There is No Business Like Political Show Business

Sen. Obama trotted out Oprah. Sen. Clinton put her family on display, including former President Bill, and she teared up in New Hampshire. These are just the warm ups for the main political show of election 2008.

Gov. Huckabee had Chuck Norris at his side at numerous events. The Chuck Norris appearance with Gov. Huckabee was not as extensively covered by media as were the Oprah and Clinton family events. Sen. Clinton's choking up on camera was shown over and over and over just prior to New Hampshire. It gave her the boost she needed from women voters to grab a close win after being upset by Sen. Obama in Iowa.

The campaign trail will increasingly be like going to the movies or watching the "tube" as Hollywood tries to take advantage of the lazy voters among us. Most recently, Boston Legal on A.B.C. took some strong swipes at the Bush administration and the Iraq war. They attacked the National Guard as well. This propaganda will be seen more and more on TV in the coming months.

Let's look at the Obama-Oprah and Clinton family events.

Sen. Obama proudly proclaimed that the turn out for one Obama-Oprah event was the biggest turnout for a political event ever for any candidate in this campaign. Yet, after Oprah gave a rousing speech, people began leaving the stadium in droves while Sen. Obama was making his speech. Obviously, star struck Oprah fans came to see their idol and could care less about Sen. Obama's views on the issues of this campaign.

To counter Oprah, Mrs. Clinton put family members on display as if to say - "Family values, not star power, are more important to me." Well, that should be the case in every election whether it's a Democrat, Republican, or Independent saying it. The truth, however, cannot be hidden from active voters. The love affair between the Clinton's and Hollywood is well documented. Hollywood money is being poured into the Clinton campaign, along with advice about how to influence star-struck voters.

The only bright spot in media thus far has been Charlie Gibson and A.B.C. News for putting on the live debates. The debates were largely balanced efforts to give voters some solid information from the candidates. In my opinion, the Republican debate was much more lively and revealing than was the Democrat debate. I was disappointed that Sen. Clinton's claim to offering "35 years of change", as qualification to be President, was not challenged by an opponent or media.

You may think that I am anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, or anti-Democrat. I really don't care about political party affiliation, male-female, or black-white-brown-yellow, or Christian-Mormon-atheist-agnostic.

While I am decidedly conservative, I do not lean toward the G.O.P. In fact, there are conservative Democrats and Independents, too. At this point, I haven't begun to decide whom I will vote for. To be honest, I am not impressed by any single candidate of either party. Likely, as it always does, it will come down to the lesser of two evils. But, I will vote because, if I do not vote, I will have no right to complain about my government.

So, what is my motive for this article?

I am antagonistic toward any group that attempts to manipulate the electorate by virtue of money or star power. These are the people we need to guard against and any candidate who makes deals with any special interest group should be crossed off our list of choices.

Think about it. Will Hollywood moguls and other power brokers not expect something in return for their support if their candidate wins? And, can the candidate ignore them once in office? No, not if he or she wants to be elected to a second term in the White House.

Hollywood's agenda is the most dangerous one for America. They want the government to leave Hollywood alone so they can promote their liberal agenda and make piles of money. They claim the rights of "free speech" and "artistic freedom". In fact, it's all about the money they make by appealing to the basest leanings in our human nature. The more unfettered are the movie moguls, the more tickets and DVD's are sold.

If Hollywood gets control of the White House and Congress, look for laws regulating them being watered down or repealed. Look for violent crime and drug use in the movies and on television becoming even more graphic because the movie and TV rating systems will be scrapped or watered down. The result will be a society that will increasingly believe there is no right or wrong and will no longer be hindered in satisfying the basest of desires at the expense of others.

Perhaps you think I have gone off the deep end and see a demon behind every bush. My answer to that is simple - "When in doubt, shout it out!" I would rather find that my fears are unfounded than have to admit I knew the truth and remained quiet.

