for total mercury exposure’.  As health care providers, my husband and I constantly receive notices that adverse effects have been reported with a drug or a product safety sheet has been revised.  Why were NO such notices sent out informing us that thimerosal  preservative vaccines were exceeding federal guidelines for mercury exposure in infants?”

“I reviewed my son’s vaccine record and my worst fears were confirmed.  All his early vaccines had contained thimerosal.  From my research on mercury, I found it to be a human toxicant which is especially damaging to rapidly developing fetal and infant brain.  While acceptable levels for exposure are published by Federal Agencies, mercury is a POISON at any level.  The doses ‘thought’ to be safely allowed on a daily basis by EPA is 0.1mcg per kilogram of body weight per day.  At 2 months of age, my son had received 62.5 mcg of mercury from 3 infant vaccines.  He had received 125 TIMES his allowable exposure on that one day.  These large injected bolus exposures continued at 4, 6, 12 and 18 months to a total mercury exposure of 237.5 mcg.  I also discovered that the INJECTIONS that I received during the first and third trimesters of my pregnancy to prevent RH blood incompatibility also contained MERCURY.”  From Government Reform Committee, testimony, July 18, 2000 .  Lyn Redwood is the Co-founder and President of SafeMinds.

Note – again and again the only action (after they vote on issues they’ve never read, studied, or researched) we have these senseless, do nothing hearings!

Dr. Russell Blaylock reports,

“I was asked to write a paper on some of the newer mechanisms of vaccine damage to the nervous system, but in the interim I came across an incredible document that should blow the lid off the cover up being engineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with powerful governmental agencies.  It all started when a friend sent me a copy of a letter from Congressman David Weldon M.D, to the director of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten then representing the CDC, on the connection between infant exposure to thimerosal – containing vaccines and neurodevelopment injury.”

Congressman Weldon questions the CFC director as to why, Dr. Verstraeten published his results four years later, in the journal of Pediatrics to show just the opposite, that is, that there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal  exposure to infants.  Dr. Weldon refers to a report, the ‘Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information’.  This conference was held on June 7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, which consisted of 51 assembled scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufactures.  It was discovered by Congressman Weldon M.D., that Dr. Verstraeten had left the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium which manufactures vaccines.”

Dr. Blaylock goes on to explain in his report;  that  . . .

“when these officials speak of ‘removal of  thimerosal’ they are not removing anything.  They just plan to stop adding it sometime in the future once they use up the existing stocks which entails millions of doses.”  He states, “incredibly the government allows them to do it.  Even more incredibly, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice endorse this insane policy.  In fact they specifically state that children should continue to receive the thimerosal- containing vaccines until new vaccines can be manufactured at the will of the manufactures.”

Dr. Blaylock explains,

“The obvious solution is to use only single dose vials, which require no preservatives.  So, why don’t they use them?  Oh, because it would add to the cost of the vaccine.  Of course, we’re only talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worth the health of a child’s brain and future.  It was disclosed that thimerosal is in all influenza vaccines, DPT (and most DTaP) vaccines and all HepB vaccines.”

Dr. Blaylock reports,

“”Those in this meeting admit that we have a form of mercury that has been used since the 1930s and that NO ONE has bothered to study the effects on biological systems, especially the brains of infants.  NOTE – the mercury in vaccines is ethylmercury not methylmercury (which those discussing its merits had no idea of).  In a society of hundreds of millions of people there are groups of individuals much more sensitive to this toxin than others.  For instance, the elderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, small babies, premature babies, those on certain medications just to name a few.  As to the needless vaccinating for Hepatitis B; the only at risk group among children is those children born to drug using mothers infected with Hepatitis B or HIV infected parents.  In fact most studies show that children catching the measles or other childhood disease have been fully immunized.”

Why the sensitivity?  

