A Life versus Death Struggle

A Life versus Death Struggle

Posted on May 29, 2008by gramatrudy

A Life versus Death Struggle

“A Life Versus Death Struggle:” If the Medical Profession Calculates the Value of Life on an Economical Basis, Who Calculates the Value of Death?

By Trudy A. Martinez

Once upon a time in America, an individual is guaranteed the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Then death is a natural process. The meaning of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” changes with the growth of the Medical industry. Life itself becomes a pursuit of the medical profession, leaving the value of death obscure and no longer a natural process as medicine views death as a failure. And then, when the right to die comes into being, it hinders medicines’ quest for technological immorality.

Because death is a failure to the medical profession, the prolonging of life by artificial means rejects bereavement, leaving death with no place in life.

When Mary Catherine Bateson examines, “What is needed to give death its proper place in life?” She says, “In rejecting death, [society sets itself] against nature” (8). “Having interfered with the process . . . [society] should accept the fact that the cast and glory of technical progress is to require choice: . . . choice of how to die” (8).

In other words, Bateson advocates the “right to die”. In 1971, the Supreme Court rules “there is no constitutional right to choose to die” (Kearl 412). Nevertheless, death does not necessitate constitutional approval. Death is a natural process.

On the other hand, death revolts physicians since natural death hinders medicine’s quest for technological immortality (Guillemin 32). Therefore, “dying . . . is not something the individual patient . . . really does, [dying] is a matter of . . . withdrawing life supports” (Guillemin 32). Many doctors feel to choose to die over maintaining life on life support is committing suicide.

In ancient time, “because life was so trivialized, Romans and Greeks raised few moral objections to suicide, and they usually only protested suicide when it caused economic or social loss” (Barry 25).

Life in America, on the other hand, is not trivialized; instead, life is immortalized, causing death to lose its natural right. As a result, in an immortal society for an individual to re-claim the natural right of death, he resorts to what the medical institutions now define as suicide, unplugging the machines. Such a death does not constitute a social loss when the individual’s quality of life is gone. To retain life that has loss quality causes an unnecessary economical drain on the family and the patient, while at the time, it has the opposite effect on medical professionals; they benefit economically.

Although a medical professional may believe he has the patient’s best interest at heart, not always does he serve the patient’s best interest. This is especially true when considering the spiraling cost of maintaining life supports in the equation.

“If antiquity privatized suicide and objected only when there was economic or social loss, Medieval Christianity saw a deeper meaning and value in life”(Barry 26).

However, in current times, death to a Christian is of more value than life as the medical institutions defines life. For a Christian death brings life forever after. Yet, life, in the sense of forever, is in heaven, not on earth. To some dying individuals, whether Christian or not, death has worth; it ends suffering and pain. To the Medical industry, life has worth; it increases profits, while at the same time, decreases a sense of failure. Consequently, a safeguard to the health-care profession’s own perception of adequacy requires the devaluation of death.

When death is devalued, the voice of the people rings out: “Whose death is it, anyway?” (Seligmann 69). Once, death came naturally. Then, a decision to die is not necessary. However, technology changes all that. For example, the question asked about Carrie Coons, 86, is “Does she want to die?” Such a question is unfair. Nobody wants to die if his or her life has a promise of quality. However, Mrs. Coons lost through deprivation a quality of life. She is “kept alive by a feeding tube,” a state “her doctor calls a ‘persistent vegetative state’” (69). “Dr. Michael Wolff . . . called her chances of recovery ‘nil’” (69). Even though she is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery, Mrs. Coon’s sister has to seek and receive a court order “to have the feeding tube removed” (69). With total disregard for the family wishes and with the knowledge that her chances of recovery are non-existent, the doctor requests a hearing that blocks the order “to remove the feeding tube”. Why? Because doctors believe in order for death to be natural, it requires a decision. When the doctor asks Mrs. Coons “whether she wanted her feeding tube removed”, she answers, “according to Wolff, it would be a difficult decision” (69). Wolff assumes her answer implies she wants to live regardless of her quality of life. Yet, is this really the case? Her sister says, “From the look in her eyes . . . she [is] trying to tell me, ‘Let me go’” (69). She lingers now “in limbo until she either speaks clearly or dies” (69). In other words, her sentence is a life of suffering, not a life of happiness, but one that is literally a “Hell on Earth”.

In the past when our ancestors cried: Give me life, liberty, or death, little did they know that when life is given, liberty is curtailed, and death is denied.

“. . . To dispense death is one [decision] in which society as a whole has no interest” (The Economist 60). Today “. . . autonomy decides . . . theright to die’ but it is a principle that . . . leans toward life, not death” (The Economist 60). This is probably so because most people want to live. Nevertheless, some want to end the suffering and pain and die as naturally as possible. They want “To civilize death, to bring it home and make it no longer a source of dread . . . . The road leads . . . to acceptance and understanding” (The Economist 60).

Not all doctors agree abandoning treatment achieves the primary good or that an individual has the capability to decide for himself.

For instance, Dr. David C. Stolinsky, M.D. says, lawyers and ethicists persuade us to regard “. . . The cessation of active treatment for the senile or incurably ill and the omission of effective treatment at the patient’s request . . . as definite goods to be eagerly embraced . . . . [Therefore, the] competing good–beneficence–has been largely displaced. . . . [In addition] autonomy has outpaced beneficence. . . I believe it is a mistake to make [autonomy] superior to ‘Thou shalt not kill’ . . . . But those who encourage it, even for the best motives, are in fact performing an experiment with all of us as subjects . . . I don’t recall giving my informed consent” (Appelbaum 2).

