A couple of weeks ago, I saw a portion of a McCain town hall meeting. Several people expressed fear of an Obama presidency. For once McCain reverted to his honorable self and said there was nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. I see now that his campaign and the Republican 527 groups have returned to the fear message. Obama has not resorted to this tactic; however that perspective has not trickled down to many of his supporters. A recent Daily Show piece from both campaigns talked about fear and world destruction with the success of the opponent candidate. I confess that I'm one of those people who fear a McCain presidency. I'm embarrassed that it sounds so lame on TV, especially when my fear is compared to the McCain supporters screaming about the end of the world.
I, in my elite self-exploration mode wonder if I'm not being as narrow minded as those I have identified on McCain/Palin's side. They express what I consider are tarnished and bigoted reasons for fearing Obama: he's a Muslim, an Arab, a terrorist, a socialist, a baby killer. These fears are often hyped by McCain/Palin and their official supporters, especially as we get closer to the election. These fears seem to lead to hostile acts and ugly aggression from some. How will this division end - in another assassination or other unrest.
I do fear a McCain/Palin administration because of his jingoistic calls to attack the "terrorists", defining them broadly, the call to stay in Iraq, perhaps attack Iran, to reignite the cold war with Russia, his Bush-like dismissal of the advantages of talking to our enemies, his economic policies so similar to Bush, his erratic temperament in addressing the economic meltdown during the campaign, his seeming reversal of principles on so many issues; and the possibility that he will die in office. Once I thought he was honorable, but that honor seems to have been overtaken by blind ambition. You know he wants to be President oh so very badly that he has decided that he will say anything, do anything that might stick or work.
I remember a time when you voted for or against the other guy because you didn't like the policies he was proposing, but you generally forgot the rancor of the campaign and got back to life after the election. The one time I remember that didn't work this way was under Nixon, who was despised by half the country because of the war in Vietnam. That war split the country in ways that still reverberate. This election seems to be highlighting those splits in the country again. I love this country but I don't want to be a part of a country that does the things this government has done over the last 8 years. I don't want to be a part of a country that can't put the common good before the individual good. And the other side fears being a part of country that could elect a black man, that could be okay with gay marriage, that allow the "killing" of the unborn, who might control guns so that an 8 year old doesn't get killed by an Uzi he is shooting. I can't help feeling part of the problem preventing a unified country because of my fear, but my fear just won't go away unless McCain loses. Will their fear be as lasting or can Obama appeal to their better selves?
This is a long way of saying that I'm afraid of another Bush four years and I'm glad that Obama is appealing to our better selves, and I just wish I had a better self when it comes to the possibility of McCain winning. I only hope I don't find out, because I really don't think I can continue to live in a McCain/Palin country that Rove/Bush/Cheney have begot.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Tax Man Cometh!
With the federal debt rising to enormous proportions of our annual budget; with the Bush Administration still trying for enormous Defense Budgets [not even including the Wars] and Wall Street imploding despite their huge profits over the last decade, the time has come to decide why we pay taxes and to get back to those basic core values.
Taxes buy roads, bridges, commuter trains, parks [federal and local], clean water, sewers, fire and police protection, our judicial system, our corrections system, mortgage insurance [VA and FHA and rural homeloans], housing for those who cannot afford any, safe worksites, regulations of Wall Street, immigration management, border protection, search and rescue, the Coast Guard, education, medical care for the elderly and very poor, and so many other things. We all have our pet project that is supported by taxes but we also know that there are some core things that government must do for us. These activities have been attacked by the no-government types for so long, I sometimes wonder if the public really understands that they need government for many, many things in their daily lives. This help doesn't come without cost, but as part of working for the common good, we pay taxes to pay for these things, whether we as an individual uses all of the services or not. We cannot turn our backs on this common good. Yes, many programs in government can and should be improved - to work better, cost less, serve the people more efficiently and effectively - but we shouldn't just throw them out, but without taxes that's what would happen.
We desperately need to come to grips with our spending as a nation, and get to a point where our outgo is equaled by our income. The last 30 years have been mostly about cutting taxes rather than objectively setting priorities. This tax cutting mentality has been done without regard to the need to pay for a wide variety of services. No one wants to pay for government, but everyone wants the services government provides. This disconnect cannot continue. We need to face up to the fact that money must be spent to provide for the common good, and the only place that money can come from is through taxes.
