Religions of Peace

This posting may be the most controversial that I have ever written, and is probably capable of more misinterpretation than any that I have yet put on paper. It's something that I have been carrying around in my head for quite a while however (there is plenty of unused space up there after all), and realizing that the Wednesday rant this week would be my 600th posting on the site made it seem as good a time as any to trot it out.

Condemn me as an apostate if you will, but I ask that you at least read it through (and carefully) before making any judgment of me. This offering is not intended as denigration of any religious belief including my own, but instead of the acts that have been perpetrated in the name of such belief.      

There are many today using the attacks of Muslim extremists around the world to vilify the Islamic religion. They point out that while the tenets of this religion are ones of peace, those committing these violent attacks on civilian populations today do so in the name of such beliefs. They further make the case that these attacks are not limited to populations of non-believers (those believing in other religions), but that many of the attacks committed are by Shiite Muslims attacking Sunni Muslims, and vice versa (and yes, I do understand that their are differences between the two).     

One can hardly help but notice however that the current crop of terrorism in the world does seem to come from such contradictory beliefs and practices held under the religion of Islam. One can also say that believers in Islam seem to have cornered the market on such actions in recent years. To my knowledge there are no current Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist terrorist groups currently operating on any scale around the world.   

This is not to say however, that the Islamic faith is the only one guilty of such inconsistency, or of acts of unspeakable violence and depravity, and that as a consequence, that many other religions have their share guilt to atone for. Jesus too preached a religion of peace some 2000 years ago, and yet some of the most violent and terrible acts in the time since have been done in His name.   

The Crusades for example, are often romanticized as heroic knightly deeds done in defense of the Holy Land; but the truth is far less appealing. Not only was a great deal of savagery and torture perpetrated by these Christian knights in their looting and pillaging of lands not their own in the name of greed (not their God), but far too often they pillaged their Christian allies as well on the road to what were considered ripe pickings in the lands around Jerusalem. 

No one who has studied history will likewise be able to ignore the acts of barbarism, torture, and murder that were committed during The Inquisition(s). History in fact defines four separate Inquisitions, the first beginning in the 12th century and the last going on until around 1860. One of the most notorious, The Spanish Inquisition, spread this reign of terror from Europe to the new world, torturing and murdering innocent native populations in the Americas who would not accept what these conquerors considered "the true faith". 

Even the suffering that occurred in the "Troubles" of Ireland, while attempting to deal with long-standing issues of a brutal occupation and national sovereignty, carried a religious component within the British Isles. 

If we want to look further back, we need only study the Old Testament of the Bible. Here we can read the chronicle of that same God (for members of both the Christian and Jewish faith at least) similarly putting unbelievers to the sword at various times. The Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Philistines all found this original Jewish state more than willing to take up the sword (and pretty successfully according to the accounts) in the name of their Deity when necessary. Those living in many of those same lands today (and still fighting the same battles, according to some) have found the current Jewish state an equally formidable opponent. 

The Old Testament further tells us that these acts were considered both righteous and Godly, and well in keeping with the behavior of a Supreme Being of peace who was not above committing an act of violence in the name of religious retribution Himself (Can you say "The Flood" or "The Tower of Babel"?). So while it must be admitted that believers in Jewish faith have, down through history, far too often been the target of such inexcusably brutal behavior (and continue to be today), their own past is not entirely unblemished. 

Some early civilizations of course, like the Romans and Greeks, simply gave in to the violence in human nature and religion by having a god of war on which they could blame such human activity. In the Americas, the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Mayans likewise had no problem reconciling the concept of religion and violence. Their belief system did nothing more to excuse such acts as being justified by religion, but did at least save them from the potential moral schizophrenia inherent in trying to follow a peaceful dogma while committing horribly violent acts. 