“The ‘vaccinologists’ (a made up term) with their problem of ‘concrete thinking’ cannot seem to appreciate the fact that not everyone is the same.  They fail to see the ‘uncertainties’.  To further emphasize this point lets take a farming family who lives with three miles of a coal burning electrical plants (or incinerator).  Since they also live near the ocean, they eat seafood daily.  The fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the crops contain levels of mercury.  The coal burning plant emits high levels of mercury in the air they breathe daily and the seafood they consume has levels of mercury higher than EPA standards.  This means that any babies born to these people will have very high mercury levels.  Once born they are given numerous vaccines containing more mercury.”

See The Truth behind the Vaccine Coverup  for Dr. Blaylock’s in-depth report!

The children of chemical alley in the Gulf; are much more susceptible to neurological impairment, than say, a child born in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.  A child living at grand zero, to an waste burning incinerator, is much more apt to suffer mercury/chemical overload; thus the increase in autism, learning disabilities , birth defects and  other auto immune diseases.  A child living in the same state, removed by miles, and absent any polluting industries, has a better chance of health than his distant neighbor, although any child (adult) injected with mercury (heavy metals) is at risk.

“A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?”  Dan Olmsted, “I have not seen autism with the Amish”, said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter – century.  “You’ll find all the other stuff but we don’t find autism.  We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.”

“In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services threats thousands of never – vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions though Illinois’ relatively permissive immunization policy.  Homefirst’s medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never – vaccinated children; the national ratio is 1 in 166 (lower now) according to the CDC.  We have a fairly large practice.  We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.  We have enough of a sample.  The numbers are too large to not see it.  We would absolutely know.  We’re all family doctors.  If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication.  It’s frightening.  You can’t touch them.  It’s not something that anyone would miss.”

“Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, a Florida family practitioner with ties to families who home school their children, told Age of Autism he has proposed a study. ‘  I said I know I can tap into this community and find you large numbers of unvaccinated home schooled and we can do simple prevalence and incidence studies in them, and my gut reaction is that you’re going to see no autism in this group.”

See: Dan Olmsted also Age of Autism.

One would  think  that these  professionals (medical and governmental);   making back room decisions  for the multitudes (including third world children) would err on the side of caution and take the precautionary approach?  If there’s the slightest chance of dooming a child to a world of mercury, induced madness – relegating them to a black hole existence, why would career, political ambitions, or blood money take precedence?  Apparently, it does and obviously, men will sell their souls for a pittance?  Worse yet, these men/women, have seen to it that they are legally (our legislators made this possible) protected from any and all liabilities.  A family is on their own.  With social services almost non- existent in many areas, this spells disaster.

When autism comes into a home the family structure is altered forever.  My brother was the happy baby, laughing and talking, etc, that Lyn Redwood and her physician husband remember.  My brother Jerry, like their son Will, disappeared one day after a series of shots at 18 months.  My impoverished parents went from doctor to doctor seeking an answer.  How were they to know that it was our family doctor (unknowingly) who had injected him with the vaccine that destroyed his life. My parents (like other parents) were not given any information as to the chemicals etc, in these vaccines.

My parents were told that he was a slow learner, hearing impaired, etc.  Everything but the truth.  The relatives said he was ‘crazy’.  The neighbors said he was the result of the sin of my parents.  My mother tried to tell us he was a gift from God.  I didn’t buy this (though I remained silent).  I didn’t think God deliberately sent down broken, mentally impaired babies, as gifts!  He was a gift, in the sense, that his presence demanded kindness, gentleness, compassion, and learning to listen to his pain and lostness, in a world without words.

He deteriorated in health and became very self abusive.  You couldn’t cry in our house as this would set Jerry off into a tangent.  Finally, my parents, with other children to protect from harm, had to institutionalize him at age 12.  I spent my childhood visiting this place; where society locked away the less than perfect, the deformed, and twisted.  My brothers supposed ‘caregivers’ ended up by killing him.  Abuse was rampant in this place (as in all institutions).  They  blamed it the residents who couldn’t speak and deny it.  Long after his death, and the death of my parents, I went to work in this place.  Another long story.  I can tell you,  that NOBODY abused a resident in my presence – nobody!

Who are the truly deformed and twisted in society?  I think it’s those who pose as healers – as responsible corporate business interests – and jive- talking politicians.  It took all of them, working in concert,  to destroy the lives of thousands of children – maybe hundreds of thousands, worldwide?  There’s your axis of evil.


