Mass Hysteria, Fueled By Mass Ignorance

Really, people? Hoarding toilet paper? I was at my local Sam’s club this morning, there was a waiting line to get in-limiting the number of people in the store. Ok, that I can understand-distance is a way to contain the spread of viruses. Toilet paper in 36 roll packages was limited to 2 per person.  I saw families lined up, mom, dad, 5 kids; each person had a basket to put their 2 packages of toilet paper in. How much toilet paper do they normally buy in a shopping trip?

No diapers or feminine protection products available. No baby 

formula, no milk. No coffee, no bottled water; plenty of soda pop and snack crackers.

Where I work, a store that sells sporting goods, hardware, clothes, 

toys-we are out of 55-gallon water barrels, toilet paper-including RV toilet paper, any type of face mask, Kleenex, gas cans, any form of sanitizing cleaner, even bleach.

It’s a virus that affects the respiratory system, not your intestinal 

tract. It’s an air-borne virus, not a water-spread virus. It can’t live in our treated tap water.

It does spread though social contact, I understand that. I applaud 

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for cancelling the General Conference and suspending all local worship services for the time being. They probably did the best thing possible to avert the spread of the virus!

Our State government has closed all K-12 schools for two weeks, 

again a very positive move in my opinion. Classes have been moved to on-line wherever possible. There will be sack breakfasts and lunches available for children who need them. Again, a good response.  

Gun and ammunition sales at our store are up, way up over a year 

ago. Some types of ammunition are out of stock. I spoke to one of my regular customers, he told me he was stocking up on ammo because of the riots. I changed the subject.  

Hysteria runs rampant in our population. In many ways, it is 

probably worse than the virus.

Why? One can only surmise. Our government has been kind of 

slow on the response; in my opinion, they should have let the CDC handle the information, get the facts out rather than the speculation. 

At this time, during this crisis, we need a leader who will calm the 

people, who will work to make sure the proper tests and treatments are available to all who need them. We need a leader that will help people understand what they need to do, and what they don’t need to do. We need a leader who will unite us and bring Americas great resources to bear on the problem at hand. We need a leader that doesn’t cut funding to the CDC and other health organizations, a leader who supports community hospitals, doctors and nurses. We need a President of the People, for the People, and by the People.

We need a Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Our reality 

TV star is not getting the job done.

Thanks for reading. Of course, these are only my opinions. I’d like

to hear yours, agree or disagree with me.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

To leave a comment, click on the pencil in the white box below.

July 4, 2014

It was not an easy time; taxes were high, and going higher; wars had to be fought and paid for. The draft, known then as conscription, was taking valuable sons and sending them off to battle in foreign lands. Resources needed for trade were being seized by the government. Trees having a diameter of more than 11 inches were declared property of the Crown, crippling the ship-building industry. A general unrest was falling on the population; it was stirred up by meetings in taverns and public squares as news traveled of new atrocities and crimes against the population.

It was an historical time. The colonies revolted against the oppression of the crown rule (Great Britain).

The 56 delegates of 13 colonies meet and discussed/argued/agreed upon a version of declaration of independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson, which contained, in his words, no original ideas.
“Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” ( "TO HENRY LEE — Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826; 1905)". The Online Library of Liberty. May 8, 1825. Retrieved July 3rd, 2014.

Let us be clear on the subject, this was not a one day decision. The men who signed this document, and many others, had long discourses via mail as to what they thought. Thankfully for us, they did decide to declare Independence from the Crown.

It was a time of great sentiment, of minds colliding and concluding, a time, not of fireworks and parades, but of national importance and great consequences. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were judged to be traitors to the Crown, and subject to hanging if caught.

Scholars disagree as to the date each of the 56 signed the document, but they all agree on one item: This piece of paper was the basis of many declarations, in many countries, in years to follow.

Today is July 4, 2014; 238 years since the Declaration of Independence was put to Congress. As a nation, we have had our trials, our difficulties, our tribulations. As a nation, we have overcome all of the challenges set before us. As a nation, we have much to do, internally and internationally. But, we can achieve our goals, working together, as a people united by a Declaration of Independence.

Enjoy your holiday! Light fireworks, have picnics, go to the beaches and the lakes and the forests. Watch demolition derbies, parades, rodeos, and listen to political speeches. Eat ice cream, hot dogs, and burgers. Kiss your children, grandchildren, and spouses. (Regarding political speeches, a man once said: “a political speech is like a Texas longhorn: a point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between.” I think it was Lyndon Johnson.)

Me? I am hosting family for a smoked baby back rib dinner. Enjoy! And give thanks to the 56 men who met to form a union; however imperfect, it is the union we now enjoy.