None of this of course, is an excuse for the current acts of terror and barbarism going on in the world today, and any moral justification for committing such acts by claiming that they are "the will of God" is little more than a cheap form of self-delusion. These actions are beyond deplorable regardless of any attempted moral justification, and those that commit them deserve no reward in whatever heaven they claim to believe in (or any other for that matter). That being said, it must be admitted that much of the violence perpetrated by one human being on another throughout history has been done in the name of belief in a purportedly peaceful Supreme Being. While there appear to be limited exceptions to this (some of the eastern religions come to mind), few of them can attempt to assume the moral high ground on the subject if they look closely enough at their own past. 

As for those committing these senseless and unsuccessful acts, they cannot even claim credit for being the inventors of violence in the name of such belief, merely the latest in a long line of disreputable perpetrators. (I call them unsuccessful since while they have proved tactically successful, they have consistently failed to achieve the hoped for strategic objectives for which they were committed.) They prove little more than the fact that vestiges of envy, hatred, and barbarism remain part of the what we choose to call the 'human condition'.

History, if it chooses to remember them at all, will hopefully do so as little more than failed villains. It's likewise to be hoped that their acts will have little if any lasting effect on the long course of societal evolution. If history can be said in fact to have taught us anything however, it is that no one has ever been entirely safe from those following religions of peace.

Primary Day

It's primary day in Kansas and Missouri today, and there are some hotly contested issues and races going on (which might explain the 100 degree temperatures here without falling back on global warming). It is likewise primary day in Michigan, near my former home in Toledo.

Voter turnout in both areas is expected to be less than 20%!

It seems both inconsistent and and incongruous that during a period in the history of this country when nothing is more contentious, that so few will bother to take a side and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. With Tea Party protests, progressive counter-protests, and non-stop news punditry on the state of political upheaval in this country so much on the minds and in the media these days, you would think it would be easy to get out the vote ... even for a primary. 


You would of course be wrong in believing so. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly understandable that a person can look at much of politics in general these days, most of the politicians in particular, and the bastardization of the campaign process that's going on; and throw their hands up in disgust. Professional politicians continue to dominate the campaigns for office, their commercials are excruciatingly annoying (on an almost Biblical scale) with a non-stop assault of 'half-truths, mis-truths and outright lies', and primaries often mean so little; that actually having to pick candidates can bring on serious bouts of nausea. 


That being said, the only way that anything has a hope of changing in this country is if as many people as possible participate in the process. So I urge those of you to bite the bullet, hold your nose if you must, and cast your ballot for the candidates that believe most as you do on this election day. 


There will be a notable posting tomorrow for my mid-week rant, both because of the subject matter and because it will be my 600th posting on Just Blowing Smoke. While some of what has appeared here over the years will never be considered timeless prose, much of it has involved a great deal of effort and perspiration, as well as some occasional brain cramping. Because we all like to make a big deal out of round numbers however, I decided that tomorrow's subject would be one of some importance. I urge you to find the time to take a look at it (and carefully).

Congressional (Dis)Approval

Recent polling data shows that the American people are not particularly happy with the current crop of elected representatives supposedly serving them in Congress. Of course this might have something to do with the fact that Congress turned a deaf ear to the greater part of the American public during the health care debate, and that even now after its passage we find support for health care reform hovering at about 38%. 


With the subsequent passage of a financial reform package that was going to curb the excesses of Wall Street and protect John Q Public from evil banking institutions, we now see that few of Mr. Public's extended family (about 32.8%) believes that the country is going in the right direction. But certainly the recent exhibition of a serious hearing disability from Congress can't be the only reason that voters are so disgusted. 


Perhaps then, it's disappointment felt when promises by the current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who might still have some questions of her own to answer about the use of military aircraft) to end some if not all of the corruption committed by law makers were less than fulfilled. Yes, we saw lawmakers from Louisiana to Nebraska showing just how ugly the legislative process can be while attempting to secure special privilege for their respective districts during debate and negotiation for final vote counts. (R) Scott Brown has proved equally disappointing, sweeping in on a tide of Conservative votes in Massachusetts only to show himself far less principled than promised (though he was taking Sen. Kennedy's seat after all) by casting votes with the Democrats that he campaigned against. 