Fast Forward; The Story Unfolds. Fade into Feelings

© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Years have passed Gary.  I have learned so much.  I can only hope that you feel as I do.  There were so many misunderstandings; there is still so much pain.  You taught me of love, perceptions, communication, and how each of these is important.  Understanding these in total is vital to the health of an individual and a relationship.  I am writing in love, sharing our story from my perspective.  I am working to communicate.

Through you, I discovered being “right” or “correct” is not beneficial.  The two concepts are not as you stated, synonymous.  The intent to be either is, in my mind unwise.  Each is only discernment, personal and individual.  People tend to think they are acting ethically, morally, and honoring common values, even when they are not in the minds of another.  When one of us is intent on being or believing they are “virtuous,” no one “wins.”  I believe, after much reflection, we, as separate beings suffer when we do not work in as one.  The quality of the relationship is lost.

Gary, I accept and acknowledge that I, perhaps we, understand nothing with certainty.  Sadly, through our association I realized that much of what any of us believe is a reaction to pain and fear, our own.

Dearest Gary, you mentioned you were always honest with me.  Honesty without reciprocal reverence, open, trusting, vulnerability can hurt rather than heal. 

This afternoon, you claimed vehemently, that I “blew you off!”  When?  How?  Where?  Moreover, why would I?  I had wanted to be with you more than I ever imagined wanting to be with any other person.  Yet, you saw our exchanges differently.  I ask you to please ponder this scenario.  I reversed the perspective.

Perception; Assumptions are only Associations.

You meet me for the first time, we talk, talk, talk, for close to four hours.  There is so much energy, so many common interests, and infinite seeming similarities.  I call you and express an interest in getting together.  You call me the morning of the day we are getting together, just to chat and share.  A man answers my phone.  You freeze and hang up.

You may wonder?  When we do see each other, the conversation continues to be stimulating.  You discover in the course of this conversation, as I desire to be honest and I am always completely honest with you, what this man means to me.  I tell you that he is my best friend, the person I met many years ago when I was most vulnerable.  He is physically beautiful as well as a beautiful person.  Yes, he has the key to my home and my heart.  You are so confused.  Why did I ever approach you?  I have another. 

Soon after, I email you and ask to see you again.  You wonder why am I asking; my life is full.  There is no room for you.  You are puzzled.  You question yourself, `Why would you accept?’  But you do.  The conversations are so stimulating.  It has been a long time since a stranger has been this interesting. 

A few weeks later, I cancel a date with you because he needs my help and of course, I will always want to help him.  He and I are spending the weekend together; we are working on a project he needs to do for school.  I call you to reveal the reality and the reason I cannot be with you because I know the importance of honest communication.  I even ask you for your thoughts, insights, and possible references for his project.  I know this subject is one that you too are interested in. 

Being the good person you are you offer your right wing resources; we laugh.  We hang up so that I can go back to help him.  My male friend and I are doing as we do, spending the day together, talking, talking, talking, and doing.  We are sharing the nights together, sleeping together, and being close . . .

If I have him, why would I want to be with you?  You know that in your own life, when you are part of a couple, you are loyal, faithful, and the friendship is very fulfilling.  There is no need to be with another.  Talking, talking, talking can be so gratifying when with you are with the one you love.  Why would anyone in love waste time or talk on surface silliness with a total stranger?  If you were he, my man, would you feel comfortable knowing that I was talking to another man?  One short occasion is odd enough, but having more meetings . . . you may assume my man would think all this talk with another man, would truly hurt his relationship with me. 

Isn’t there an element of trust that might be lost if one person or the other spends so much time talking to someone else?  Doesn’t trust evolve through togetherness, being together, talking, endlessly about anything and everything?  You may think, `if you were him, you would want to be with me.’  You assume I just want company, anyone will do, and my man is not home for this hour or so.  You perceive that your time talking with me is nothing serious; at least it is not be serious for me.  You know, or think you do, that I would never want to hurt him.  You may muse, what do you really know of me? 