Religious Leaders and Politics

This topic is sure to be a little controversial. However, I'm not going to allow that to deter me from making observations on a cultural issue that I believe is relevant to millions. Religion and politics. This was broadcast in large scale in 2008 when videos surfaced of President Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure you've all seen the video with headlines that read "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" Anyways, I didn't really think about the effect religious leaders have on their congregation. Because that seems a little obvious. Of course they effect their congregations in a meaningful way, that's why their attending! It was a conversation I recently had with my husband, who is an avid reader of all religious texts and religious history, and we were discussing religious discrepancy on political policy. Now it's a little strange, because legally speaking, due to a law that was passed in 1954 a religious institution cannot endorse or oppose any political candidate, without their tax exemption status being removed. The way I've interpreted it seems similar to the way teachers are prohibited to disclosing their political beliefs in the classroom. What I want to talk about runs deeper than the simple endorsing or opposing politicians. The major factors here are text, interpretation, and influence. There's an interesting Hermetic mantra that I would like to use to sort of kick off the rest of this entry. "When the ears of the student are ready to hear, then comes the lips to fill them with wisdom."

My short observation below, is purely my, which will soon be clear, liberal opinion. I'm interested in getting a conversation started. Nothing more, nothing less. I surely don't have anything to gain here.

It just so happens that from both the far right and far left we can find strange words of wisdom that seems to directly contradict edict. I'm going to create two categories of spiritual leaders to make things a little more clear. Those whom really believe every word they say, and those who are afraid of upsetting their followers with the truth. Due to the plethora of social issues we're facing. From gay rights, to immigration, to what's recently being referred to as "Islamophobia." It would seem that many people turn to their religious leaders for moral guidance on where they should stand on these issues.

As someone who personally believes that religious text in all forms are indeed sacred, I also believe it is important to regard them first as allegory. That being said, clearly a man like Pastor Steven Anderson really believes the text he reads literally word for word. Then you have people like Father Michael Pfleger and Pastor Joel Osteen who's services are often referred to as "Social Gospel." Let's not forget that churches have a target audience of their own, demographic, location, and financial status, all generally play a part, in terms of who they preach to. I would like to think of any spiritual leader as highly versed in whatever it is they are teaching because they have chosen to dedicate their lives to the cause. But when the Catholic church for instance, is predominantly silent on war fare, but vocal on pro-life shouldn't that pose serious questions about the nature of this linked contradiction.

In an effort to keep this short and to the point. My concern is this. When people of faith hurt others and declare that it is in the very name of their faith, what kind of guidance are they really receiving. It doesn't matter whether or not a spiritual authority is allowed to speak from their pulpits directly about political issues. People will leave with their teachings embedded in their hearts and minds. I believe the actions of those who follow their words really speak for themselves. If peace and love are being preached wouldn't it make sense, that this nation being the inherently religious one that it is, wouldn't have such a problem with hate?

Dinnerware For Polite Society

I detest going to high-end restaurants. In case you are wondering, by "high-end" I mean any restaurant where I am required to use more than one fork and one spoon. Nevermind the knife. My husband, on the other hand, loves fancy dinnerware and the elaborate details it entails. He often tells me that I deserve to be treated like a princess, but how am I supposed to enjoy a formal meal when I have no idea which fork and knife to use for my well-done steak?

I know, my husband can always teach me or at least give me a clue, but it does make me feel a bit embarrassed. High-end restaurants are usually quiet and everyone seems to whisper to each other. I hate to have anyone think I am clueless about formal dinner etiquette. With the holiday seasons looming, not to mention my birthday, I know a formal dinner date is inevitable.

For a formal affair, utensils are typically arranged in order of use. That means that the forks, bread plate, bread knife, and napkin are placed on the left. Knives, spoons, glasses, cups and saucers are placed on the right. Utensils are placed one inch from the table edge, with each one lining up at the base with the one next to it. The rule of use is to work from the outer utensils toward the plate. The utensil positions depend on the number of courses ordered. Remember, the sharp edge of the knife must face towards the plate, and the glasses are placed about an inch from the knives. Glasses are also arranged in order of use; white wine, red wine, dessert wine, and water goblet.

Decadent dinners are served from the kitchen. There is a roll, a napkin, and knives to the right of the plate or bowl, and forks to the left. Coffee is served in a small cup, and the coffee spoon is placed on the saucer, on the right of the cup handle. The dessert spoon on the right and the dessert fork on the left, are placed on the dessert plates when they are served. Note, utensils for formal dinners must be sterling silver.