The trouble with doctors like Stolinsky is they feel they are superior and they should rule over a patient’s right to autonomy.

Stolinsky says, too much autonomy can lead to blaming the patient for his illness, an abdication of responsibility for decision-making, an uncaring attitude toward society’s unfortunates, and (in the extreme) allowing various “undesirable” to die as we stand by (Appelbaun 2).

He says autonomy should not be superior to “Thou shalt not kill”, but in fact, unknowingly, he puts beneficence superior to “Thou shalt not steal.” When technology deprives a patient of death by supporting a life lacking of quality has not a theft occurred?

Because of these type of circumstances, patients like L. McAfee are forced to “petition . . . [courts] for permission to turn off” ventilators or other artificial means that purport to “prolong life”, when in actuality, they are only “prolonging death” (Death Wish 67).

McAfee’s death is prolonged after “. . . a motorcycle accident left him paralyzed from the neck down”, leaving him dependent upon artificial means to maintain a life without quality or hope. McAfee won his right to autonomy, his right to refuse medical treatment. In winning his right to refuse medical treatment, McAfee gains his “death wish” (Death Wish 67). “McAfee’s situation has revived a smoldering controversy over whether health-care providers should help the disabled commit suicide” (Death Wish 67).

The question is disconnecting an artificial means that maintains an inadequate quality of life committing suicide? If Stolinsky decides, the answer is yes. However, Stolinsky puts no value on death. On the other hand when you consider all McAfee wants is the removal of artificial means which is robbing his death from him, the answer to the question is no.

When the value of life is not meaningful, the value of death is priceless. Judge Johnson finds McAfee to be a rational adult and that his “death wish” has value. Consequently, he rules that McAfee has the “right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. . . .” The Judge said, “The ventilator to which he is attached is not prolonging his life; it is prolonging his death” (Death Wish 67).

Life is “The heartache that has no end” in the case of Kim Goetchius. She suffers from a severe head injury received after she fell from a “careening golf cart”. Since then, she’s been in a persistent vegetative state for eight years. Hope for her recovery is non-existent. Nevertheless, artificial means keeps her alive, hoping for a miracle. She is not

alone; 10 percent of the patients at the St. John Dealon Hospital share the same status. The spiraling cost annually per patient suggests profits of the institution plays a role in the decision to maintain life supports. Why else would Kim’s grave condition leave her doctor, Timothy Keay, agonizing “over the unanswerable question:” Are we “. . . protecting life or making a mockery of it?” (Buckley 54).

Not only is death prolonged but death also comes prematurely through unnecessary medical intervention. “Death comes from medical reason, not moral reasons” (Kearl 418) for the sake of profit. Evidence points to economic factors that leave the government with the bill. A Congressional investigation in 1977 discloses, “The likelihood of receiving unnecessary treatment is related to one’s position in the status hierarchy. . . . Useless surgery being performed on the needy and the poor [occurs] at twice the rate of that of the general population” (Kearl 419). Needlessly, the useless surgery lead to profits as further evidence reveals “2.38 million unnecessary operations” cause “11,900 needless deaths” and reaps “4 billion dollars” in the process (Kearl 418-419). “In overthrowing . . . the moral [reasons], medicine must now address . . . how patterns of death [relate] to the economic . . . structure . . .” (Kearl 423).

Since life through the health care system “is being . . . sold in the marketplace and distributed on the basis of who can afford to pay for it (Kearl 423),” then it must hold true financial factors determine and calculate the value of life. Successively, the value of death must come from the individual through the choice of not buying what is for sale.

Not buying what is for sale may mean not calling 911. Nine-one-one is a cry for help. If you do not wish help through resuscitation, have a family call the mortuary instead. A call to 911 brings paramedics and police officers. Once the call is made, all attempts possible will be made to resuscitate whether you want that or not. Only the immediate producing of a recorded copy of a Heath Care Power of Attorney can stop an unwanted procedure (the person with the power of attorney must be present to decline help).

In addition and as a normal procedure, a police officer investigates the scene to insure no foul play has occurred. To eliminate the hassle, call the mortuary and claim the value of death.

 

Bibliography:

Appelbaum, Paul S. “Death and the Doctors”. Commentary. Vol.82. July ‘86. 2-4.
Barry, Robert “The Paradoxes of ‘Rational’ Death.” Society. Vol. 29. July/August ‘ 92. 29-33.

Bateson, Mary Catherine. “Death–the Undiscover’d Country”: What is Needed to Give Death its Proper Place in Life? Omni. New York. April ’92. vol. 14. p8.
Buckley, Jerry. “How Doctors Decide Who Shall Live, Who Shall
Die”: The Heartache Has No End. U.S. News & World Report.
January 22 ’90. Vol. 108. 50-58.

“Death Wish”: Quadriplegic L. Mc Afee Wins Right to Refuse
Medical Treatment. Time. Vol. 134. September 18 ‘ 89. p67.
The Economist. “How to ‘Civilize’ Death.” World Press Review.
Vol. 38. October ’91. p60.

Guillemin, Jeanne. “Planning to Die”. Society. Vol. 29. July/August ’92. 29-33.
Kearl, Michael C. “Death and the Medical System.” Endings: A Sociology of Death and Dying. Oxford University Press: New York. 1989. 406- 453.