At the same time, we must recognize that the vast number of people at the bottom half of the country have been screwed by unbalance tax burdens [see Social Security, sales taxes, and fees for previously free services]. We need to rebalance that burden. Obama is right to look to helping the middle class but he is not right in his narrow definition. He proposes to tax the rich, because that's where the money is, but eventually, the people who have an affluent if not rich life should bear more of the tax burden than they do now. This redistribution of the tax burden while improving basic government services will make for the common good. We cannot let our personal circumstances dictate our responsibility for sound public policy making.
Taxes buy roads, bridges, commuter trains, parks [federal and local], clean water, sewers, fire and police protection, our judicial system, our corrections system, mortgage insurance [VA and FHA and rural homeloans], housing for those who cannot afford any, safe worksites, regulations of Wall Street, immigration management, border protection, search and rescue, the Coast Guard, education, medical care for the elderly and very poor, and so many other things. We all have our pet project that is supported by taxes but we also know that there are some core things that government must do for us. These activities have been attacked by the no-government types for so long, I sometimes wonder if the public really understands that they need government for many, many things in their daily lives. This help doesn't come without cost, but as part of working for the common good, we pay taxes to pay for these things, whether we as an individual uses all of the services or not. We cannot turn our backs on this common good. Yes, many programs in government can and should be improved - to work better, cost less, serve the people more efficiently and effectively - but we shouldn't just throw them out, but without taxes that's what would happen.
We desperately need to come to grips with our spending as a nation, and get to a point where our outgo is equaled by our income. The last 30 years have been mostly about cutting taxes rather than objectively setting priorities. This tax cutting mentality has been done without regard to the need to pay for a wide variety of services. No one wants to pay for government, but everyone wants the services government provides. This disconnect cannot continue. We need to face up to the fact that money must be spent to provide for the common good, and the only place that money can come from is through taxes.
At the same time, we must recognize that the vast number of people at the bottom half of the country have been screwed by unbalance tax burdens [see Social Security, sales taxes, and fees for previously free services]. We need to rebalance that burden. Obama is right to look to helping the middle class but he is not right in his narrow definition. He proposes to tax the rich, because that's where the money is, but eventually, the people who have an affluent if not rich life should bear more of the tax burden than they do now. This redistribution of the tax burden while improving basic government services will make for the common good. We cannot let our personal circumstances dictate our responsibility for sound public policy making.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Not the Great Depression - Yet?
Numerous experts have pointed out that this current crisis is not the Great Depression. They point to the much lower unemployment rate, the current economic doldrums but not chasm, the fact that millions are not living in tent cities, and other issues. They are right, but they miss the fact that this may just be 1928. All the very bad conditions from the GD were yet to come. The country was electing a President. The stock market was still booming and a Republican, Herbert Hoover was on the verge of replacing a silent Cal Coolidge in the White House. Although there were warnings of trouble ahead, the election campaign was upbeat. The trouble began in earnest after the election and by 1931 the meltdown was almost complete. It would take almost 20 years and a World War to reverse the downturn. The question to be asked now is not whether this is the Great Depression, but whether this is 1928?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Foxes Guarding the Henhouse
Well, I awake to a terrible churning in my stomach again. Not as one might expect about the 25% loss, including my house, in my net worth this year, but rather the idea of the rescue. As I understand it, the proposal is for Hank Paulson, former Chief Executive until 2006 of Goldman Sachs, says Treasury must buy $700 billion of bad debt from Goldman Sachs, et al on Wall Street and then hire Goldman Sachs, et al to dispose of this bad debt over time to try and recoup some of the $700 billion the tax payers are being saddled with. This must be done in a matter of hours and there must be no amendment of this proposal, it must be clean. Well, pardon me, but I really don't like this idea at all. Even if I accept we must do something to recapitalize the markets, it can't be done just totally on the sayso of one man with no strings attached.