You only know your own experiences, your own past.  Maybe different people do relationships differently?  You think and hope for yourself that you will not be interested in me.  You do not desire to feel anything anyway.  You are not in the mood to be truly close to anyone.  You are not certain that anyone would ever want to be with you.  There is too much hurt, too much confusion.  You are already consumed with not feeling good enough.  Recently, a person you love and trust hurt you.  You now doubt your choices.  At the time, you did not know he too was hurting.  You are questioning yourself, your worth and so, of course you believe I will never be interested in you anyway.

People are forever telling you that they find you unique, unusual; you have energy, enthusiasm, and are so entertaining.  You have long felt sad that you are not necessarily integrated into their `real’ lives, but you accept that.  You have not yet reflected, realized, or really understood that this was your own `perception.’  I will teach you about `perception,’ `love,’ and `compassion.’ 

Much later, you will learn that you were desired, lovable, others believe in your worth.  Only you rejected your own importance.  There were those that desired to be with you forever.  For now, all you know is that others find you amusing.  Are they laughing at you?  You have ample experience that others enjoy your being so entertaining and then when they are through, they leave.  You assume this is true for me.  My man, my love must be busy for an hour or so on Friday evenings and eating with you is better than eating alone. 

You are infinitely more interactive than a television screen.  I can choose to talk if I want to, but I choose.  I have the controls.  If I don’t like the program [you], I can change the channel by just getting up and leaving.  You realize, unfortunately by now, that you enjoy my company and the conversation. 

The sadness for you is that you really delight in who you believe me to be.  The experience of exchanging with me is energizing for you.  This is scary for you.  You desire so deeply not to have feelings for me.  I emailed that I too, enjoy your company and conversation.  You told me the first night we met that you do not desire to eat alone; you prefer the entertainment of eating out.  You consider that this is true; you are entertaining me.

Then, we were close.  Why?  What happened?  What must I think of you?  After such a short time of being acquainted with each other, we are joining together in what ideally is a very special and intimate act.  We barely even know each other.  You think possibly he and I are having problems.  Am I hurting, reaching out to be held?  You do not understand.  Do you suppose, I am thinking of him, feeling bad because I know I am dishonoring him by being with you.  I do seem uncomfortable; I appear to be distant. 

Later, I wrote to you that this was so unexpected.  Even later still, I wrote to you of being uncomfortable with closeness and you wonder if this is my way of telling you that I cannot be with you.  You know that I am with him.  I am comfortable in my closeness with him.  I suggest in email we would discuss this later.  I seem to express that I know the importance of honesty, chatting, and caring enough to come to an understanding.  We never did.  I wrote of the necessity to finish schoolwork, professional projects, being tired.  You wonder if the conversation is not comfortable or truly not important to me.  I later make it perfectly clear that this coming together will never happen between us again.  You understand.

Maybe this was casual sex?  This is not your impression of me, that I would take `making love’ so casually, but after all, you truly don’t know me.  All you can assume is that this did not feel good, safe, or sane to me.  Talking about such a sensitive subject is not comfortable for you either.  You did tell me that.  You prefer to speak of logic; you are Spock. 

Feelings are not your preference and you did tell me that too.  Expressing your most vulnerable feelings with a virtual stranger is not a conversation you look forward to.  I may say I know the need to talk, but I never create the time.  Ultimately, I tell you we will not be physically close again.  Maybe by ending the physical, I am ending it all?  As I talk, it is clear to you that this is over! 

Phew, that would be wonderful because though you really enjoy me; you are not desiring to be merely entertaining and there is no place in my life for you.  You feel as though you have been loose, lacking in ethics.  If I was someone you were attracted to physically and nothing more, well . . . but you really saw so much more in me.  Now you know that I will never see you as a person of worth.  Look what you were willing to do with a total stranger; one that you know is deeply involved with a beautiful special soul.

Ahhh, you remember; I am in control.  The third time we were together, I told you I needed to be in control.  Definitions?  Hmmm?  Definitive?  Decisive?  You thought that meant I was decisive.  All the women in your past were, and you admired that quality.  Especially since the women in your past were so sensitive, they were simultaneously decisive and flexible, fulfilling your shared desires.  Decisiveness with sympathetic sensibility is quite a quality.  Ooops, you now know sympathetic decisiveness is different from control.  Control, command, dictate, demand . . . Ouch!