Bear in mind, table settings may be different according to the country you are dining in. Certain countries practice arranging the dinnerware from left to right. Some countries have different ways of using utensils. Informal settings are less complicated than formal settings, and in certain informal settings, napkin rings are used to hold the napkins and utensils together. Tired yet? Confused? Chin up, after all, we have not even touched on table etiquette yet!

American Conservative Political Philosophy

The Classical Conservative Definition:
A classical conservative values tradition and freedom over governmental power. Conservatives, under this definition, advocate a free market economy without governmental intervention. Conservatives tend to view government as a necessary evil, whose primary responsibility is to protect people from violation of their rights and freedom by others. Conservatives distinguish this from government taking action to guarantee people's rights and freedom (a subtle, but important distinction). Conservatives think of morality as something that binds people into groups through loyalty and authority (in certain cases, substituting religion for authority). Conservatives tend to be tribalists.

There is likely not as much difference between the two philosophies as you may have thought. The distinctions are subtle, but they do lead to a different philosophy of both the purpose, and responsibilities of government. Distinctions between the two philosophies shift and morph to suit the politics of the day.

Conservatives are usually regarded as associated with the Republican Party, liberals with the Democratic Party. This is an over-generalization.

Both parties embrace certain conservative and liberal tendencies. Moreover, it does not account for those that do not affiliate with either party, standing as independents, a very large segment of America's political society.

FOUNDERS OF CONSERVATISM
Edmund Burke is often regarded as the founder of the conservative philosophy. Burke stated in 1791 that it was not necessary to tear apart society to cure its evils:

"An ignorant man who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers.

Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill."

Burke professed that change should only be made when fully aware of the consequences of the actions. Society is complex and interconnected, so changes must be made with deliberation and knowledge of history. The damage from miscalculated changes can be too disastrous to society, to do otherwise.

This is not to say conservatives oppose change. Conservatives recognize that change is necessary in society; however, conservatives move at a slower pace than liberals.

The Modern Conservative Movement
Many credit Russell Kirk's 1953 book, "The Conservative Mind" with the birth of the modern conservative movement in the United States. In 1957, Kirk condensed he beliefs in "The Essence of Conservatism:"

"...The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time...Our American War of Independence...especially in the works of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, we find a sober and tested conservatism founded upon an understanding of history and human nature. The Constitution which the leaders of that generation drew up has proved to be the most successful conservative device in all history."

In this statement, Kirk restated that the U.S. Constitution is an instrument that protects people from abuse by government; in that regard, the Constitution must be strictly interpreted to guarantee that protection.

Barry Goldwater was the first politician to waive the modern conservative banner. His book, "The Conscience of a Conservative" was required reading at Harvard, at least for a while. When running for president in 1964, Goldwater promised to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

However, it was Ronald Reagan that legitimized the conservative political philosophy as President in 1980. He ran on a platform of cutting government, as he did when governor in California, where his main reform was in welfare.

As President, Reagan cut taxes in his first year. Whether as a direct result or not, the U.S. economy began an unprecedented economic boom in 1982 that lasted until 2001. However, Reagan will also be remembered for not only his economic forecast in 1982, but his prophesy that: "The march of freedom and democracy ... will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

The fall of the Berlin wall came in 1989, followed by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

CONCLUSION
In looking at the above comparison of conservative and liberal values, it is apparent that arguments can be made for the value of either position. However, such a limited view misses the point. Combining both philosophies can take the best from each to provide solutions to our problems.

As an example, take the issue of trust as to whether government is the best answer to our problems. Conservatives are wary to trust government as the answer; liberals tend to see government as a necessary evil, but still the best answer to solve our problems. Both are appropriate views. Our Founding Fathers recognized this dilemma and developed a system of checks and balances, a separation of powers for an effective government, but one that never developed too much power over its citizens.

The Founding Fathers listened to both sides of the conservative and liberal argument to try to find a system that meets the needs of all.

Today, our society needs to move forward to meet new challenges; liberals say we need new solutions to those challenges; conservatives say we need to trust proven solutions because miscalculation could make our problems worse. Again, both views have value; and a blending of both is likely the best answer: learn from the past, while we forge the future.

Unfortunately, our politics have become too polarized and too divisive. People take positions rather than work together. Political parties provide those positions. Many Republicans revert to religion as a bastion, while many Democrats turn their party into a religion.

After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.