One alternative, If everyone agrees, we must buy the debt it should be done outside the Treasury. Treasury has enough problems and they need to be managing the bleeding federal treasury, not bailing out wall street. A separate, independent entity must be in charge. I recommend that someone like Eliot Spitzer be put in charge. Yes, I know he fell from grace, but it was over his sexual problems, not his public trust. The Republicans have forgiven David Vitter R-LA, Larry Craig R-ID, and Dick Morris, the foot in mouth disease at Fox News, and many other transgressors. If Spitzer can give up call girls, he is a great champion of the little guy against Wall Street. If not him, then there are a number of state Attorney Generals who might fit the bill. Or Paul Volker who warned against it, or Warren Buffet who has been out of these crazy securities for five years or someone they recommend. This person can hire the laid off wonderkin of Wall Street at government salaries and let innovation reign for the good of the government this time, instead of Wall Street.
An other alternative was proposed by Paul Krugman of the NY Times
Cash for Trash.
I'm sure there are other alternatives out there, but this one either needs further contemplation or it needs to be rejected.
One alternative, If everyone agrees, we must buy the debt it should be done outside the Treasury. Treasury has enough problems and they need to be managing the bleeding federal treasury, not bailing out wall street. A separate, independent entity must be in charge. I recommend that someone like Eliot Spitzer be put in charge. Yes, I know he fell from grace, but it was over his sexual problems, not his public trust. The Republicans have forgiven David Vitter R-LA, Larry Craig R-ID, and Dick Morris, the foot in mouth disease at Fox News, and many other transgressors. If Spitzer can give up call girls, he is a great champion of the little guy against Wall Street. If not him, then there are a number of state Attorney Generals who might fit the bill. Or Paul Volker who warned against it, or Warren Buffet who has been out of these crazy securities for five years or someone they recommend. This person can hire the laid off wonderkin of Wall Street at government salaries and let innovation reign for the good of the government this time, instead of Wall Street.
An other alternative was proposed by Paul Krugman of the NY Times
Cash for Trash.
I'm sure there are other alternatives out there, but this one either needs further contemplation or it needs to be rejected.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Nation of Liars
We are a nation of liars. I'm not sure when this happened. Perhaps we always have been, but its truly glaring now. This idea came to me this morning as i awoke to another day of the campaign for President and yet another collapse on Wall Street. So many of the crises in the last ten years can be traced to lying and accepting those lies. Did we always lie so baldly and did we always just look the other way? I don't know but I really hope not. I hope that this last decade has been an anomaly in terms of lying and that at some point we will say enough. But I'm not confident. I look at the current circumstances that have been created and wonder if the price we are paying will finally tell us that lying is not a foundation for a stable country, economy, or career or family life.
Wall Street Lies
When the dot.com bubble burst we professed to be stunned that people like Henry Blodgett, a securities analyst were lying about stocks - hyping them in public while trashing them in private. His and others aim was to make money, damn the consequences for those lied to. There was a brief revulsion about these revelations, but soon we were back to accepting, if not perpetrating lies. Enron and similar stories were a web of lies to make money. Somehow this surprised us, but it shouldn't have. Plenty of people absolutely knew these folks were lying and they said nothing. They accepted their lies without calling them out, otherwise the fraud would not have gone on as long. Now we are in another Wall Street scandal built on lies about the value of securities. It's representative of a culture that accepts lying as a way of getting what you want. Only when the circumstances spread outward like a pool, overwhelming the very systems that are being lied about does the condemnation seem to occur.
Lying is good is quietly promoted throughout the culture, from Survivor reality shows on TV to the spin-meisters of the Presidential campaign. Everyone seems to accept that its okay to lie if it gets you what you want. We continue not to call them out. Yes, there are few individuals who may complain or express contempt or offense at the lies, but the overwhelming acceptance comes from so many quarters, that everyone seems an appropriate description. The following are examples of how far we have run off the honesty track in the last decade. Is this ok? Are we willing to accept this as business as usual as long as we get what we want? Perhaps.
President Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton looked the American public in the eye and lied. Yes, it was a personal matter, but he made it a public one by lying. However, the issue quickly became a partisan fight over his Presidency, rather than a universal condemnation of his lying. Had the Congress passed a bi-partisan resolution condemning his conduct instead of starting a witch hunt to drive him out of office, the issue of lying would have been far better denounced and the culture would have had the idea that lying is wrong and has appropriate consequences more fully enshrined. Instead the message is don't get caught or just gut it out.