But it wasn't merely the so-called "sausage making" of legislation that has cast a pall over Congressional credibility, but the corruption as well. We barely had time to forget the $90,000 found in (D) Rep. William Jefferson's freezer (and apparently the over $470,000 that he funneled into shell companies under his family's control), when we were confronted recently with the potential lapses of judgment by (D) Rep. Charles Rangel. Rangel, the former head of the House Ways and Means Committee (the Committee that writes tax laws) has been cited for 13 potential ethics violations for everything from misusing four rent control apartments to not declaring income and assets properly to Congress or the IRS. 


But such behavior is not limited to the House of Representatives, nor is it limited to Democrats. Republicans have had their share of offenders over the years and as a consequence have no claims to sainthood. While Rangel is the latest poster child for corruption in the national legislature, he is far from the only member operating under questionable circumstances. And while many are asking how Congress can let him remain in their midst, few are asking how someone on a Congressional salary can afford the rent on four apartments in NYC, a vacation home in the Dominican Republic, and bank accounts totaling some $500,000. 


Fewer still realize that if he manages to resign from office, he will undoubtedly be able to keep a Congressional pension that should land him about $150,000 per year and a medical retirement program that would be the envy of any of us. Those of us looking however, do not see Rangel as exceptional. 


Far too many enter Congress claiming to want to 'serve the people' and find themselves millionaires by the time of their eventual departure. Far too many then leave lucrative government service to enter even more lucrative government lobbying or media punditry. The few that choose to forgo such 2nd career windfalls still manage to make the rounds on the paid speaking circuit, get lucrative contracts to write their memoirs, and live in quiet luxury after performing a job that the Founding Fathers considered no more than a temporary position. 


The Founders it seems, had an expectation that after serving their country for a time, legislators would return to the private sector and to 'honest labor'; and would support themselves and their families through their own efforts. I expect that they would be shocked to find Washington DC (named after a politician who retired after 8 years of service to the nation, and without a pension by the way) populated by 'professional politicians' living off of the largess of the American taxpayer. 


The pursuit of power has always been dangerous to both the ruling elite and the ruled, and this appears to be especially so with today's 'public servants'. In fact, one cannot help but feel that for many of those in Congress, their public service turns out to be little more than self-service; with the office providing ample opportunity for greed, graft, and self-gratification (could it be merely coincidence that the House chamber is semi-circular). It should therefore be no real surprise that as yet another election cycle approaches, we now seem to hold those in office with relative disdain. Polling data compiled by Real Clear Politics in fact shows the average for Congressional approval hovering around 21%. 


I suspect however, that this number is even higher than it should be and as the fateful day approaches, that voters will show even less approbation to those running for office this year. I fear that many of our legislators are like to receive a considerable amount of (dis)approval.

The Rules of Laws

The courts are attempting to rule on the Department of Justice lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law in the days leading up to its implementation on July 29th. This is but the first of many challenges that have been filed against this state legislation by both the government and by interested parties around the country, and one would expect that state lawyers will not soon see relief from their labors for some time to come. 


What seems to have become lost in the debate on this particular piece of legislation however is the concept that this country is one which follows "The Rule of Law". Now this concept, for those who have never bothered to consider its implications, simply means that neither the position of individuals or of governments shall be held to be above the laws of the land. The concept was posited at least as early as the days of the Greeks, and by no lesser an individual than Aristotle. 


During Medieval times, the concept was identified with the Code of Justinian from the Holy Roman Empire and the signing of the English Magna Carta in 1215. And even though the latter at least, did not provide the protections to the common man that many seem to think, it did at least provide some relief to barons from the abuses of a monarch. 