I control if we ever converse, the times we talk, the place, the duration, and who drives.  I seem to truly want my space separate from yours and so I insist we arrive in our own cars.  When we are together, I look at my watch, continually.  You may assume I am expressing my need to leave, because I really need and desire to be with him.  He must be home, at my home, by now.  You may frequently wonder, “Why did I ever ask to spend even a moment with you?”  “Why did you agree to be with me?”  Your feelings for me are deep! 

You have told me often how much you enjoy the time we spend together, the talking, the company, and conversation.  You are forever reflecting.  As I have said, I am always and I have always been honest with you!!  I have told you, he is a person I care about, I like, the one that I need to spend time with, want to see, to share with, he is very special to me.  He is my best friend! 

You assume that you are only an hour or so of entertainment for me.  This does not necessarily make sense to you because we have spoken of intimacy, and you know I believe intimacy is very special, people in partnership.  You observe that when I see a married person, part of a couple, but I see them alone at the pool I wonder aloud, “Why are they not swimming with their husband or wife?”  Clearly, I must believe that committed couples are and act as best friends, eternally exchanging and together.  I am not there with my best friend?  You may feel so confused!  There is so much pain, but I refuse to talk to you about it.  It is your pain. 

I am in control, I have the controls, I choose what, when, where, and how I am amused and you are just my entertainment.  I can change the channel, walk out of the movie, or if this is a sporting event . . . well, it is only a game.  Two years from now, when you think to ask, I will honestly tell you that, `Yes, I do play games.’  `I do test you.’ 

You have never in your life played games, not even in sport.  You now remember learning from your Mom that you could not trust those that play games and test.  Did you even know what she really meant when she said this?  Agh, now you understand; you know what she meant by crazy making.  You are living it and you feel crazy!  Besides, you know of yourself that you have test anxiety.  You know that when you are tested you freeze.  Now you know with certainty why you freeze when you are with me.  There is so much confusion and you feel lost.  You are hurting.

I continue to email you each Friday, asking if you would like to meet.  You know you really like me as a person.  You wish you didn’t.  For you, when we were “one,” it was not without meaning or feeling.  You hope that you will be able to put this in perspective; it is only physical for me, and can be nothing more.  As time goes on, you may wonder more and more, why I am even spending any time with you. 

No two things can occupy the same space at the same time.  You may believe that the few times you and I talk or are together, a moment in passing or an hour and a half on Friday evenings are times that he is not able to be with me?  You are aware that I never call you to chat and so you assume it is because I am with him.  After all, he is my best friend and the person I am comfortable with. 

I have told you I am not comfortable with closeness, but I am comfortable with him.  I show you that I am only comfortable being with you for an hour and a half on Friday evenings, nothing more.  Can’t you understand and accept that?  I have friends, a life, all separate from you.  You assume if I wanted to include you, to integrate you into my life, I would.  I am a very strong and self-assured woman.  I have him; he is my best friend.  For you, a best friend surpasses all others.  Anyone else is superfluous.  So you may assume you are superfluous. 

I have divulged that yes; he and I have sex.  We sleep together; spend time doing things together, because I am so comfortable with him.  Of course, he is the person I am open and vulnerable with.  I speak of him often.  I may mention a story; something he and I shared.  He is a large part of my life.  You know that we all, as people need to be close, comfortable, safe, and trusting with someone.  He is “my someone.” 

On his birthday, again, I cannot be with you.  I will always be honest with you, and I also honor him.  He is important in my life.  He is the person I feel comfortable, safe, and I am able to be vulnerable with.  Though I have told you I will never marry him, I have also shared with you that he would make a wonderful father to my children.  He does believe we have dated and are dating, but I do not see it this way!

On a few occasions, you desire so deeply to be with me, but when you call, he answers.  On an occasion, you drove by, knocked on the door and he was there.  You see his car at my home often.  Often I seem annoyed with you.  When I am bothered or annoyed with you I go to where you are and I come with him.  You may wonder, `do I desire for you to see that I do not need you?’  I have him!  Do I choose to reveal to you that I care for him? 

