Both the Tea party and the occupy movement feel that they are being wronged by the powers that be. Both feel that the America they love is being destroyed by malevolent powers that they have little power to oppose. Both want to take their country back. The apparent difference between the two lies in who they blame for this atrocity.

The Tea party mostly blames what they consider to be an overreaching big government which has insinuated itself into every aspect of their lives, taking away their freedoms and dictating how they live and interact. The occupy movement blames corporations for dominating our economic and political lives through the unholy application of power through expenditure of their seemingly inexhaustible resources. Both are correct to a degree but these are not so drastically different viewpoints as it might seem.

What is probably the real truth here is that both government and corporations are colluding to create these inequities. Corporations, through lobbying and with the assistance of the Citizens United ruling, have undo influence on the election and workings of congress and government in turn rewards their corporate sponsors with favorable legislation and ineffectual regulatory oversight. Who is to be blamed comes more from the basic political philosophy of the observer than from reality.

What we are dealing with here is in 20th century terms good old fashioned fascism. The collusion of business and government is not a new idea and has been the goal of potential oligarchs everywhere since the early 20th century. The new age fascists have honed their craft to rule not by dictatorial means but through the illusion of democracy. They use fear and misinformation to fool the public into thinking that they still have power when in fact only the monied few have any real power in today’s America.

If we are not careful we will be ruled by our corporate overlords and their congressional enablers for many years unless both the Tea party and the occupy movement can see past their differences and actually take back their country through the overwhelming application of that best of means, the power of righteous, heartfelt will to overcome. Both the Tea Party and the occupy movement are correct that our democracy faces a grave challenge. They just need to bury their differences and work together to restore America to its original promise, equality of opportunity and real freedom.

The future is at stake and the stakes are high.

Friedmanesque economics tells us that all means of gaining profit are moral. In doing whatever is necessary for profit businesses are all too often are tempted by the all too human tendency to cheat to achieve their ends. The temptation to cut corners and deceive their competitors and the public is often too great for businesses to resist.

Left to their own devices businesses have no soul, no conscience. They will sell defective products that damage people to serve their lust for profit. They will sell unneeded and decietful services to gain the slightest advantage. To allow businesses to police themselves is akin to letting the proverbial fox guard the proverbial henhouse.

The proper role of government is to protect and empower the people. Who else if not the government will protect the public from predatory business practices through regulation. Some who hear this argument often say that “You just hate business”. This could not be further from the truth. There are many businesses that follow moral and just business practices. However it is imperative that some entity stand up to those who do not have such scruples. Citizens by themselves are powerless to fend off bad businesses. Only the government is capable of such action.

It is logical to expect those who take our money to give us real value for their goods and services and not to rob or deceive those upon whom they depend for their livelihoods. Until we live in a more perfect world business must be regulated to to protect the public from those that thirst only for profit without morals. I will admit that certain regulations are illogical and in need of reform. But that does not mean that all regulation should disappear out of hand.

If corporations want to be treated as people they should be held to the same moral standards as real people.

Perhaps one good thing that might arise out of the media circus surrounding the scandal would be an increased awareness in mainstream culture about this perfect example of the true nature of the classic pedophile. This man, if we are to believe the accusations, exhibited most of the tell tale attributes of those who would defile our children.

He was powerful in his community, a top football coach in a top division one program, second in power only to a legendary coach seen as a type of god at his university. He was respected and trusted, just the type of social status to which the pedophile aspires. He had a supportive community around him which protected him and enabled him to act with impunity, perhaps even when they knew of or suspected his perversions. He had access to the kind of private places where he could carry out his sick deeds. He founded a foundation whose purpose was to mentor young boys, giving him access to any number of vulnerable youth. All of the traits are common to many pedophiles. They seek authority and standing in the community and ready access to potential prey as a rule.

The only way to combat this type of deviant is for society, all of us, to open ourselves to knowing and understanding this profile of the pedophile, the position of authority, the way he assures he has access to prey, the earning of a position of social respect and aura of trustworthiness, the tell tale signs of questionable behavior around young people in public, the network of enablers. These signs can be easily overlooked. We must be diligent but not paranoid in our diligence. A tall order to be sure.

People feared crossing this man. He made sure of that. Neither the young boys or adults around him were comfortable confronting him about his habit of showering with young boys. They feared him. It may be that his sickness partially originates in his own fear. We may never know.