President George Washington

In his farewell address to the United States of America, President George Washington made comments that allow me to think he had vision that extended to the present day, even to the rancorous, bitter politics of the recent past and the current election:

“…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)

Before I continue, let me remind everyone that the President of The United States of America can not write legislation. He can request, support, sign or veto laws, but the legislation itself comes from Congress. Therefore, it is in the President’s, and Congress’s, best interest to work together for the good of the American people.

The immature and disrespectful attitude displayed by Congress toward the American people shows that no member of either party is deserving of re-election. We, the people, hire our Representatives and Senators to “do the Nation’s business.” They are expected, at a minimum, to provide for the nation’s defense, promote the general good, properly regulate commerce and industry, engage in treaties and agreements in America’s favor; and keep the promise of America alive for our youth.

In my opinion, they have failed miserably over the past 12 years. The loud rabble on the extreme right and left have caused the Congress to sway precipitously left and then right, never to establish a comfortable center-stage, where the majority of Americans wish them to be. The art of compromise, upon which this country was founded, has been discarded for “victory at all costs” for one party or faction over the other. This is not what the American mainstream wants from Congress. Polls of the American people conducted by Gallup, Newsweek, Rasmussen, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal consistently point to a low level of credibility and job performance of Congress. The first question is, why; the second, what can be done?

Here are some of my musings on this issue.
First and foremost, as pointed out by President Washington in his address, is party ideology. We have become so saturated by “The Republicans stand for this” and “The Democrats stand for this” to the point we no longer look at the person running for office, just which party he or she belongs to. No longer do we hear enough about what the candidate running for office believes or thinks, we just hear that he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. Rather than run on their individual accomplishments, goals or visions, they campaign on their own party line or against the other party. This party ideology denies us as citizens the privilege to choose the candidates who express thoughts and opinions that best reflect the majority of any specific voter’s ideas.

Second, our legislators are running for office again the day they take office. The cost of running a campaign has hit historical and ridiculously high figures. Politicians are constantly fundraising in one form or another. They are busy meeting with prospective high dollar donors, lobbyists, and “special interest groups.” With the advent of Pacs, SuperPacs, 527, 501c4’s and legislative Pacs, they are now beholden to money, not to the people. So busy fundraising are they, in fact, they don’t have time to construct, read or consider legislation; those functions are now delegated to staffers, or worse, to lobbyists who have staff to construct, read and provide the Congressman the condensed version of the bill.

Third, and perhaps most insidiously, is power. “I will be the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee next term, think what that will do for Utah”, claimed one of our Senators. (The only effect I saw was the further de-regulation of the banking community, to the citizen’s peril.) Power in Washington is derived from longevity, and from trading favors (votes in session) one legislator to another.

So, what do I propose?

First, term limits, including limits on a politician’s ability to move from one house of Congress to the other.

Second, effective and enforced campaign finance reform is far overdue. Eliminate the use of PACS, SUPERPACS, 527’s, 501c4’s, bundling, and any other forms of special interest money, including corporation and union money. This includes re-writing the tax code to prohibit these types of “corporations” and overturning the Citizens United judgment of the Supreme Court.

Third, eliminate or control the lobbyists. Don’t allow them to write or suggest legislation; eliminate all the money and perks they bring to the Congressmen. Enact ethics legislation that prohibits Congressmen, and their families, from accepting jobs from lobbyists for a reasonable time after the Congressman leaves his/her office.

Fourth, ethics reform needs to be in place. Make sure Congressmen understand they may lose the position they have been elected to for violation of ethics. Put in place strong regulation, refine it as time and necessity require, and make it stick.

My conclusion: if the American citizens desire to bring Congress back to “doing the Nation’s business”, we need to act individually and collectively to bring reform to Congress. We need to remind them, by all means proper, they work for us. If reforms of the type I here suggest, and others of a like mind, were to be enacted, Congress would have time and willpower to work for the American people. Candidates for office would have to present to the voters reasons to elect them; they would not be able to flood our airwaves with negative advertisements and would perhaps be reduced to publishing position papers available and understandable to the majority of the voting public.

There is much more to be said and written about these pressing subjects. I hope I have provided some food for thought and discussion, as always your comments and opinions are welcome.
Robert M. “Bob” Hartman

Are you for or against Term Limits?

A Discussion on the Value of Term Limits

“Public Service is just that, a period when you serve your fellow man. I have served enough, and I am going home.”
This is attributed to George Washington when he was asked to serve again as President. I can not vouch for its accuracy, but it is a good starting point for a discussion. Currently, there is not a federal limitation to the number of terms a member of congress can serve, or a limit to his ability to serve in both houses and/or consider a run at the Oval Office. Is this really in our country’s best interest?