Iraq War
President George Bush & Vice President Dick Cheney have been shown to have lied over and over about the Iraq war, yet whether you accept or reject this is not based on the issue of lying, its based largely on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. No one has been called to account for these lies. The Democrats in Congress are afraid of alienating the public if they say enough with your lies, you will be accountable; the Republicans are afraid of losing the White House for a generation if they acknowledge the lies. This is not a lie about a personal flaw and therefore has great consequences for the nation and yet no one is held accountable for the lies. If Representative Kucinich goes after the lying, we make fun of his ardor and his looks and we push him in the basement so he will not be noticed, because he has little support in Congress. Fear of the judgment of the electorate rattles the leaders of the political parties. The Republicans claim even this small effort is a witch hunt designed as revenge for the impeachment effort on Clinton, even though in private they know they have been lied to. Dick Cheney calls a friend, Dick Armey, into his office and lies to him about Iraq, sufficient to get his support. We find out about this six years later because Mr. Armey is finally angry enough about being lied to that he confides the truth in a writer. We are never told by most leaders what they really believe because they are wedded to talking points that will, they hope get them re-elected. Where you stand is where you sit. There is absolutely no sense of honesty or open outrage, however terrible the consequences from these lies, from most people.
This lack of honesty permeates the culture on television news as well as the entertainment divisions in shows such as Survivor and Big Brother. We find out that supposedly respected and honorable retired military men, sworn to uphold the constitution, have been spewing the talking points provided by the Pentagon and White House, through a program of deliberate manipulation, in their "analysis" of the war and its aftermath. When this comes out, is there a hew and cry, is there a consequence; no, it is defended and then just accepted as spin.
In the Valerie Plame affair, the news media was complicit in the lies surrounding her exposure. Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Bob Novak, individual employees of the New York Times and Time magazine and others all knew at least part of truth, but they came on television and acted as though they were neutral, uninterested parties just exposing the facts. They paid no penalty for their complicity. Leaders in the White House knew the truth, since they were participants, but allowed the issue to be dragged out over months by playing ignorant or uninformed to ensure their hold on power. And when just one person was held accountable for his lies, the President basically pardoned him and refused to fire the others found to be lying even though he had said they would be fired. Lying is apparently not the crime, getting caught is.
These weren't inconsequential lies, they were lies of life and death and yet there is no outrage by the public at large, no recoiling about the total absence of fundamental honesty in our leaders. It is generally accepted as the way to get what you want. Little wonder dishonesty is permeating all of society.
2008 Presidential Election
And now we come to the election of 2008, arguably one of the most significant elections ever. Lies permeate the campaign discussions. Even after being called out by a usually acquiescent media for his bald-faced lies, John McCain and his running mate continue to repeat those lies. The pro McCain public believes the media is at fault and refuses to accept that their lying is wrong. No one doubts the reasons why Ms. Palin was selected by Mr. McCain, and the decision might be tactically and strategically brilliant, who knows, but to pretend that she among all other Republicans is the most qualified to be President is a lie. What happened to conservative outrage about affirmative action when it results in the less qualified candidate getting the job? It is lost in the desire to win.
Analysts for each side repeat the talking points of the campaign trying to stay on message, but they don't just stay on message with the ideas they agree with, they lie about their own views solely to further their candidates campaign. When analysts such as Peggy Noonan & Mike Murphy basically say one thing to the audience and then get caught saying what they really think from an open mike, there is little outrage at being lied to. In fact, they immediately write a mea culpa to explain what they really meant when they thought no one was listening and what they really meant was the opposite of what they actually did say. And the news corporations continue to air them as though they have some insight. When Jessie Jackson says one thing on the air and then is heard on an open mike saying something totally opposite, there is overall smirking about what he said, but no outrage that this "Reverend" was lying about his support. When Carly Fiorina accidentally told the truth as she believed it to be about the skills of the candidates, she was whisked away to oblivion likely for the remainder of the campaign; along with Phil Gramm who clearly believed what he said about whiners, he just wished he hadn't said it aloud. Only truth is punished in this election. And there is no penalty for lying. Lying is accepted if it gets you what you want. Even I don't expect campaigns in this day and age to be squeaky clean when it comes to their campaign records or those of their opponents, but surely there should be a difference between emphasis and exaggeration for effect, being simplistic, being less than artful in order to get your point across and outright lying, but apparently we acquiesce in the lying.