Seligmann, Jean “Whose Death is it, Anyway?” Newsweek. Vol. 113. April 24 ’89. p69.

Posted in Analysis, Changing America?, comparative analysis, concept, Constitution, Death, Life's lessons, Out of Sight, rhetoric, Rights as Americans, Roots, That's Life!, Understanding | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Cancelled the Thief?

Cancelled the Thief?

Posted on June 21, 2006by gramatrudy

Cancelled The Thief? The Negative Messages Conveyed Through Advertising

By Trudy A. Martinez

Preparation for another Doritos commercial begins.  Chase is about to go on.  He starts to run then suddenly, we see two men running toward him, yelling, “Stop- – Stop!”  Short of breath they continue.  “You can’t,” they hesitate and gasp for air and then continue, “go on — you’ve been cancelled!” They exclaim.

“Cancelled?  Commercials don’t get cancelled.”

“Your ratings are down,” they explain.

“Commercials get ratings?  I’ve been cancelled?”

“Cancelled,” they reassure him.

Shrugging his shoulders, Chubby leaves the set but not before grabbing the old lady’s Doritos!  He is then seen outside the studio, eating the Doritos, when the old woman comes swooping down on a rope, fearfully hanging on for dear life, retrieving her Doritos.  The scene ends with Chubby taking the chip he still has in his hand, putting it in his mouth, biting it, and saying, “Good Chip.”

Saying, “Good” doesn’t make it good.  The effect is not much better than the first time — I still will not buy Doritos!  He steals her bag again!  She has to swing from a rope like a monkey to get them back.  The message changes, but only slightly:  Now, it is up to the elderly to retrieve their own stolen property.  Assisting them is no longer up to the youth of America or anyone else.  The endorsement by Doritos and Chubby continues. The message they continue to send says committing theft against the elderly, is okay.

Posted in Advertising, Advertising, Analysis, Changing America?, character analysis, concept, Duty, Film, Film Analysis, Out of Sight, rhetoric, Television and Technology, That's Life!, Truth | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

You’re No Hero!

You’re No Hero!

Posted on June 21, 2006by gramatrudy

You’re No Hero! The Negative Messages Conveyed Through Advertising

By Trudy A. Martinez

“I’ll never buy another package of Doritos again!”  That is my thinking back in 1994 when I watch attentively as heavy machinery mows down an elderly woman.  In the scene, a group of people look on as a young man (Chubby Chase) comes running toward a gray-hair woman, appearing as if he is about to be her hero.  But instead, he grabs her Doritos!  He leaves her to be knocked down face forward in the muddy dirt and then acts as if he is a hero for saving her Doritos for himself.

The man (Cubby Chase) depicts is not a hero; he is a thief!  An audience watches and this member of the audience is very displeased with the negative message it communicates.  Knowing the same theme goes into millions of Americans homes, angers me.  The effect is not positive like the greedy man tries to convey by saving the Doritos.  The Doritos are not saved!  They are stolen!

In the process of the crime, the victim suffers humiliation.  It doesn’t matter the machinery knocks her down, not the man.  The message transmitted to society is the same as if he had: “It’s all right to steal, if the theft perpetrated is against an elderly woman.”

The Boy Scout assisting the woman after the fact does not make the crime any less of a crime.  This action only persuades the viewers the chore of the next generation will be to pick the elderly out of the gutter that the current generation pushes them into.

Posted in Advertising, Advertising, Analysis, Changing America?, concept, Duty, Film, Film Analysis, Life's lessons, rhetoric, Television and Technology, That's Life!, Understanding | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Changing the Face of America?

(Paper 2) Television and Technology: An Outgrowth of a Means of Control: Changing the Face of America?

Posted on July 10, 2006by gramatrudy

  An Outgrowth of A Means of Control:  Changing The Face of America? Television and Technology:(Paper 2)

By Trudy A. Martinez

Introduction

The Television technology, in itself, is welcome into society.  It provides an avenue of entertainment within the home of Americans.  It allows culture to feed the uneducated.  It is a tool that can enhance the learning capacity of Americans.  But what happens to change the aspects of Television’s perspective use?  Can advertising, the outgrowth of the television industry, be seen as the reason for technology’s changing roles?  Advertising’s changing role will be examined.

Historical Insights

Fond memories of sitting in front of the television set, watching the variety of test patterns and waiting for the set to come alive, invades my head.  It is exciting.  It stimulates my imagination and electrifies my thinking processes.  Television is not in every home as it is today.  Instead, there are few televisions in the homes of Americans.  There is a sense of sharing in the neighborhoods; if one family is lucky enough to own a television set and another is not, the more fortunate family invites the less fortunate over to view programing.  Today, you rarely see your neighbors because everyone has their own television set.  In the past, programming is sporadic.  it is not unusual to see only a test pattern when the TV set is turned on, unlike today where 24 hour programming is available.

Earlier Programming Influence

Test patterns identify the big three broadcasters: NBC, CBS, and ABC.  These “. . . American broadcasters are neither government agents serving the public good nor philanthropist willing to lose money to enlighten the masses (Mac Donald 1990. p.27)”.  The broadcasters are like any other business, out for the money.

Advertisers wishing to promote their products to the American public have the money the broadcasters want.  Broadcasters seize the opportunity of enticing advertisers to promote entertaining programs with “glamour and glitz,” knowing this type of programing will draw big audiences:  The bigger the audience, the bigger the broadcaster’s paycheck.  In this manner, the American public literally merchandises over unto industry (Mac Donald 1990, p.28).

