Applewood's Blog

After 59 years of life and almost twenty years of military service I find my self very sad that our country has been reduced to what it is.  Initially, the thought that maybe I am just getting old and over reacting crossed my mind, but I really don't think that my age is the problem.

We have one candidate that has absolutely no business running for president based on his experience.  I do not care how eloquent he is, he has zero experience and has a pattern of being noncommittal on any issue that he could be pinned down on.  He is running his campaign on one choice that he made.  He had a 50/50 chance of being correct and in "his" eyes he was correct which makes him a self proclaimed expert.  How in the world is the public so blind as to think for one second that this man, no matter how wonderful he is, is qualified for the highest office in the land?  His personal record of beliefs for the past twenty years has only just now begun to come under scrutiny, and it is a a minimum remarkable.

The next candidate has many years of public service and has been close to one of the better leaders that we've seen over the past twenty years or so.  She has also been embroiled in numerous scandals, questionable ethics issues, and some of the most amoral behaviors ever seen in high office.  Nothing in the aforementioned relates to experience or qualification for the most serious leadership position in the land.  Further, with the way that the world is going, the term of office that we are looking forward to is probably going to be among the most trying terms ever seen including that of the world wars.

Both of these candidates are promising actions that they have absolutely no way to deliver.  This makes them both liars right out of the gate.

Finally, the last candidate is a war hero.  He has many years of Congressional experience.  He has demonstrated that he is able to forge agreements with the other party, but he has also demonstrated that the will of the people is subordinate to his own judgement.   Further, he has never governed anything.  None of the above qualify him for the presidency.

What is really disallusioning is that people are lining up behind each these people with a fanaticism that rivals lemmings.  Kids are in love with one because he says that he hates war and will get us out regardless of the consequences, and because he is promising free tuition.  He cannot deliver on either, but these very smart young ones just slobber over him like he is a god.

What the heck is wrong with our public?  Are we so selfish that we give the election process no more than a lick and a promise, and in the process get really stupid?  What is wrong with the parties that they can only produce candiidates that should be thrown out for being the scalliwags that they are?  Are we as a people without shame?  Have we become so jaded that we have just thrown in the towel and play along with the game like the Russians do?  We follow the guidance of the media like it is the paragon of wisdom.  Are we too stupid to know that we are being manipulated or is it that we just don't care anymore?

Good grief!

You know who  want to vote for??  I want to vote for the candidate who is willing to stand up and say, "let's get real.".

The candidate that is honest enough to say, "Let's get real, I have told you everything that want to do, but in reality I can't do any of it.  I promise to submit my ideas to the Congress and build as good an argument as possible to entice them to act on it, but I cannot do anything without them.  I will work with the Congress and do the best that I can to implement their ideas, but if they won't act, I cannot do anything that I've promised."

A candidate that is honest enough to stop making promises that they cannot keep would be refreshing and get my vote.  As I said in my "leadership" post, it will take a real leader to herd the cats that we call the Congress.  Has anyone seen a leader with that kind of talent in the race for the presidency????   If you have, vote for that person.

In this current time when we hear so many stating that they have the leadership experience to lead our country, I wonder if the definition of the word has changed.

My idea of a leader is a person who is accountable for their decisions.  This is a person who is capable of inducing others to do things in an efficient and orderly manner.  One who administrates a budget, makes decisions about how to administrate a budget and about how to hold others responsible for carrying out directives is a leader.  A leader is accountable for the results.

Governors, City Councils, Presidents, mayors, managers, and parents do this.  People in staff positions advise and provide information to those who make the decisions, they do not lead.

How is it that we have Senators touting their leadership experience based on their Senate records?  These records are not of leadership.  Senators do not administrate budgets.  They do not lead people or stand accountable for how a government is run.  They advise  and submit suggestions to the Executive Branch, and it is the Executive Branch that leads (gets it done).  An accountant's spouse is not an accountant, a lawyer's spouse is not an attorney.  If one such spouse suggested otherwise it would be laughable.