Most importantly we need to speak the truth about and not hide in shame from the reality of this type of cancer among us. If you suspect, cautiously investigate or convince someone qualified to do so. If you witness, report it immediately. Stand up for your moral values. Listen to your children or if they suddenly go through a dramatic change in behavior gently try to elicit the truth from them. This can be hard but parenting is always hard if done properly. Do not remain in the shadows of fear and embarrassment for this is where the pedophile lives and from whence he derives his power. Women can also be pedophiles, however rarely. Do not discount them out of hand for their gender.

Trust but verify.

There are some things about which civilized society must maintain a zero tolerance policy. Among those things pedophilia is one of the most important.

What I find fascinating about this whole affair is that in my opinion Casey was tried and convicted by the media and thus by the public and yet the verdict of not guilty was as informed by the media as the biases of the public were. With the recent proliferation of forensic based TV shows the public has become enamored with real and physical evidence as the only basis for prosecutorial victory. Without fingerprints and DNA evidence people do not feel cases can be adequately presented. It used to be that a case with strong yet circumstantial evidence stood a great chance of bringing a guilty verdict. Now, without the requisite forensic evidence a case stands no chance of succeeding. We have become addicted to the technological aspects of evidence gathering.

Even in the face of mountains of circumstantial evidence to the contrary the prosecution in the Anthony case was unable to present the jury with what it craved. There was no DNA, no smoking gun, to connect Casey to any evidence that a murder had actually taken place. Ergo, no conviction.

As sensational cases tried in the media become more commonplace a corresponding dependence on flashy forensics will make prosecutors jobs even more difficult. What this means for jurisprudence in America is yet to be seen. Our modern focus on infotainment is having unintended consequences.

Which of our treasured institutions will be next to be desecrated.

The 2010 election which brought in a wave of right wing elected officials nationwide appears to have been interpreted as a mandate for these conservatives to push their reactionary agenda down the throats of a helpless public. I will never understand how winning slightly over 50% of the vote gives them the idea that everyone wants them to foist their ideology on all of us. Wouldn’t they think that nearly half of the people don’t agree with them and maybe they should look to compromise just a little to hopefully make things right with the most citizens possible.

In a word, no. They assume that they can just go ahead and ramrod every idea they have been salivating over for years into law. This slavish devotion to ideology over pragmatism is indicative of a patent disregard for the greater welfare of us all and a manic desire to control our lives. I find it ludicrous that the right rattles on about how the socialist liberals want to control everyone’s lives when that is exactly what they want to do themselves.

This rabid effort to conduct social engineering, another thing they accuse progressives of doing, just goes to show that the things they hate about us are only valid when it is us doing them. When they do them it is perfectly ok. Diversity and tolerance are just fine as long as the result pleases them. If not they scream bloody murder.

Ideology is fine as a guide to move forward. It is not a strict script for our way or bust. I just wish that all politicians would realize that things might just work out if they work toward a via media rather than insisting that they always get their way.

It would do the world a lot of good.

One might ask why they would do this when homosexuals cannot legally marry. Isn’t that a bit of overkill. And isn’t it just a little distracting and time consuming when the state has a budget shortfall of billions.

These legislators claim that “activist judges” could overturn the law at any time and that this discrimination needs to be codified in the constitution to protect the “definition” of marriage. As with most attempts to legislate morality I believe that this is being one simply to assure a large social conservative turnout at the polls in 2012. The Republican base is smaller than the Democrat’s and they are always looking for ways to increase Republican turnout.

In keeping with their desire to increase their chances of victory in 2012 they have also tried to pass legislation requiring photo IDs to vote. This is simply, to my mind, another attempt to improve Republican chances of electoral advantage by suppressing the right to vote for those who traditionally do not have access or need for photo IDs, many of whom are assumed to vote for Democrats.

It would appear that Republicans are more interested in gaining and retaining power than in serving the needs of the people. I have always found it odd that those whose despise government are so obsessed with being that government.

Go figure.

On the other hand the more socially liberal libertarians have not embraced the democratic party in with quite the same fervor. It is my opinion that they cannot bring themselves to vote for candidates whom they feel are creating a nanny state. These are rugged individualists who feel the democrats are soft and fiscally irresponsible.

The sum total of this apparent shift in voting habits is that the Republican base is growing while the Democrats base remains pretty much the same. This trend is slowly evening out the political bases, which for many years has favored Democrats.