Barack Obama and John McCain promised a high minded campaign on the issues. McCain abandoned that promise when he realized that as he agrees with the Republican Reagan orthodoxy on most of the issues and the public has moved away from that orthodoxy, he would probably lose on the issues. I truly believe that Obama tried to run such a campaign until it became clear that the election would not be run on issues but on the cultural divide that afflicts this country and that is promoted as a substitute for reason. He then decided that attacks were the only way to win. History probably supports that decision, even if we say we reject it. But attacks breed lies about the issues and avoid truly talking about what we as a country believe and what want from our government and are willing to pay for. Any truths about policies involving taxes, health care, unemployment, war and terrorism, immigration, environment and energy are lost in attacks which, by their nature distort the truth. Whomever wins, we will likely not have any consensus about the issues that will have to be addressed by the winner, thereby making governing doubly difficult.
Please, someone, tell me we are not really a nation of liars. Tell me that we really do believe honesty is the best policy and that lying undermines our democracy as well as our economy and our society. Tell me that we have had enough and that from now on we will call people out when they lie, that we will set an example for our children that lying is wrong, that we will try and support a different ethic in ourselves, our leaders, our media and our commerce. If we can't be truthful, we could be silent.
Wall Street Lies
When the dot.com bubble burst we professed to be stunned that people like Henry Blodgett, a securities analyst were lying about stocks - hyping them in public while trashing them in private. His and others aim was to make money, damn the consequences for those lied to. There was a brief revulsion about these revelations, but soon we were back to accepting, if not perpetrating lies. Enron and similar stories were a web of lies to make money. Somehow this surprised us, but it shouldn't have. Plenty of people absolutely knew these folks were lying and they said nothing. They accepted their lies without calling them out, otherwise the fraud would not have gone on as long. Now we are in another Wall Street scandal built on lies about the value of securities. It's representative of a culture that accepts lying as a way of getting what you want. Only when the circumstances spread outward like a pool, overwhelming the very systems that are being lied about does the condemnation seem to occur.
Lying is good is quietly promoted throughout the culture, from Survivor reality shows on TV to the spin-meisters of the Presidential campaign. Everyone seems to accept that its okay to lie if it gets you what you want. We continue not to call them out. Yes, there are few individuals who may complain or express contempt or offense at the lies, but the overwhelming acceptance comes from so many quarters, that everyone seems an appropriate description. The following are examples of how far we have run off the honesty track in the last decade. Is this ok? Are we willing to accept this as business as usual as long as we get what we want? Perhaps.
President Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton looked the American public in the eye and lied. Yes, it was a personal matter, but he made it a public one by lying. However, the issue quickly became a partisan fight over his Presidency, rather than a universal condemnation of his lying. Had the Congress passed a bi-partisan resolution condemning his conduct instead of starting a witch hunt to drive him out of office, the issue of lying would have been far better denounced and the culture would have had the idea that lying is wrong and has appropriate consequences more fully enshrined. Instead the message is don't get caught or just gut it out.
Iraq War
President George Bush & Vice President Dick Cheney have been shown to have lied over and over about the Iraq war, yet whether you accept or reject this is not based on the issue of lying, its based largely on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. No one has been called to account for these lies. The Democrats in Congress are afraid of alienating the public if they say enough with your lies, you will be accountable; the Republicans are afraid of losing the White House for a generation if they acknowledge the lies. This is not a lie about a personal flaw and therefore has great consequences for the nation and yet no one is held accountable for the lies. If Representative Kucinich goes after the lying, we make fun of his ardor and his looks and we push him in the basement so he will not be noticed, because he has little support in Congress. Fear of the judgment of the electorate rattles the leaders of the political parties. The Republicans claim even this small effort is a witch hunt designed as revenge for the impeachment effort on Clinton, even though in private they know they have been lied to. Dick Cheney calls a friend, Dick Armey, into his office and lies to him about Iraq, sufficient to get his support. We find out about this six years later because Mr. Armey is finally angry enough about being lied to that he confides the truth in a writer. We are never told by most leaders what they really believe because they are wedded to talking points that will, they hope get them re-elected. Where you stand is where you sit. There is absolutely no sense of honesty or open outrage, however terrible the consequences from these lies, from most people.