From what I can see, we do not have one candidate that is in the finalist tier that has any Leadership experience.  I have never seen a successful manager interview based on a person who applies for the job saying I know that I can do the job, just trust me.  How successful would a candidate for a managment job be if all that they could say is I'm qualified because I've been around managers all of my career?

The rhetoric that we are being subjected to is consistent across all of the candidates.  They are all promising to be successful at doing something that none of them has done, and that is leading.  None of them has ever been accountable for the results of their governmental decisions.  They are all masters at parrying the blame for things that didin't turn out so good and at taking credit for the things that turned out well.  In every case, however, someone else has had the job of getting things done.  Those someone else's are the leaders.

Whether it is Barak with his smooth sounding words, or Clinton with her "I've been everywhere the leader has been" message, or McCain with his senate record, none of them have leadership experience in government.  McCain at least does have military leadership experience, but that is a far cry from running the biggest business in the world which is the US government.

I do not care whether these candidates are left, right, conservative or liberal.  Their personal belief systems do not qualify them to lead.  Further, unless they are running for dictator their personal belief systems will not move the Congress to give them the tools to do what they want to do.  All of the palaver about who is a true conservative or who is the farthest to the left is off target at best.  Let's concentrate on who it is that can LEAD.  Which one is it that will stand up and willingly say, "the buck stops here." and mean it?

I find this election to be the most interesting of all the elections that I've seen in my 59 years.  It has truly been enjoyable to see so many debates and here so many interesting perspectives.

On the other hand this election has brought with it some troubling aspects that in my view have been rubbed into the faces of the voters.  It has never been so obvious that elections can be bought.

One case on point is the competition between Romney and Huckabee.  For months now Huckabee has bee neck and neck with Romney in the national polls.  His performance in the debates has brought him much attention without him having to have much money. 

Now he's virtually out of money.

Romney is spending 7 figures of his own money to canvas the nation with TV spots.  It's nice that he has earned this money, but it seems somehow unethical for one candidate to be restricted in how he can obtain funding whilst another (Romney) can be unrestricted in how much of his own personal wealth he can use.  The playing field is hardly equal. 

Further, now that he is ot of money, the media has relegated Huckabee to the "also ran" status even though is polling numbers still show him very much in the race.  Money equals electability?  When the voters indicate that a candidate is viable the media should respond by giving the voters more exposure to him or her.  Money should not define electability, nor should it dictate which candidate gets aire time.  

I ask you, where would Huckabee be in the polls if he and Romney were retstricted to the same funding rules?  It appears to me, that buying an election is not only legal, it's being encouraged, and all of this without regard to the voters.

Groupthink seems to be a word with negative conotation in any situation that it is applied.  Whether it is used to characterize the lock stepped support behind the  ill conceived strategies of people like Donald Rumsfeld or in a smaller group like a husband and a wife.  When ever people attach themselves to a belief or a process just because it is popular or because everyone else is seemingly supporting it, it is considered a recipe for failure of poor performance.  Groupthink is when people to not express or act on their feelings, beliefs, or concerns in favor of consensus.

Many businesses have gone down the wrong path or out of business completely because of groupthink.  Many marriaages have gone down because there is no discourse, just blind followership by one or the other spouse.

So I think that I am safe to say that "groupthink" is not a good thing.

So why is it that when a person in the Senate or House dares to get out of step with the party on an issue because they sincerely believe that where the party is going, it's the kiss of death with the party faithful???  I don't understand.  It seems to me that daring to differ and act on that difference is a rare and admirable quality in Washington that should be embraced not shunned or demeaned.  It is afterall the "groupthink" of the Democrats and the Republicans that has gotten us into the mess that  we are in today.

I am a Republican, I guess, but that doesn't translate to me to mean that I have to support everything that the party says.  It does means that I generally support the things that the party "says" that it stands for.

I hope that in this election, the public is looking for a statesman/woman rather than a party lacky.  It is way past time for our leaders (who were elected as individuals) to stand up for what they believe as individuals in context with party values instead of following the party lemmings over the cliff just so that they can be popular with the party righteous.

"Groupthink" = "partisan bickering and one upsmanship"  It means that bad policy is followed for no other reason than party affiliation.  It means that bad policy is adopted just because no one dares to inject common sense or confront a broken system.