Later still, James Madison, the father of our Constitution spoke of the rule in Federalist 57, saying that a legislature can, "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society". Nowhere is any mitigation for this concept seen either in the writings of the Founding Fathers, or in the Constitution itself. In fact, specific provision was made in this founding document which limits and defines the government methods to change improper or onerous laws, up to and including changing the Constitution itself (by making Amendments). 


I therefore fail to understand how the current discussion of the immigration law seems to justify the attempt to make a certain group of people exempt from such law. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because violators have been here so long. Yet many laws already have a "statute of limitations" which prevents the state from prosecuting a person from legal violation after a certain period of time has passed, and immigration law is not one of them. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because those doing so only seek a better life for their families. What other laws should we forgive for such benevolent reasons: bank robbing, kidnapping, petty theft? We are asked to forgive such violations because they are after all, only misdemeanors and require no punishment. What other misdemeanors will also be forgivable without further punishment: drug possession, drunk driving, spousal abuse? 


Of course when viewed through the window of such cold logic and using reason as a basis for discussion, such comparisons seem ludicrous. In fact, many of those same compassionate people are calling for increasing enforcement of many of the offenses that I list. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences have now been made part of law for many such violations in order to remove from the judge the potential for compassion or leniency for violators. 


Also seemingly forgotten in the discussion is the fact that two previous opportunities were provided (in federal law) for legal immigration mechanisms for those in this country illegally. It was promised by Congress that each of these opportunities would solve the problem and would begin the process of stricter enforcement. Yet only the most foolish would believe that they were successful or that stricter enforcement did in fact follow, and those making any claim of belief have no good answer as to why if they were a success, further relief is now required. 


If we are a remain a nation living under the rule of law, we do not get to pick and choose those that we will ignore. While there are stupid laws out there that cannot be enforced, they are still laws until changed. While there are probably more laws on the books at every level of government than can be enforced by all of the enforcement officers in the country, there are mechanisms that can be used to add enforcement or eliminate laws. 


If we are to abandon the principles of governance in this country however, if we are allow selective enforcement for compassionate reasons, if we are to allow the demeaning of one of the principles by which the government functions by that government itself, can we not allow the government and the people of Arizona to similarly choose which laws they will enforce and ask that the federal government not interfere with such choice and drop the frivolous suits?

TFP Column: Taxes By The Numbers

It's always an honor to have one of my efforts made a part of the Toledo Free Press. Having two efforts put up in succeeding days however, is something special. 


This latest column touches on something that appears to be much on the minds of most of us in America ... taxes. Taxes By The Numbers looks at some of the implications of the numbers at what might be the end of what is commonly known as the "Bush Tax Cuts". 


It's interesting to hear what some of those in power are saying in the days leading up to these year end impending tax increases, and more interesting still to see what these numbers actually are. Some of these numbers are almost never openly discussed and most of them should be of great concern to all of us.

TFP Column: Zero Sum Solution

With the addition of financial reform legislation, we see yet another ponderous, mind-numbing, and tree killing bit of Congressional interference in capitalism (apparently killing trees is OK, as long is it's done for the sake of such higher purposes).


Rather than offer any real relief from the heat however, my belief is that it is mitigation of Congressional oppression that is required. Because of a wealth of good material, my offering for the weekend electronic version of the Toledo Free Press is only now coming online. 


I therefore offer for your edification, this week's TFP effort, "Zero Sum Solution". While it may prove small comfort to offer from the heat and humidity stifling most of the country (except that winter is but a few short months away), it may prove a refreshing alternative to the hot air coming from Washington DC.


There is much more however for those of you attempting to discover what's really going on in Toledo and NW Ohio, and it can be found in this weekend's edition of the largest circulation Sunday newspaper in the area, the Toledo Free Press.

Racist Riptide

For those of us attempting to follow, assimilate, and interpret the story this week involving the remarks of Shirley Sherrod; it felt very much like swimming in a riptide. Now for those of you perhaps unfamiliar with the term, a riptide is a current that moves away from the direction of shoreward bound waves. Such a current is also known as an undertow, since it travels under the surface. Riptides are a great danger, as even the best swimmers can be drawn so away from shore by these swiftly moving waters that they find themselves unable to return to the safety of shore; and eventually they drown.