Educationally base Public Service programs lose out and so does the American public.  The programing brings debate from educators:  “. . . Networks [defend] their . . . [programing] . . . ,[claiming] Americans [are] too good for broadcasting as envision by educational reformers out . . . [undermining] mass culture (Mac Donald 1990. p.28-29).” A Network spokesman, William S. Paley says: “. . . We . . . have. .  . The most critical audience, and one of the most independent in establishing its own standards of appreciation and judgment (Mac Donald 1990,  p.29).”. Maybe at the time TV commercials are first aired, the consumer is able to establish his own standards.  But is he or she now?  Or is the advertising establishing the standards for the consumer?

Advertising’s Role

Ultimately, advertising” . . . influences the kind of programing that is produced (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988, p. 7).”  Some might have said, without advertising, there will not be television programing; and without advertising, the public will not be kept informed and up-to-date on new innovations.  The public is too excited with the new innovation, the exciting programing, and the entertainment potential of their investment in the television set to think about the futurist consequences of advertising’s influence.  Quite often, the viewer paid the advertiser back by buying his product.  In the past, buying the product, when the need arises, is a way of saying, “thank you”.  Then, the advertisements are informative:  the product is seen and the manufacturer’s name given.  There is usually only one sponsor for each program and the advertisements are spaced further apart than the current fifteen minute intervals.  The General Electric Theater is a prime example of a one sponsor program.  Advertisements are seen after the close of specific Acts.  The Advertisements shows new products, but they are not entertaining nor do they hold the viewer’s attention.  The viewer quite often uses these advertisement breaks to get a snack or relieve themselves like they might also do during the intermission at a real theater.

Controversial Advertising

Advertising now does more than just inform.  It persuades.  It is innovative and holds your interest.  You remember the jingles.  You remember what the advertisement tells you.  Let’s say you are shopping for a pair of comfortable shoes.  In the store when you are trying to decide which to buy, you remember the one the advertisement says walking on a specific shoe makes you feel like you are walking on a cloud.  If your feet are tired when you get home from work, you will consider this product over the others because the advertisement persuades you your feet will feel better and therefore, so will you.   If advertising still only informs the public, there will be little controversy over it.  But advertising goes beyond informing.

The greed of industry aims TV commercials toward children as consumers.  As a result, value changes appear to have surfaced that instill greed in young minds; this reaction causes conflict between children and their parents (McLauglin  1991, p.D2).

I can personally substantiate McLauglin’s claim that advertising causes friction between children and parents.  I remember, on more than one occasion, resorting to a negative presentation of myself in public just because of advertising’s effect upon my children.  Others view me as violent because I lecture and spank my offspring in public.  I taught my children right from wrong and to obey.  And most of the time, they do.  But all I have to do is take them with me to the supermarket or shopping anywhere, and they become monsters.  Suddenly, they are not satisfied with the products within our budget; they want the one they see on TV.  It becomes an obsession with them.  When I tell them “no”, they begin to scream and throw a fit.  I have no other alternative but to revert to what others call violence, if I am to remain in control.

What happened since my childhood?  I don’t remember myself or my siblings acting this way when we went shopping with my mother.  And I certainly did not need a spanking in public.  At first, I question my own ability as mother and guardian over my children.  But when I begin to investigate what it is I am doing wrong, I find I may not be at fault.

Identifying Advertising’s Changing Face

Paul Santilli, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy (1983) says, “Advertising can be regarded as having two separate functions, one of persuading and one of informing consumers”.  He argues persuasive advertising may be” . . . denigrating human reason” and when used as a persuasive tool through irrational means “is . . . immoral” (Santilli  1983, p. 27).

The informative purpose of advertising grants the viewer of an advertisement a choice by presenting to the consumer only information about the product.  In this way, the consumer is the one who makes the decision of whether the product is in need (Santilli 1983, p.27).

The Persuasive purpose of advertising goes beyond providing information; its purpose is to convince the consumer that he needs the product whether there is a need for the product or not.

In my opinion, no advertising should be directed toward children.  I feel this way because by combining the informative with the persuasive approaches of advertising, a sense of control over the viewer’s choice is relinquished to the manufacturer of the product for the sake of greed.  This relinquishing reaction may be seen when the viewer of the advertisement is a child and the advertisement portrays the product in imaginative ways that stirs the child’s desire.  Total control of the child’s reasoning factors (if a child is seen as a reasoning person) are relinquished.  The child thinks only of the pleasure of the interaction the commercial portrays.  As a result, the child is put in a persuasive position over the parent.  If the parent does not want to be in a position of ridicule in public, the parent may opt to purchase the product just to shut the child up.  In this sense, the advertiser uses the child and gains control through the child of the parent’s decisions to purchase.  According to Santilli (1983), “. . . information even about inherently good thing . . . may be destructive if presented at the wrong time in the child’s development (p.32).”

The mind of a child is easily impressed.  The fact that the child is undeveloped and is learning to reason as an adult puts his or her mind in a compelling position.  As a child, he or she is in the early stage of learning.  The child imitates and learns through what is presented to him or her.  As a result of his or her learning, the child reacts.  It is because of the child’s reaction, as a result of viewing commercials on TV, that I question the ethics and morality of advertising.