Doing what is right in Washington is just not good politics anymore.  That would be just way to simple.

In the business environment, when the executive branch seeks to make a decision the leadership team collaborates.  Executives receive candid  feedback from the organizational departments of Finance, Operations, Marketing, Sales, and Risk etc.  Once the feedback or counsel is received the executive team has the information it needs to make wise decisions.

Wouldn't it be nice if our government worked the same way?

When a coporation gets out of balance or the counsel is less than candid the result is an Enron debacle.  The US auto makers are fast becoming examples of "out of balance" or disfunctional leadership teams.

Isn't this what is going on in our government?  Instead of practicing "trust and confidence" in each other, the branches of government are biting and devouring each other for political gain.  Instead of focusing on the responsibilities that each branch has, they jockey for position and desire to usurp the power of the others.  Accordingly, we see the people doing the same thing.

Wouldn't it be nice if republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives would realize that differing views come from different perspectives of the same issues?  Neither side is inherently evil or stupid or garbage as one blogger recently described republicans.

Wouldn't it be nice if our country had elders in the biblical sense, who would sit down and reason together? 

Stop for a moment and ponder upon the freedoms that are so often touted by our leaders.  We hear about the freedoms of speech, self-expression, the pursuit of happiness, health, prosperity, and so on and on and on………..

 A there is a greater freedom that has been lost and it is in the name of our country.  Bear with me while I build my case.

Religion

There are so many Christian denominations that it is hard to count them.  The Moslems are so divided that they are killing each other over their differences.  The Jews are divided into at least three very distinct groups.

 Business

 Businesses today emphasize team work within, but are totally focused on segmenting the market, even so far as down to the individual.

 Government

 The politicians are segregated into republicans, democrats, libertarians, then segmented into right wing, left wing, moderate, progressive, conservative and so on… Further, the rhetoric tends to force people to take positions within one of these segments.

 Social

 Society is segmented by education (with several segments within that), sexual orientation, race, religion, and ethnicity to name a few.

 Economic

 Classes: Prosperous, middle class, impoverished   

 Having done a marginal job of listing the ways that we are segmented/divided in this country, I would point out that the one thing that every one of the groups listed above depend on for success is polarization/segmentation.  I think that it is safe to say that any group of people that begin to show signs of unity is immediately labeled as extremist, unenlightened, intolerant, or in some way that tends to marginalize them

 Humans from the times of the hunter gatherer have only found strength in unity.  We as individuals are weak and generally ineffective.  Without unity it is safe to say that the predators of the animal kingdom would have made our appearance on earth brief.

 It is interesting to me to observe that whether it’s business, government, religion, or education the leaders of each group and paradoxically acting together have an interest in keeping us focused on individuality rather than unity.  In unity, people have strength.  As individuals, we can be controlled.

 I submit to you that the greatest freedom that we have lost is that of UNITY.  This cannot be an accident.  This country is morphing and it is doing so by keeping us, focused on ourselves and our individual rights.  While we focus on our individual rights, the rights of this country are being slowly but surely taken away.  This is quite a paradox, but the methodology is sitting right in front of us and yet we can't see it.

What has happened to our country?  When did the Bill of Rights become a tool for abuse and dishonor?

It is generally accepted that people have the right to pursue happiness in this country so long as that pursuit does not interfere with any other's right to do the same thing.  This common civility and mutual respect for others is generally accepted behavior.  Why does this same type of thinking not apply to the right of self expression?

Politicians and the media outlets are saying just about anything to achieve their desired goals.  Their speech includes innuendo, slander, and disrespect.  When a country sinks so far that legitimate debate about opposing points of view is put aside in favor of public accusation, falsehood, and disrespect then the citizens are left to form opinions without the benefit of the truth. 

If we continue to abuse the right of free speech by speaking in this way, then the loss of this right cannot be far behind.  The politicians who resort to name calling, innuendo, and distortion to make their points should know that there is a cost.  If they cannot act with honor, respect, and civility then they have NO right to expect to be treated any differently.  Citizens are no different. 