So too were we drawn hither and yon (and farther from the safety of the shore of reason) by unseen currents in this story. First the edited video released on Breitbart.com led many to believe that this was a story of racism on the part of Ms. Sherrod as she spoke of resenting, ill serving, and finally helping a white farmer in Georgia. Then those who took the time to look closer and listen to her speak more carefully of this as a seminal moment in her life, saw the direction shift as she told us of learning that this situation was not about race relations in this country.

The story quickly changed direction again however as the NAACP and the USDA quickly moved to censure Ms Sherrod, decrying the racism that their first  interpretation led them to; with her federal government employers apparently demanding her resignation (at what level this demand may really have come from may yet in fact be a story).

The currents shifted again however, as those in powerful places either finally looked at the entire speech (or at least the entire originally aired video). Apologies were offered (along with renewed employment) and both Mr Breitbart and Fox News were blamed for the undertow of opinion caused by bringing any of this to light (I believe that this tactic is known as "shooting the messenger".) and for the apparently floundering attempts made by the government and NAACP to now swim to safety in these treacherous waters.

Now as the waves appears to have settled on the surface at least for the moment, those left are carefully attempting to make their way once again to safety of shore. They should remain careful however, for we are still left with some potentially uncomfortable currents that must navigated:

• While Ms Sherrod was apparently using this anecdote as a teaching moment, her speech did talk about turning the white farmer over to "one of his own kind", the kind of lightning rod of a phrase that could still be considered racist language when used in any speech, especially by one in government service. Many have been brought down by far less.
• Ms Sherrod's teachable moment taught her that such inequity was not a racist struggle, but a class struggle. This apparent epiphany moving her from potential racism to potential socialism does not appear to disturb many yet (and fear of falsely accusing Ms Sherrod of such sentiments at this point may prevent any follow up questioning on such beliefs). Such protection may not last forever however, unless the story disappears into the B section of the news.
• Ms Sherrod might have reached that teachable moment many years ago, but apparently the audience at this relatively recent NAACP dinner might still be looking for theirs, as they laughed and clapped at the ill treatment that she described performing on a person of another race.  (This likewise seemed to draw little attention, either in fear of further racist charges or because of selective inattention.)
• This is the only speech to have come out of either Ms Sherrod or an NAACP event since the battle lines were drawn with the Tea Party movement. One might suspect that as time goes on, other equally embarrassing moments on the part of either may yet surface.

Additionally, we have discovered that watching presidential press and cabinet secretaries drowning in their own misstatements while attempting to set records in the Olympic backstroke is a swimming event painful to watch on television. Watching them follow it with the political version of the Australian crawl in the same 24 hour news cycle is almost too painful for words. Speaking of words, watching the liberal left media go into a feeding frenzy over a prior feeding frenzy on the right is to mainstream media what watching the fat man Mr Creosote from "Monty Python, The Meaning of Life" is to eating. I for one am embarrassed and ashamed for most of those who claimed either the titles of journalist or pundit.

-------------------------- 

There is little doubt that many of these swirling currents developed as a result of the NAACP condemning racism in the Tea Party movement. There is likewise little doubt that some in the conservative media used selective inattention when watching and listening to this video to drum up their own particular brand of vitriol and feed red meat to certain rabid parts of their audiences.

On the other hand the NAACP and the federal government seemed to have a similar disability when reviewing the same material, drew many of the same initial conclusions, and tarred and feathered Ms Sherrod with apparently equal zeal and relish.

Finger pointing therefore, that will be attempted by both sides with vigor over the coming days, will probably come to little in the end. There is little doubt however, that riptides like the one that we have just experienced can be dangerous places to swim when you are caught in the middle of them, and perhaps none can be so deadly as those shark-infested waters that the term "racism" seems to create any time its used.