Behavioral Effects of Advertising

Conduct is a learned behavior.  A child learns how to act through the significant others in his or her life.  A significant other may be anyone influences the child’s behavior in meaningful ways.  The amount of time the significant other spends with the child may or may not be an aspect.  But I feel assured, the more time a child spends with the significant other, the more the child will be influenced.

The most impressive learning years of a child is between the age of 1 and 9.  Once a child reaches the age of ten, the child has formed his or her own patterns of behavior and is influenced then by situations and others.  Prior to the age of ten, the child imitates a significant other.  The child is persuaded, through watching the actions of the significant other, how to act.  After the age of ten, the child considers his options; he can either react as his parents or from accepted practices of the crowd.

Let me demonstrate this concept with a few photographs.  The photographs portray behaviorism in action.  See the first photograph (figure 10001) below.  A crowd joins to watch a street performance.  Please note the father (in a tan jacket) and two children (in red) that have just approached the performance.  The youngest child questions what he sees by the outward expression of scratching his head in the first photograph, as if to ask, “How am I supposed to react to what I am seeing?’

In the second photograph (figure 10002), both children stand still as statues, watching the performance with their hands at their side, as if to ask:  “Am I just supposed to look?”

In the third photograph (figure 10003), please note the remarkable difference in the reactions of the children.  The oldest boy does not seek assistance from his father before he determines how to react; he, instead, follows the reactions of the remaining crowd.  Whereas, the younger boy imitates his father’s reaction, as if to say:  “I’ll just follow my dad’s example and do as dad does”.

The reaction of the younger child is called a learned behavior.  The reaction of the older lad stems from contemporary culture.

In my opinion, just as a child learns behavior from his or her parents, the child also learns from other sources of influence such as television.  It doesn’t matter what the length of exposure is.  What matters is the message conveyed.  The significant other needs not be the mother or father.  The significant other can very easily be replaced by television.  “Therefore, there is a moral obligation on the part of advertisers [as well as the] . . . parents to be prudent about having children see and hear even the most non-enticing information about the best products”(Santilli 1983, p.32).  On television, advertisements influence and divert the values and morals of children and teach them to want, want, want and buy, buy, buy.

The advertiser’s preferred reaction is for us to buy.  The age of the viewer is a factor that is taken into consideration by advertisers.  Even though a child watches less television than an adult, the advertiser know the child is an easy mark and the child can influence the parent through his or her behavior.  When I was a child, tennis shoes came in two colors: black and white for boys and white for girls, and they were multiple purpose: for jumping, running, walking, and etc.  But today, the children (and some adults) are conditioned through commercials to think they must have a pair of shoes for each activity; jumping, running, walking, and so on and so on.  Not only do children think they need a separate pair of shoes for each of these activities, but they think the color and design of these shoes are a very important aspect to them.  For example, in Los Angeles, a child lost his life because he didn’t want to give up his stylish tennis shoes to a less fortunate child (whose parents may have told him no) who happened to have a great desire for them, a desire most likely created by a television advertisement.

A child does not need to watch much TV to be influenced by it.  If it were not the advertiser’s intent to enhance the sales of products through the children, then why do the advertiser’s target this audience?  Why are so many products aimed at the child?  Why do we allow it?  Have we become programmed as good little consumers just as our children are being programmed?  Or are the economic trends, of not spending, the public’s revolting reaction to advertiser’s unethical practices?

clip_image002

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008

Posted in Advertising, Analysis, Changing America?, Children, comparative analysis, concept, Duty, Life's lessons, rhetoric, Television and Technology, That's Life!, Truth | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Outgrowth of the Means of Control: Television and Technology (Paper 1)

(Paper 1) Television and Technology: An Outgrowth of a Means of Control?

Posted on July 12, 2006by gramatrudy

An Outgrowth of a Means of Control 

by Trudy A. Martinez

Introduction:

According to The America College Dictionary, the term technology originates from the Greek form of the word technologia which means: systematic treatment.  With this logic and reasoning in mind, I intend to examine the relationship (in my series of papers (2)) between the root meaning of technology and the specific technological advancement of modern television and the outward application of systematic treatment.  A historical review of technology will foreshadow progression through the modern applications.  In the process, the hazards and possible ramifications of the modern application of television should parallel the historical and come into focus with a convergent force, leading to the question:  are we as individuals free and in control?  Or are we being controlled?

Influential History:

Before industry is introduced on a large-scale to society, government, the nobles, and the church fashion and maintain a systematic treatment of the populace.  Imagination quails through fear.  Few have the fortitude, determination, or endurance to contradict the status quo.  The church functions as the mediator of facts and legitimacy.  Only upon emergence of the period of history known as the scientific revolution do individuals bring forth a challenge that will relinquish, foil, and peel the ideology of the church from the face of society.  As a result of the peeling of ideology, new doctrines emerge and create a new freedom that revolves around imagination.

Creative imagination becomes the forerunner of technology as we know it today.  The imagination of specific individuals brings about technology which results in an industrial revolution fueled by greed in Western Europe.  Expansion of industry facilitates the greed at the expense of the up and coming middle class and the lower classes.  Ultimately, reaction to overwhelming greed results in revolution.  After the French Revolution, it is apparent that repressive controls are in need to preserve the status of aristocrats in an industrial society.

American Historical Factors:

In the beginning, our forefathers seek to establish a governmental system of systematic treatment of equality and justice for all.  In their estimation, revolution will ideally be prevented through unity.  The America promise-land is established to free the people from oppression of their oppressor, England.  After freedom from oppression is gained, America remains isolated: close to nature and close to God.