Resolving differences one on one is a thing of the past.  Resolving issues face to face requires courage.  It is actually easier to hang all the dirty laundry out in the public for all to see.  We wonder why our youth hold adults in contempt.  We are amazed that there is no respect for the military, the police, the fire departments, the churches.  It is because there is no honor or respect in the words being spoken by our media or our leaders.

I have no issue with politicians slugging it out in committee or on the floor of the houses  of congress, but why does it have to be done in the media?  Let the results speak for themselves.  I do not want, nor do I think most of the people (and the rest of the world)want to see our politicians acting like school yard bullies, tattle tails, and hoodums so that they can get their way.  This behavior undermines the respect that we once enjoyed in the world.  It isn't doing a whole lot for the next generation of Americans either.

This blog is based upon the premise that our country is in moral decay.  If true, and obviously I believe that it is, there are many contributing factors to it.  I want to focus on one factor in particular.  Religion, and Christianity in specific.

History teaches us that when societies lose their moral compass, they are doomed to failure.  The only possible exception to this is the Roman Empire that arguably transformed itself into the Holy Roman Empire, but even that is in its last throws.

The basis for the eastern religion called Christianity, is the bible.  The church has taken the course of accepting its message only in areas that fit modernism or worldly societal trends.  For instance, homosexuality is condemned consistently throughout the Word, both the old and the new testaments do not deviate from this position.  God declares Himself to be unchanging.  Neither the Creator nor the Word changes to fit the mood of mankind, His creation.   When many denominations are either openly accepting or discussing the acceptance and even the ordination of homosexuals it is a disgrace.  Cellebacy is no opt out position.   Either the Word is true or it is not, churches cannot have it both ways.   The Word of God cannot be a little bit true, nor can man elect what is to be believed or disbelieved.  If this could be true then the entire religion is vain.

The first chapter of Joshua tells us to meditate in the Word (Law) day and night.   The Bible teaches that we are to pray without ceasing.  Yet the population that calls themselves Christian is content to rely solely on what is spewed by the pulpits to shape their beliefs rather than engaging in personal study (not reading) of the Word.  Assuming that there is a day of reckoning, the excuse that believing a lie is the responsibility of the teaching clergy will NOT wash.  We are individually responsible to pray, study, and meditate upon the Word. 

The Word consistently teaches that there is no forgiveness without repentance, but many churches are teaching that it is Christian to forgive under any circumstances.  It is not only NOT what the Word teaches it flies in the face of the crucifixion itself.  When Jesus said,"...my God, my God why have you forsaken me...", it was because He was still bearing the sin of the world.  Until He defeated death and hell, His fellowship with His Father was at a halt.  It is proper to let go of ill will in favor of prayer for one's enemy, but the unrepentent enemy gets no forgiveness.  Further, when the enemy is the enemy of God we are instructed to be at war with him as it is the definition of evil.

Sexuality is described as between man and wife.  There is no mention of sex outside of marriage that is descibed in any way that could be called positive.  The Word does not leave room for sexualtiy outside of marriage and as a recreational pastime.  In fact the Word commands that we be fruitful and multiply.  Churches that espouse, " the woman's right to choose", are in complete disregard of the Word of God.  Again, the Word does not change to fit the mood of the world.  If there is a God, He is so far above us that it is pure arrogance to contemplate that He is subject to our carnal desires.

The good news is that He knows our weaknesses (He created them so He should) and has provided every means to have prosperous and happy lives.  It's too bad that so many churches don't believe that, in fact they completely miss the point most of the time.  It is also too bad that so many who call themselves christian, do not know that He is sufficient.

God is sufficient.  He is not the father of lies.  He alone is capable of managing the course of this world to His desired end.  He desires a people who worship Him of their own desire.  He desires a people whose faith is so perfect that the wars and rumours of war, the occurrence of famine and sickness, the existence of poverty and sadness that are in the world do not distract them from their devotion and desire to worship Him. 