Certainly it can be argued that as individuals learn more about their counterparts, as well as their own roles in any given profession, they can acquire greater abilities to search out resources and fellow-thinkers, even take sage advice and counsel from those with whom they have diametrically opposed positions. It can be intuited that this advice and counsel could give a person reason and time to pause and reflect upon a point of view not previously considered within his/her own circle of advisors. Logically, in a private-sector enterprise, you are believed to have a greater knowledge of the inner workings and the most effective, productive way to receive help and support for a given project if you have a reasonable length of time in service to your enterprises. These are all arguments in favor of allowing our elected officials to remain in office as long as possible.

In the private sector, there are certainly good reasons for retaining and promoting long-term employees. They may have shown, for example, a great ability to understand the customer’s needs beyond that of a new employee; ability learned through time to rationally remove a doubt in the customer’s mind of a products ability to fulfill the current requirements. It’s often said, “call X, he is the only one who may have seen this before and he can provide you the best answer.” Certainly, as individuals, we feel more at ease when we speak to the same individual at a given company, who can remember us, can empathize with our concern, and connect us to the person or office that most easily can solve our need.

The private sector, however, is not elected. The private sector exists, at its core, for one reason, and one only: to survive and become the company of choice for customers, to drive to the bottom line ever greater profits, to hand the shareholders/owners a good return on their investment. In the main, those companies who achieve those goals become distinguished, the employees who assist the company to reach its goals are well rewarded, and the CEO’s are properly compensated. Conversely, employees at any level who fail to share in this core behavior are eliminated, from the dismissal of an employee who fails to show up on time to the removal of a CEO who does not meet shareholders expectations, or the takeover of a business by creditors when the directors and management fail to meet financial obligations. This is the “free market” at its’ most basic level.

Our federal, state, and local governments, and the elected officials who guide them, however, operate on entirely different models. Our government is required by the public to provide basic services: military protection; trade agreements; schools; public safety services; and code-enforcement, to broadly cover the spectrum. These elected officials are reasonably expected to take the very wide view, that is: to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens, at the best possible price. Unlike the private sector, however, no great accolades or honors are given to officials and governments who do the best; no financial or public honors are forthcoming. In the main, sadly, most elected officials serve well and with honor and distinction, and deserve accolades for achieving the results required by the citizens, honors they rarely publicly receive.

With power, however, comes the ability of corruption; the ability to appear benign and to simultaneously destroy the public trust. Allegations of malfeasance in office are as old as our country, even before our time, and beyond our shores, these charges are not new to public service. As elected officials remain in office, the temptations to accept personal gain for this favor or that contract become more pronounced; even innocent charities can be caught up in scandals. Old and recent reports of elected officials receiving favors to push legislation that favors one business or another, or allow a developer to build a subdivision without proper safety review, fall upon elected officials without regard to party affiliation.

Is the acceptance of bribes, gifts, and contributions a just reward for “bringing home the bacon?” Is it our Pollyanna belief that “good people will not do this or that evil thing?” Or is it a symptom of the changed personality of public service? If we set term limits, if we do not allow seniority or longevity in office to become a trading post for bribes and corruption, will we be able to reduce the amount of malfeasance in office? For example, should a person running for office know in advance this was not a career assignment, but only a temporary duty post, would they be more willing to look after the common good rather than their own? It seems to be a discussion worth having, on local, state, and national levels. I for one believe term limits should be set, on and across all levels of government, Perhaps in doing so, we can rebuild the public trust, restore confidence that those we elect are actually performing public service, and are not turning responsibility and honorable discharge of their duties into personal gain and fortune. If a person is elevated to public office by their peers, with the knowledge that they shall soon return to civilian life, would they be more able to look past the possibility of large donations for the next election, for the next bill passed? Would it be possible then for our elected officials to work for the common good of the population, to have a greater understanding and compassion of the laws they pass, knowing full well that in a set time they also would be subject to those same laws and regulations?

I postulate that it would, that the knowledge of their equal footing after this term was completed, might be a stepping-stone to dismantling the continued corruption and holier-than-thou attitude currently so vividly displayed in our elected officials. Should or could we dismantle the “immunity from prosecution” that now surrounds our public officials, so they could understand that civil penalties can be annexed to crimes of malfeasance committed in office; that prosecution for acts of unfair bias will be forthcoming? I again postulate this would a major step forward in removing the temptation to self-gain from public office.

With the knowledge that this is not a new position, I would urge all citizens to seriously consider the effect this type of legislation would have; the positive effect it could produce in restoring our faith in our governments, and the larger effect it may have on our standing worldwide.