Even though industrialization in the United States of America is not a revolution, technology allows it to flourish.  As a result, technology seems to change the emphasis of the America objective from freedom of the people to freedom of big business.  This change of emphasis parallels a change in ideology.

In the beginning, American commerce flourishes under the ideology of the Enlightenment:  “It assumed that history, at least modern history, was driven by the steady, cumulative, and inevitable expansion of human knowledge of power over nature” (Marx 1987, p.5).  Under this assumption, the “ideas of progress” grow to “a necessary criteria” for progress to achieve “political and social liberation” (Marx 1987, p.5) as a result, “scientific knowledge and technological power are expected to [work for the benefit and] improvement in all conditions of life–social, political, moral, and intellectual as well as material” (Marx   1987, p.5).  The ideology emphasizes the importance of the free individual.

Whereas, “the rhetoric of Daniel Webster . . . [and] Edward Everett . . . [produce] a new version of . . . progressive ideology”.  Webster’s version of ideology emphasizes big business rights over individual rights and instrumentation value over social value.  Technology comes first and the individual second (Marx 1987, p. 7-10). Big business literally takes the ball and runs with it.  They identify and establish their own systematic treatment of the people of America.  As history previously shows in France, a systematic treatment of the populace is necessary for control to be managed effectively, while at the same time, and still prevent revolution.

America’s industrialization follows a Civil War.  The establishment of a mandatory school system to educate the masses to a specific way of thinking provides a means of a futuristic control of a government for the people, while Yellow Press Journalism works toward a more immediate end for business by directing favorable thought toward imperialistic expansion.  Occasionally, fear tactics are exploited in the Yellow Press when necessary to maintain control (of the populace and the government) or expand the interest of business.  European technology furnishes the examples.  American technology needs only to maintain control.

Technological Innovations:

There is an air of excitement in the communication industry with radio transmissions.  (Yellow journalism had had only the ability to exploit the literate, whereas radio had the ability to increase the realm of influence.)  The “radio transmitter” allows listeners to “hear the whack of the bat and the call of the umpire”; the listener’s imagination does the rest.  Future advancements of technology are not “an idle dream”.  Technology predicts the viewer will someday “see the dust raised by the sliding player’s feet”.  Even though America has the technology to proceed with the production and transmission of television broadcasting as early as 1930′s, wide-spread transmission does not occur until after World War II (Mac Donald 1990, p.8).

With the technological advancement of the radio, communication control emerges.  Technological advancement and government control always goes hand in hand.  The reason government finds it necessary to become the protector of the people (as a force measure) is to balance the scales of justice.  Radio advertising “jingles” stimulates commercial economic growth, while at the same time; programing provides entertainment which aims on educating; this eventually permits individuals to relinquish some reliance they may place upon their own individual enterprise.

With more and more progressive entertaining innovations, the industry grows.  Advertisements make the programing possible.  Communication enterprises and education institutions become the major controlling factors of maintaining the status quo of both government and big business.  Thus, continual growth insures the satisfaction of the upcoming entrepreneurs through education and the expansion of industry through advertisement and enterprise.

The thrust of technologies modernization, in the realm of communications, brings the radio into the homes nearly all Americans.  Americans listen.  Americans believe.  And Americans react.  They utilize their active imaginations in ways never believed possible.  Orson Wells’ broadcast of “The War of the Worlds” on a Halloween night proves a point:  the American mind can be controlled through the innovations of technology and imagination.  The broadcast brings about panic; it brings about death.  Some Americans offer their lives as a sacrifice by committing suicide to avoid the awful death imagined by their unconscious perception.

Can’t you just imagine the secret back-room conversations of corporate management and the questions that might arise:  What if advertisements can capture the same thrust as that of “The War of the World” broadcast?  Will the consumer’s imagination be the driving force that will determine whether or not to buy the product?  Advertisements on radio stimulate the imagination.  Advertisements on television replace imagination with a sense of imagined reality.

Technological Growth:

Television is an outgrowth of radio.  Advertisements paid the way.  A struggle for control of the industry emerges.  “RCA (Radio Corporation of America) controlled radio” (Mac Donald 1990, p.22).  Their dream is to control the television industry by monopolizing both production and programing.  In opposition to RCA’s control, fierce competition arises for jurisdiction in the up and coming television industry as it emerges.  When Radio Corporation of America (RCA) seeks a controlling interest of not only production but also programming, government commission steps in and attempts to avert RCA’s influence through government intervention and controls.  But when RCA forms the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and “. . . enormous technical and financial power to programing and station ownership. . . ” it won the “governments blessings”.  Even so, Zenith and Phil co provide competition for manufacturing while Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) provides competition for programing (Mac Donald 1990, p.22).

Technological Control:

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is established by Congress to superintend the broadcasting industry of both radio and television.  Its job is to protect the public and the critical aspects of the American economy.  But the magnitude of its “regulatory power raised questions” from both the “political left and right” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 23).  While in the arena of free business, there is a fear of “state control of capitalistic commerce and creation of centralized planned economy” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 24-25).  The FCC curtails RCA’s standards and literally forces NBC (owned by RCA) to sell part of its interest.  As a result, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) emerges as another competitive programming force.  The FCC validates the criteria and Public Service Responsibilities of Broadcasting Licensees.  The FCC role is to monitor broadcasts.