It is not easy to put aside the cares of this world in favor of the unseen.  I wrestle with this daily, but faith requires belief in the unseen.  His Spirit is the evidence.  Contrary to the teaching of many denominations, the presence of the Spirit is not taken by faith.  He is recieved by faith, but He is experienced.  To those who might question this, I suggest that you search from Genesis to Revelation and find one instance where the Holy Spirit came upon anyone when there was not a visible and significant change in that person.  Find just one and we'll talk.

As with most rot, the moral decay among christians is coming from within.  There is no compromise, and there cannot be, if God be True.

There is a dead zone larger than the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the coast of Texas and Louisiana.  A dead zone is an area where the water lacks enough oxygen to sustain life.

What has caused this are the polutants that are being drained into the gulf by the Mississippi river.  Where are the polutants coming from?  They are coming from states like Iowa where the huge corporate farms of Cargill and  ADM are growing corn and soy beans and then dumping their wastes into the tributaries of the Mississippi.

As our government continues to push fuel made from corn down our throats instead of the much more efficient sugar beet or sugar cane, just remember the power of the lobbyists from these two corporations.  We get higher food prices, higher fuel prices, and very questionable atmospheric benefits by using corn to create ethanol.  Oh, and let's not forget where this blog started, these companies also continue to kill the Gulf of Mexico.

Once again this is NOT a Dem or Rep issue as some partisans may want to claim, it's a bought and paid for Congress that's at issue.  We need to vote them all out, even if they are good at the moment.  Changing majorities has gotten us nowhere.

Because I wrote this a few days ago and the latest tragedy has happened since, I wanted to amend it slightly

I don't know about you, but at this point I would absolutely love to be charged with the crime of being in contempt of Congress. Why in the world do I say that? Two reasons come to mind. 1) I DO hold the Congress in contempt, and 2) because I'd love to go into a court and prove that the Congress is, in fact, contemptable.

Why do I hold them in contempt?

1) Congressman and women who are elected by small segments of our national population speak on the national stage and then refuse to allow the affected citizens to question their comments or respond to them.

2) Because Congress spends huge amounts of time examining situations and events over which they have absolutely no authority solely for the purpose of embarrassing the other party.

2A) Because Congress has completely bent, buckled, and distorted the Constitution in order to do their selfish deeds. (for you Graywolf)

3) For thirty years they have done absolutely nothing about health care, overall insurance reform, tax reform, maintaining our infrastructure, border (national) security, or energy independence.

3a) They allow us to be blackmailed by impotent countries rather than pursuing the national business as listed above.

4) They conduct business in secret through earmarks and closed session committees.

5) They listen almost exclusively to political action committees, special interest groups, and campaign contributors rather than the people who elected them.

5a) They have a pattern of coming to office with moderate wealth and leave with millions, while asserting that they care about the working person.

5b) The only people who can run for office are the rich.

6) Because relatively few of them or their children have ever served this country through military service, yet they are all experts on the very thing that they avoid.

7) Because they send out tax money to: a) foriegn lands to try to buy alliances, b)Mars and Venus for God knows what reason, c) purchase arms for people who will be using them against us in less than ten years........

7) Last but not least, they have exalted the well being of their parties over the well being of the people.

This is just my perspective, but frankly I feel like instead of doing the people's business there is a well orchestrated effort in the Congress (both parties) to utterly destroy everything that this country has stood for throughout its history.

I don't know about you, but at this point I would absolutely love to be charged with the crime of being in contempt of Congress.  Why in the world do I say that?  Two reasons come to mind.  1) I DO hold the Congress in contempt, and 2) because I'd love to go into a court and prove that the Congress is, in fact, contemptable.

Why do I hold them in contempt?

1) Congressman and women who are elected by small segments of our national population speak on the national stage and then refuse to allow the affected citizens to question their comments or respond to them.

2) Because Congress spends huge amounts of time examining situations and events over which they have absolutely no authority solely for the purpose of embarrassing the other party.

3) For thirty years they have done nothing about health care, overall insurance reform, tax reform, border security, or energy independence.

4) They conduct business in secret through earmarks and closed session committees.

5) They listen almost exclusively to political action committees, special interest groups, and campaign contributors rather than the people who elected them.