This lack of honesty permeates the culture on television news as well as the entertainment divisions in shows such as Survivor and Big Brother. We find out that supposedly respected and honorable retired military men, sworn to uphold the constitution, have been spewing the talking points provided by the Pentagon and White House, through a program of deliberate manipulation, in their "analysis" of the war and its aftermath. When this comes out, is there a hew and cry, is there a consequence; no, it is defended and then just accepted as spin.
In the Valerie Plame affair, the news media was complicit in the lies surrounding her exposure. Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Bob Novak, individual employees of the New York Times and Time magazine and others all knew at least part of truth, but they came on television and acted as though they were neutral, uninterested parties just exposing the facts. They paid no penalty for their complicity. Leaders in the White House knew the truth, since they were participants, but allowed the issue to be dragged out over months by playing ignorant or uninformed to ensure their hold on power. And when just one person was held accountable for his lies, the President basically pardoned him and refused to fire the others found to be lying even though he had said they would be fired. Lying is apparently not the crime, getting caught is.
These weren't inconsequential lies, they were lies of life and death and yet there is no outrage by the public at large, no recoiling about the total absence of fundamental honesty in our leaders. It is generally accepted as the way to get what you want. Little wonder dishonesty is permeating all of society.
2008 Presidential Election
And now we come to the election of 2008, arguably one of the most significant elections ever. Lies permeate the campaign discussions. Even after being called out by a usually acquiescent media for his bald-faced lies, John McCain and his running mate continue to repeat those lies. The pro McCain public believes the media is at fault and refuses to accept that their lying is wrong. No one doubts the reasons why Ms. Palin was selected by Mr. McCain, and the decision might be tactically and strategically brilliant, who knows, but to pretend that she among all other Republicans is the most qualified to be President is a lie. What happened to conservative outrage about affirmative action when it results in the less qualified candidate getting the job? It is lost in the desire to win.
Analysts for each side repeat the talking points of the campaign trying to stay on message, but they don't just stay on message with the ideas they agree with, they lie about their own views solely to further their candidates campaign. When analysts such as Peggy Noonan & Mike Murphy basically say one thing to the audience and then get caught saying what they really think from an open mike, there is little outrage at being lied to. In fact, they immediately write a mea culpa to explain what they really meant when they thought no one was listening and what they really meant was the opposite of what they actually did say. And the news corporations continue to air them as though they have some insight. When Jessie Jackson says one thing on the air and then is heard on an open mike saying something totally opposite, there is overall smirking about what he said, but no outrage that this "Reverend" was lying about his support. When Carly Fiorina accidentally told the truth as she believed it to be about the skills of the candidates, she was whisked away to oblivion likely for the remainder of the campaign; along with Phil Gramm who clearly believed what he said about whiners, he just wished he hadn't said it aloud. Only truth is punished in this election. And there is no penalty for lying. Lying is accepted if it gets you what you want. Even I don't expect campaigns in this day and age to be squeaky clean when it comes to their campaign records or those of their opponents, but surely there should be a difference between emphasis and exaggeration for effect, being simplistic, being less than artful in order to get your point across and outright lying, but apparently we acquiesce in the lying.
Barack Obama and John McCain promised a high minded campaign on the issues. McCain abandoned that promise when he realized that as he agrees with the Republican Reagan orthodoxy on most of the issues and the public has moved away from that orthodoxy, he would probably lose on the issues. I truly believe that Obama tried to run such a campaign until it became clear that the election would not be run on issues but on the cultural divide that afflicts this country and that is promoted as a substitute for reason. He then decided that attacks were the only way to win. History probably supports that decision, even if we say we reject it. But attacks breed lies about the issues and avoid truly talking about what we as a country believe and what want from our government and are willing to pay for. Any truths about policies involving taxes, health care, unemployment, war and terrorism, immigration, environment and energy are lost in attacks which, by their nature distort the truth. Whomever wins, we will likely not have any consensus about the issues that will have to be addressed by the winner, thereby making governing doubly difficult.
Please, someone, tell me we are not really a nation of liars. Tell me that we really do believe honesty is the best policy and that lying undermines our democracy as well as our economy and our society. Tell me that we have had enough and that from now on we will call people out when they lie, that we will set an example for our children that lying is wrong, that we will try and support a different ethic in ourselves, our leaders, our media and our commerce. If we can't be truthful, we could be silent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)