Public Reaction:

The American public reactionary comments remain somewhat unchanged.  The only difference between the earlier eras of television versus the current is that the broadcasters programing has gotten progressively more presumptuous.  The following comment made in reaction to a survey conducted in the 1930′s can just as easily serve to summate the public reaction today.

“In no country except the United States have consumers’ organizations expressed so much or such bitter criticism of their national broadcasting systems and programs” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 29).

The general public opinion concerning programing really hasn’t changed that much.  The programing has just gotten progressively more presumptuous.

The Pros and Cons of Advertisements:

Without advertising, television will not flourish.  Advertisers pay the pay checks of the communications industry.  The U. S. Department of Commerce predicts that television “[will] become the nation’s leading sales tool” (Mac Donald 1990. p.51).  They fulfill that prophecy.  But what effect has the bombardment of advertising over the television tube had upon society?

In the perspective of my reviewers, advertisements have a negative impact upon society.  For instance, Michael Parenti (1986), “. . . believes . . . advertisers not only market their products, but sell a complete way of life”.  Parenti comes close to saying that commercials are hypnotic to the viewer.  He suggests, even though the consumer may know that the commercial speaks untruths and may be critical of its content, the consumer is affected by the commercial through suppressed suggestions.  It is important to keep the goal of the advertising campaign in mind.  The advertiser wants us to buy the product.  Therefore, the advertising tactics are not always straight forward.  The advertisements may waiver from a direct approach in order to achieve the goal of selling the product.  Viewers are taught through visual aids that “In order to live well and live properly, consumers need corporate producers to guide them . . . [they] are taught personal incompetence and dependence on mass-market producers” (Parenti 1986, p.191).

Contrary to what Parenti says concerning the advertising market, Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler (1987, p.193) say that “the sheer volume of mass advertising dulls its message, thereby making it less effective”.  But if this was so, why then does an effective campaign find consumer mocking the jingles the commercial advertising produce?

Accordingly, Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler argue that consumers have no difficulty perceiving the intended meaning of advertisements, nor are they “manipulate” by them.  In their reasoning, “advertising serves as part of our culture” and they argue that we should not “forget that we are, in part, a nation founded because of advertising” (Christians Et Al 1987, p. 194-195).  When they elaborate on this aspect of advertising history, they fail to realize they contradict themselves; the observations of Daniel Booskin, they so earnestly quote, draws attention to contradictions and discrepancy:

“Never was there a more outrageous or more unscrupulous or more ill-informed advertising campaign than that by which the promoters of the American colonies brought settlers here.  Brochures published in England in the seventeenth century, some even earlier, were full of hopeful overstatements, half-truths, and downright lies along with some facts . . . ” (Christians et al. 1987, p. 194).

What the pro-advertisers fail to recognize here is the fact that those people who are coerced into coming to America are manipulated by the falseness of the advertisements which ultimately results in oppression by the oppressor (the advertiser).  America fights for freedom to alleviate the pretext of a false front.  Americans fight to free themselves from the oppression of their oppressor.

The advertisers’ message says:  when there is no clear defense, claim ignorance; this ambiguous message is loud and clear:

“Advertising’s actual effects are . . . not clearly known” . . . “We understand advertising only if we understand its complexity . . . We understand advertising only if we understand its uncertainty. . . We understand advertising only if we understand its ambiguity” (Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler 1987, p. 193-196).

With advertising’s overwhelming systematic treatment of the consumer, how can the advertisers say:  The public is not helpless to its influence?  Is not ambiguity, uncertainty, and lack of understanding present a hazard to society?  Does not the convergent force of the advertising messages take control of the unsuspecting?

Posted in News and politics, That's Life!, rhetoric, Duty, Analysis, Changing America?, Advertising, Rights as Americans, Television and Technology, comparative analysis, concept, Life's lessons, Truth | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Grama’s Birthday

Grama’s Birthday

Posted on October 7, 2007by gramatrudy

Grama’s Birthday by Trudy A. Martinez

Today is not my birthday: that day passed weeks ago but here stands Elijah and Charity, wishing me happy birthday, handing me a present, asking me to open it, gleaming with joy from anticipation.

The package they hand me is a work of art:  personality spills from its hand painting design; each stroke tells a story, filling my heart with joy; each color depicts a mood, an emotion springs from it, leaping at my heartstrings.

There is a cake waiting for us to eat so I need to get along with my story.

“I painted this!”  Elijah exclaims, smiling as he points to his design.  “Charity painted this,” he continues as his words spring to life in the ears of his little sister standing next to him, waiting her turn to speak.

“Open it Grama!” her words ring out, sprinkling the air with the soft tones of her voice.

“Do you know what it is?”  Elijah queries.

“No,” I reply, “Can you tell me?”

“Can’t tell. Can’t tell, Grama, Elijah!”  Charity’s reprimanding voice rings out.

“No-O-O-O-O-O.”  Elijah answers, dragging out the one syllable word, lingering it in the air momentarily before he adds, “You need to open it, Grama”.

My fingers already begin to carefully undue the paper from one of the packages.  The paper is unique as it is homemade; the designs are drawings Elijah and Charity make.  The pictures will make a perfect addition to my refrigerator door that houses and adorns such treasures.