One reason for this change could be the influx of lots of cash into American politics by very wealthy Libertarians such as the Koch Brothers. In their fanatic and highly successful push to advance a free market philosophy the Kochs have poured millions of dollars into organizations such as Americans for Prosperity to drum up support for their ideas. The Tea Party has been a major recipient of these propaganda efforts. Tea party advocates, who nominally claim to be independents, hate Democrats and voted primarily Republican in the last cycle. Perhaps this explains the shift of Libertarian voters to the dark side.

On the whole I find this fascinating, if not rather scary.

The media is certainly no help in this matter. They play one side off the other and, toward their own ends, overemphasize the differences between parties and people. This concentration on what separates us leaves little room for an honest discussion of what we all have in common, what binds us instead of separates us.

When I think about those on the other end of the political continuum from me I always try to remember that these people love their kids, just like me, they have to take out the trash, just like me, they worry about their health, just like me and any number of other similarities that we, as humans here on planet earth share. Why everyone is so ready to delineate, analyze and emphasize our differences rather than our commonalities is beyond me.

This dualistic approach to nearly everything has caused us to despise each other. Shouldn’t we be looking for that which shows us that we are all in the same boat on this blue sphere. Wouldn’t celebrating our common humanity push us toward solutions that seek to help the many instead of pitting us against each other in a manufactured struggle of polar opposites.

Who knows, we just might get something good done for the world.

As a full time caregiver of my elderly father, who is still relatively functional, I often have a few spare daytime hours. I have taken to occasionally visiting my local newspaper’s website to read the various commentary on the news and opinions of the day offered by other readers. Over time the tendencies I have witnessed give me cause to be greatly alarmed at the state of what passes for argumentative conversation in modern dialogue.

These commentaries most often rapidly disintegrate into vicious adversarial Ad Hominem attacks by those of all political persuasions. I cannot stress more vociferously that this kind of nasty business is not the sole province of supporters of any political party or ideological group. Personal attacks seem to be an equal opportunity phenomenon. These unproductive conversations show up almost immediately, hijacking threads and making it nigh unto impossible to reasonably discuss the issue at hand.

Is this what we have descended to in America? Are we so full of vitriol that we cannot talk things over without calling each other hurtful names. These are our neighbors we are ridiculing. They are not enemies, they are our fellow citizens.

What I believe has been lost today is common self respect. I believe it is implied in one’s self respect that there is the expectation that others will also respect themselves. This creates an atmosphere where everyone can respect the lifestyles, decisions and opinions of everyone else, allowing for quality productive intercourse over any topic. We don’t have to agree with people to respect their opinions, no matter how egregious we find their positions. One could argue that differences of opinion lead to better solutions than simple agreement, for they introduce critical thinking into the problem solving process.

This lack of self respect is a disease from which we suffer greatly. When people cannot argue without personal attacks the issues are never fairly addressed and consensus is out of the question. When people only demonize each other there are only demons. Without productive discussion of the real issues I am afraid we will be simply be spinning our wheels instead of addressing the critical issues of our time.

Grow up people.

First, in delivering such a drastic and extreme budget proposal the right is simply doing what many have done before them. They have offered policy that is so outrageous and absurd that virtually anything less severe will be greeted as “moderate” and “reasonable. In doing this they push the debate continuum further and further to the right, as policy once considered harsh is now looked at as a potential compromise.

In political parlance this is called pushing the Overton Window. The Overton Window is the range of policy that is considered acceptable. By introducing radical policy proposals to the discussion one attempts to move the window to include ideas once considered unacceptable to the mainstream of public debate, by making them look less objectionable in comparison. It is a tactic used by everyone in the political game, primarily because it works. By advocating, for example, the eventual privatization of Medicare, Ryan hopes to make future policy advocacy of a slightly less undesirable nature more appealing to the masses. Time will only tell if the trick works.

Second, inside Ryan’s proposal we find revealed the true strategic aims of the right. Conservatives have been trying to repeal the New Deal for over 70 years. They hope to take advantage of the current weak economy and the resultant loss in federal revenues to emasculate reviled New Deal and Great Society social programs, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.

The rich and their pet programs will not suffer from Ryan’s budgetary slashing. In their plan only the poor and middle class will bear the burden of allegedly putting our country’s financial house in order. Make no mistake, the corporate elite and their followers aim to make America a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. If the Overton Window continues to get pushed further and further to the right eventually the corporations and their fat cat followers will have a stranglehold on our nation that average citizens will be unable to overcome.

Can you say Banana Republic?