Finally, I phase you out.  There are no more emails, no dinners.  You think, you hope, this will help you to heal.  When you see me, you attempt to hide the pain.  The sight of me is, as a very tender touch to an already infected wound.  You bleed; your blood spills out and saturates me.  You hate so much that you hurt.  You are so sorry that you may be hurting me.  The pain pours out. 

If only healing were that easy.  If only you were able to totally hide the hurt.  If only it were just as I often say it is for me, `just that simple.’  For you, it is not!  There is so much unresolved, so much left unspoken, but as I tell you again and again and you know it to be true for me, “There is nothing to talk about.”  Your desires are denied; I have dismissed you.  Know this, I am honest with you and what may be important or relevant to you, is not important or relevant to me.

I may on occasion show up where you are with another man.  You change your schedule in an attempt to avoid me, but I will appear where you are with him or another.  I will eat at an earlier hour than I have always told you that I prefer.  You may wonder why?  `Do I desire to hurt you?’  `Do I want you to see me with others?’  `Do I desire that you feel certain that I rather spend time being with him or another man, developing a foundation of friendship with any man, enjoying the energy of every other man, anyone but you.’

After too long of never openly discussing what was, is, will, could, or would ever be between us, and assuming we were never more than acquaintances that did the deed, a time or two, or three, or more, you must find a way to accept this as I do.  I said to you, `It was a mistake.’  Mistake?  What does that mean?  I told you many times, “There is nothing to talk about!”  There are wounds; you are still bleeding!  Do I even care?  Later, you will be forever haunted by the memory of my words, “I don’t care anymore!”  You will continue to wonder, when did I care?  For now, it is just a feeling that I don’t care.

One day you drop by my house, fearful of approaching, but you don’t see his car.  You drive around the block over and over.  Instead, you decide to stop and see friends for moral support.  Your heart is pounding; your breathing is shallow, but the pain pours out in your every thought, action, and word.  It has been too long and you have to talk to me; you hope it will help you to rid your heart, mind, and soul of hurts, the misunderstandings. 

Others have tried to help, but only I can help you to understand my feelings, my thoughts, and my actions.  You know you must ask me.  It has hurt for so long.  Others say you have to talk to me; they cannot know me.  Therefore, you drive back to my house.  His car is still not there. 

You park near my carport.  You use his space, the place you often see he parks in.  You are shaking, but you attempt to breathe.  At least, you can admire my beautiful flowers.  Flowers for you are the essence of beauty and life.  While the roses calm you, you also wonder why did I never bring you a rose.  You simultaneously feel somber and serene as you glance at the roses.  Though I know you love to garden, you speak of it often, we never formed the joyous friendship where we would garden together.  Again, you are saddened.  You breathe deeply, one more time, hesitate, and knock on my glass door. 

I answer a knock, not yet knowing it is you.  I instinctively rise from the sofa, see you and then shrug.  I open the glass door and stand very near the door and the counter, directly in your face, so as if to say `I will block your view, your entrance, with my body.’  I am ensuring that you know I am not offering an entrance.  I finally, though reluctantly, allow you to enter.  You did say over and over, that you “need” to talk to me.  You wore me down only because you are wasting my time.  You know how important my time is to me.  I have work to do, but I know I will be able to easily dismiss you.  I can control you, I always do.  If I cannot do it at the door, I know I can and I will deny you your ultimate desire, to talk to me, to be with me. 

As you do, you wait for me to sit and then you sit so close to me.  You know I do not want you near me.  I have honestly told you this over and over again.  I tell you with my body, my words, and my actions.  I have my man in my home and heart.  Then there are all the men I make sure you see me with; it should be clear to you by now, I do not desire to have you in my life.  Doesn’t this say it all? 

I do not ask you to spend time with me.  I refuse your offers to go dinner, to shop, to help you with your projects, your papers, and your thought processing.  I tell you that you are not part of my life.  I do not call you.  I do not sit near you at the pool.  I often ask you, `What is your problem?’  I know I will take care of this now!  I can be perfectly clear and I will cut this tie!  You ask if I think people are disposable.  I answer emphatically, “Yes!”  You seem so surprised.