5a) They have a pattern of coming to office with moderate wealth and leave with millions, while asserting that they care about the working person.

5b) The only people who can run for office are the rich.

6) Because relatively few of them or their children have ever served this country through military service, yet they are all experts on the very thing that they avoid.

7) Last but not least, they have exalted the well being of their parties over the well being of the people.

This is just my perspective, but frankly I feel like there is a well orchestrated effort in the Congress (both parties) to utterly destroy everything that this country has stood for throughout its history.

Let's pull out of Iraq.

We went in there with questionable reasons but with good intention.  We rooted out a horrible dictator and his henchman.  In the process; however, we allowed another enemy to come in and gain a strong hold.  Our lack of a plan for the post Saddam era allowed age old discords to re-emerge as well.

So, now let's just pull out.  Clearly, the American and Iraqi lives lost to date can be rationalized by finding fault with those who we think had/have poor judgement and planning skills.  Given that Iraqi lives are no where near as valuable as American lives, it is perfectly understandable why we Americans can find it so acceptable to leave a country with a mess that we are largely responsible for creating.

So to all of those who rant and rave that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, and to those who think that continually bombarding us with the analysis of who is at fault and who should be impeached, let's pull out of Iraq.  Quitting is so easy to do when that we know who to blame.   Is it not the American people who elected the Clinton's for two terms even though their continual lies and moral terpitude is unquestionable?  Is it not the American people who elected Bush twice?  The Iraqi mess is the fault of Bush and Clinton, not the people who elected them.  Right?

Wrong!!  We the people did this.  We the people are responsible.  If we leave this mess unresolved, every Iraqi life and every American life lost is on our heads...not Bush and not Clinton.  We elected these people and we the people are responsible.  It is we who are responsible to fix the mess that our irresponsibliity  created.

Of course, if we the people think that American blood is more precious than Iraqi blood, then it really doesn't matter, does it?

Let's pull out of Iraq.

We're hearing a lot these days about the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Parliament.  Their inability to get anything done is beyond disputation.  It is sad to see the suffering of the Iraqi people being absolutely ignored by a government that they risked much to elect.  It would be nice if the Iraqi Parliament would do somethiing other than bicker and debate about things for political gain.

We're hearing a lot these days about the ineffectiveness of the American Congress.  Their inability to get anything done is beyond disputation.  It is sad to see the suffering of the American people being absolutely ignored by a government that they risked so little to elect.

Just exactly who are these arrogant people in Washington who have the temerity to hold another country's government accountable for not achieving benchmarks that are not of their own making?  It would be nice if the American Congress could live up to its own demands before it holds another country accountable for doing what it obviously cannot do itself.  Instead they bicker and debate about things they can't possibly pass, and they do so for nothing more than political gain.

As I read the blogs about the ill behavior of our young folks and the refusal to accept any responsibility for that behavior on the part of their parents, it dawns on me that our society has lost any sense of right and wrong.

This begins at the top.  Our leaders (Executive, Legislative, & Judicial)  make their decisions based on right and left leanings, and party welfare.  In the past thirty years or so, what decision has been made by our government based on what is right or what is wrong?  In fact, what is the reaction when someone tries to base a decision on common sense or right and wrong?

In our society, anyone who submits to Mosaic Law is immediately branded as an extremist that is incapable of tolerance.  The Progressives would have everyone adopt the notion that every person should be free to exercise their life according to any standard that seems good to them.  Anyone who is intolerant of anything is ignorant and lacking in compassion.

Just exactly what is wrong or even religious about:

Don't murder

Don't Steal

Don't  go to bed with someone else's spouse

Don't lie

Honor our parents

Don't worship idols (money, drugs, political leaders, political parties)

Don't envy (covet) the fruit of other people's success

Don't make false gods (political leaders, our children, money, science, religion)

Taking a day off each week to rest and to contemplate.

Maybe, just maybe if we looked at these laws as they were given instead of always equating them with religion we would be better off.  The Law was given to make our passage through this life prosperous and happy.  It was never given to cleanse anyone's heart as it has been made out to be by those who want to control rather than lead.