Perhaps all will become a little more careful when wading into these waters, and like Ms Sherrod in her video, use this as a teachable moment (though I do hate that phrase).

Military Intelligence

A recent article in the Kansas City Star could not help but catch my attention. Having only recently returned to the Kansas City area, I had little invested in reading the press release from the Rep Ike Skelton that , " ... the Navy plans to move a construction battalion to Whiteman Air Force Base near Knob Noster in western Missouri. The Naval Mobile Construction Battalion-15 currently is stationed at the former Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base in south Kansas City area." 


It did however make me curious. I could easily understand the economic impact that 17 active duty personnel (full-time jobs) and that the 497 reservists (part-time jobs) would be a loss to the Kansas City area. I could also understand that this Construction Battalion probably serves a needed function in the greater scheme of the military. My difficulty arose however when looking at the broader picture of its location. 


While I have relatives currently serving actively in the military, I make no claims to understanding either the military mind or the logistics of construction battalions. I like to think however, that I can bring logic and reason to bear on most if not all of the situations that I consider. 


I have yet to reach a satisfactory conclusion however on the concept of moving a Navy construction battalion from one Air Force base to another, especially when both locations appear to be about as far from an ocean as you can get in the continental US. 


There may in fact be an excellent reason for this naval battalion to operate out of either location (and perhaps someone will point one of them out through comment); but at best the situation has all of the earmarks (pun intended) of a public relations nightmare waiting to happen for the armed services in general and the Navy in particular, and at worst it may be yet one more example of a member of Congress attempting to strong-arm one of our armed services in the name of pork and keep some of the taxpayers' money at home ... no matter how ridiculous such an attempt may appear.

I Blame Fox News

Now for any of you familiar with this blog site, the title of this posting has to be a statement that comes as a bit of a surprise. One hardly expects that someone calling himself a Constitutional Conservative will go on the attack when it comes to the only news network that does not appear to have actively aligned itself with liberal and progressive causes in this country. 


Those of you more familiar with the "inside baseball" of blog sites however, will recognize that such a title posting is likely to generate higher hit rates (something blog sites strive for), as it provides reasons for folks with strong beliefs either way to look deeper. I can't say that I have been overly concerned with hit rates over the years on this site, since I don't have advertisers that reimburse me based on such things; but it does one's heart good (yeah I know, who thought conservatives had hearts) to know that there is someone out there reading your work. 


Besides, it appears that my readership has already gone up lately recently, since a site called Before it's News has begun picking up postings on this site on an RSS feed. To the point however ... The furor over the case of Shirley Sherrod and the USDA drew my attention this week, as it appears it did many others. Curious over the latest reports, I decided to follow up on the NAACP's position reversal on Ms. Sherrod, and its claim that the mistaken position that they originally took in the case was because they were "snookered by Fox News". 


Setting aside the fact that 'snookered' is not a term of common parlance these days, that few reporting on the story seem concerned with the audience reactions at an NAACP dinner to the pronouncements of Ms. Sherrod on her treatment of this "white farmer" from many years ago (and before they knew that this was supposed to be a teaching moment), and that no one forced either the White House or the NAACP to condemn Ms. Sherrod without more careful investigation; I found the accusation against Fox News troubling. Not believing in coincidences, I was forced to look further into Fox News and its owner Rupert Murdoch. I couldn't help but wonder what further societal ills might be laid at their feet.

• Mr. Murdoch began acquiring newspaper properties in the US in 1973 with the San Antonio Express through his company News Ltd, going on to purchase the New York Post in 1976. In the years since, the newspaper industry has seen a gradual decline in both its prominence as a source of news and its revenue.
• In 1981 they went on to acquire half of 20th Century, taking over the rest in 1984. Many would argue that both the originality and quality of movies have similarly declined since the 80's.
• In 1986 they went on to complete the purchase of the Metromedia group of television stations, and the Fox Broadcast Company was born. Like the newspaper and movie industries, the network television business has struggled for originality, audience share, and revenue ever since.
• In 1996, the company began the Fox News Channel to compete with CNN. Cable news networks were never the same again (though some apparently attempt to maintain that the start up of MSNBC that same year might have had more to do with it).
• In 2007 the company began the Fox Business Network and around the same time completed the purchase of the august Wall Street Journal. No one can deny that in the days since, the national and world economies have suffered horrible setbacks.