You can hardly believe this.  You thought that I, as you do, value people, that I would never desire to hurt another, but believe in honoring and revering the worth of others.  You saw me as a sensitive soul, a reflection of yourself, one whose heart knows the sorrow of pain, both real and imagined.  You believed that I, as you, would never desire to hurt another.  You thought the reason my real life was so full of love was because I am lovable, I have love to give, and I give love. 

I live in the world of personal success.  I was able to blend and balance with the beautiful man.  I am perfect in my profession and in my friendships.  You saw my life as full, full of love and compassion.  I am fulfilled.  Wasn’t I the one took great care to teach you of “Love” and “Compassion?”  I helped you to understand that your mother does love you deeply and does not desire to ever hurt you.  I taught you to understand her pain and that she is only dreaming of your happiness.  You thought my fulfillment was a reflection of my filling my world through the sharing of love, not rejection. 

There is so much confusion for you, but not for me!  I love the world and everyone in it but not you!  I have disposed of you and if you had any doubt of my honest feelings for you . . .

Again, I have always been honest with you and I continue to be.  If I take a man boating, a man you once associated with, I make sure you know this.  If I meet a man in California and he wants me to move there, to be with him forever, I tell you this.  I add that I am seriously considering this man’s offer.  If I meet the man of my dreams at a holiday event, one held in a hotel in Palm Beach, I tell you this too.  I speak of this man often.  I introduce him to twelve of my closest friends.  We eat, talk, and laugh over a huge Greek dinner in Delray Beach.  I tell you what fun that was.  Remember, I had lamb?

I will be certain you know how beautiful he and each of these men are.  This man in particular could be the love of my life, forever and ever.  Possibly, it could be another of these men.  Time will tell.  Oh yes, I have always been honest with you!  Have I been open, vulnerable, expressing a desire to be one with you and only you, honestly?  Have I shown or told you how much I care for you?  I preach “risks,” “spontaneity,” “trusting yourself, your heart,” “love” and “compassion” and you wonder with who do I share these?  It certainly isn’t you.

When you continually share with me how much this hurts you, to see me with him or others, I do it more often!  On these occasions you may feel an even greater sense of pain and you choose to write to me in an attempt to express your pain, in hopes that this may offer an opportunity for understanding, open a door to discuss.  You truly believe I am a good person and would never desire to hurt anyone, but . . .

When you arrive at my home at 2:38 AM or 4:30 AM to drop off letters that you spent hours on, pouring out your pain, you know that these are times when people are snug and cuddling in their sleep.  Couples are secure with those they truly love and trust.  Even at these hours, you see his car is there at my home.  It seems it always is.  You leave the notes and other messages, but I never care to respond.

When you do see me, I always seem so angry with you!!!  You attempt to casually chat with me, but if there is another man around, I clearly choose to chat with him!  I know that you are a touchy feely person, but when you reach out to touch me, I pull away!  When we do chat, just as when we had dinners together, I always glance at my watch, as though I am keeping track of the time I will allow for you.  I did tell you I need to be in control and I am! 

There is no place in my life for you.  I do not choose to chat with you, to call, but then I never have, not since the beginning.  I easily initiate conversations, calls, and connections with others.  I never have with you.  If you even attempt to talk or to be close, I scream, I accuse, I blame you, and I have made it perfectly clear that, “I don’t care anymore!”  You wonder when did I ever care. 

Your heart hurts so deeply that even the sight of me, my car, my smiling, laughing, chatting with another, seeming to choose to totally ignore you, forces a flood of feelings.  Your heart pounds, you can barely breathe, but you are certain, I don’t care.  Haven’t I been honest and said so?  How many times have I honestly told you this?  How many times have I let you know directly that I am with my best friend, or the buff blonde, the bulky brunette, the handsome hunk, anyone but you!

Gary, my hope is that after reading this you might understand my perspective.  I reversed our roles so that you might relate to my feelings.  My intent was to evoke empathy. 