So while clearly circumstantial, I believe that this evidence shows that Fox News (along with all of the other associated organizations under the umbrella of Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation) is likely at fault for many of the evils in the world today. From the world economic crisis to the decline of newspaper circulation, from Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies (sorry, couldn't resist the shot) to the sorry state of reporting on cable news networks; this group is likely at the heart of all of the ills that beset society today. 


Disclaimer: Just Blowing Smoke regularly uses both irony and sarcasm. Those incapable of recognizing such literary devices should by no means endeavor to reach conclusions on any subject based solely on the material contained herein.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere A Sign

In the days following the NAACP resolution to condemn racism in the Tea Party movement, charges and counter charges have been flying back and forth faster than the tennis balls at the recent Wimbledon tennis tournament. The mainstream media, long seeking to demonize this grassroots movement in some way and performing its function as a cheerleader for the left, has likewise been attempting to give some traction to the accusations voiced by the NAACP during its Kansas City convention. While no audio clips from any of these gatherings has yet to be produced as an illustration of such sentiments, there have been a number of photographs used to reinforce the accusations of racial intolerance.

Most if not all of these examples involved signs and posters carried by participants at rallies across the country. Some of these obviously homemade efforts were clever in the way that they attempted to illustrate the maker's frustration with what's going on in this country and some were in questionable taste and may have crossed the line in that same attempt (something particularly easy in our PC society). Some of these efforts might even be interpreted as racist (especially by someone predisposed to do so) in the maker's attempt to show anger against the policies that the federal government has been pursuing, though much of that frustration began long before Barack Obama became president.

I hate to tell you folks, but that's the nature of political discussion in this country. Some will be reasoned debate, some will be argumentative but necessary, and some will simply be regrettable examples of the poor behavior that large gatherings of people are capable of. For myself, I do not think that any of what has been reported could prove that there is racism at the heart of the Tea Party Movement, rather than righteous anger against the policies of the federal government in general and the egregious abuses of this administration in particular. I believe however, that any group that's attempting the level of political change that this one is needs to be especially careful about policing itself. I therefore suggest the following:

No posters at Tea Party gatherings!

Let's face it folks, the posters are not there to educate others at the gathering (they already know why they're there), they are there to illustrate individual grievances. Many more are simply a natural product of the frustration felt and perhaps simply an effort to vent it. Some, like posters at sporting events, concerts, and in television audiences however, are little more than shameless attempts to get a camera to focus on them. This "look at me" attitude does nothing to advance the cause that these groups feel so passionately about, and leaves the door open for poorer examples to potentially embarrass and humiliate such groups. They also allow groups with opposing points of view the opportunity to infiltrate such gatherings and demonize them with fabricated extremist visual offerings.

It was the Five Man Electrical Band back in 1971 that recorded the classic song by Les Emmerson, "Signs", with the singer complaining that signs everywhere were "breaking my mind". I would have to say that the lyrics are probably more relevant today then they were at the time that this song was recorded. We have enough road signs (especially those illustrating payment for projects by Stimulus funding), billboards, and posters in the world; and the elimination of signs at Tea Party rallies would be a welcome reduction.

Besides, it would be a tragedy for such a necessary movement in this country to be derailed by what may be little more than visual attempts at self-aggrandizement. The signs and posters at Tea Parties may not break anything, but they could do damage to perhaps this country's best hope in taking back control of its government. I can only hope that the movement will see "the Signs" out there leave the signs at home.