Gary, your words are accurate, “Reality is perception.”  This narrative is my truth; this is my experience of us.

People speak of being “right” [not necessarily “right-winged”].  They discuss the desire to win.  Many ponder which is wiser or what do they want most.  After experiencing us as I did and us as I do, I have concluded, “What is right is the relationship.”  If anyone wins, everyone loses.  If either person in an exchange thinks they are correct, I surmise they think of themselves as a winner, holier than thou, whomever thou might be.  A righteous being considers others wrong, evil, and ultimately, believes them the enemy.  I want none of that.  I shared our story as I did to demonstrate; two people supposedly experiencing the same events understand these in ways that are extremely different.

Gary, again I wish to say, I am not right, wrong, correct, or a winner.  I am only sad for I suspect we each lost so much.  I offer you hugs, kisses, and my best wishes.  I hope one day we will join together in understanding.

Dear Reader . . . If the saga is interesting to you and you wish to read of the evolution, please indulge.

  • The Relationship; We Meet . . . © [Chapter One], By Betsy L. Angert.
  • The First Official Date © [Chapter Two], By Betsy L. Angert.
  • Today Is The Date © [Chapter Three], By Betsy L. Angert.
  • April 15, The Anniversary Again ©, By Betsy L. Angert.
  • Scary Song of Compassion? From Conservative Pamela Foster ©

    This is circulating as humor among “compassionate” “conservatives.”  I cannot imagine that this is real; yet, I trust that it is.  The mentality and the message fascinate me, sadly.  The depth of my grief is great.

    I cannot imagine that these “caring” souls consider all Islamic as one.  The narrow frame that equates Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden baffles me.  The disregard for reasons and the rational behind 9/11 overwhelms me.

    This writing nauseates me, as does the idea of “not caring.”  This colloquial phrase is an American euphemism and one I have long thought is the saddest state of affairs.  When we choose not to care, we eliminate all empathy.  We forego any understanding.  Knowledge is not ours, nor is power.

    Nonetheless, those that see “evil” in others embrace this idiom; ignorance is their bliss!  Though I do not believe in promoting the idea of an enemy, I acknowledge that people such as these say, “Know they enemy;” therefore I present this epistle.  Please ponder what this says of America and Americans.  How might the world view us and why?  This for me, is scary stuff!!!!

    Below is the Song of Compassionate Conservatives, those that don’t care at all! . . .

    I could not have said this any better myself, especially today.  The lady, who wrote this letter, is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta.  She’s been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning.  She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq.  Please Read it…

    What’s all the fuss?
    Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it, or was it not, started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were not people from all over the world, mostly Americans, brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol, and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning, or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

    And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was “desecrated” when an over-worked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don’t. I don’t care at all!

    I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

    I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of that is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

    I’ll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

    I’ll care when the cowardly so-called “insurgents” in Iraq come out and fight like men, instead of disrespecting their own religion, by hiding in mosques.

    I’ll care when the mindless zealots, who blow themselves up in search of nirvana, care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

    I’ll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

    I’ll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists, just as Newsweek’s lies did a few weeks ago.

    In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave Marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.

    When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners, who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don’t care.

    When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head, when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don’t care.

    When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed “special” food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled,” you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don’t care.

    And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled “Koran” and other times “Quran.” Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and — you guessed it — I don’t care!”

    Serenity, The Absence of Another’s Should ©

    Serenity is a life without “should,” the “should” that others believe is best for you.

    Among the mantras, that my Mom shared with me was this,

    “No one has the right to tell you what you should think, say, do, feel, or be!”

    As the world and I witness the passing of two persons, that of Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo, I am reminded of this.  One passed with much hoopla, hollering, and howling.  The other passed in peace.  For me, a peaceful passing is quite powerful.  It is dignified, and freeing.  I believe that serenity is the absence of an external, imposed should.

    May we always reflect and remember what we would wish for; may we offer the same to others.

    In homage to my Mom, I share the story of The Little Prince.  It is among our favorites.  I thank the author of this web-link for offering this inspirational text and the glorious illustrations.