My two-prize possessions hang from a loop chain attached to a magnet on that door:  pacifiers, one blue one and one pink one.  The blue one Elijah gave me a few years back.  The pink one Charity reluctantly gave up on her second birthday.  She was not forced to give it up; she did so willingly, but it is a difficult decision for her to make.  I remember.  She stood at a distance from me, covering her eyes.  She knew it is her birthday; she knew she is going to give up her infancy with the passing of her prize possession to my refrigerator door and thereafter, ‘patsy’ will be my prize possession.  My thoughts are suddenly brought back to the present with the sounds of voices:

“Come on, Grama, hurry up–Open it”, Elijah says.

“Open it,” repeats Charity.

“Here,” Elijah adds, reaching for the other end of the package, ripping the paper off quickly.  Charity in the meantime, picks up the other package and quickly opens it for me.

“Here, Grama, here’s your present.”

“Thanks honey that is a pretty cup.  Why, that is my name on it:  Grama.  It’s a Grama cup.”

  Elijah just finishing the unwrapping of the other present proudly holds it up for me to admire. “Do you know what it is, Grama?”

I look it over.  It looks like a milk carton, but windows are cut out of each side.  There are also two small holes in each side.  In addition, it has been painted all over with paint, different colors of paint.  There is a separate stick that goes with it.  On the top of the structure, a rope like twine is attached to it on both sides.  “Hm mm,” I think, “I wonder what this beautiful creation is?”  Elijah and Charity eagerly wait for a reply.  I was taking too long to guess and they are extremely anxious to tell me.

“It’s a bird feeder, Grama!”  Charity exclaims.

“You put seed in here,” Elijah explains“, and then you put the stick through here,” he continues, “And the birds come and eat the seed”.

“They come and eat the seed.”  Charity echoes, smiling.

“It is beautiful”, I say, “I know just the place to hang it.”  We go to the patio, hang the bird feeder, and then, come back inside to watch and wait, but no birds come.

“They’ll come”, Elijah and Charity assure me.  Nevertheless, the birds did not come and Elijah and Charity went home.

A few days later, Kit, my cat, starts jumping, running, and acting real crazy.  She sits at the patio door, swinging her tail back and forth, faster and faster her tail goes back and forth.  She’s trying to get my attention so I will let her outside.  I open the blinds and see there is a bunch of little visitors in my backyard:  birds perch on the bird feeder on the little stick that sticks out from the side.  Birds are walking on the ground, pecking at the seed their friends up above drop on the ground from the pretty bird feeder Elijah and Charity made for me.

I immediately call Elijah and Charity on the telephone to tell them about the little visitors.  They are not home.  I leave a message.  Here is what I say:

“That beautiful bird feeder you gave me for my birthday is bringing joy. There are lots of birds in my backyard where before there was none.  The birds are eating the seed. I keep filling it up with more and more seed because they are very, very, hungry.  Need to go now–just want you to know–love you.

Oh yeah, Kit likes it too. She likes it so much. She jumps, runs, and acts real crazy.  She wants to go outside with the birds.  She wants to catch them, but they fly away when they see she is coming out.  Love you–Bye.”

Posted in Animals, Art, Cats, Children, Jounal entry, Life's lessons, memories, short story, short story, That's Life! | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

No Where to Run

No Where to Run

Posted on December 4, 2006by gramatrudy

Nowhere to Run

  By Trudy A. Martinez

Reassuringly, little voices whisper dramatically, “It’s okay, Kit, we’re not going to hurt you.”

Kit, my flame point white Siamese cat, is asleep when the two young children surround her with the intent of making friends.  Normally, she runs at the sight of them.  Now she is unknowingly in a corner surrounded by them with nowhere to run.

When the words, “It’s Okay — we’re not going to hurt you.” are repeated in unison, Kit’s eyes open.  Obviously, she is not sure what to make of them:  Her ears move from their normal stance, when their hands reach out for her, to a stress slick back position.

They pet her, gently.  Kit’s ears remain down.  “It’s okay,” they reassure her.  Their words did nothing to change her countenance.  She is stiff and looking for a way to run.

Perhaps she recalls the day before, being in the corner and her tail pulled.  The perpetrator of that incident is now gently running her hand from the top of Kit’s head slowly over her thick winter fur to the tip of her tail without tugging.  The question now is:  Is Kit going to relax and take advantage of this freely given affection?

The children continue to assure her they mean well with each movement of their hands over her body.  It is a slow process, a persuasive process, a winning process.  Kit’s ears relax, finally relinquishing their stress.

Smiling the children exclaim, “She likes me!  She’s purring,” They add, “She likes me.” With excitement, “She’s purr-r-ring.”

Posted in Animals, Cats, Children, Jounal entry, Life's lessons, memories, rhetoric, short story, That's Life! | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

How does the 14th Amendment Apply to today’s World?

How does the 14th Amendment Apply to today’s World? By Trudy A. Martinez

Posted on May 25, 2006by gramatrudy

How does the 14th Amendment Apply to today’s World

By Trudy A. Martinez

How does the 14th Amendment apply to today’s world?  The answer to this question depends upon the actions taken by the citizens of the United States of America to preserve the privileges guaranteed through the Constitution and the Amendments thereof.

In analysis, the State of California is testing “The Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereof” by making laws that condense through omission specific privileges.  The State allows practices within the State boundaries which individually or collectively lessen or diminish citizen privileges cited in the Amendments of the U. S. Constitution through unfair business or ethical practices.  Even though the 14th Amendment specifically states: “No State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens . . . nor . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny . . . equal protection of the laws,” Californians are allowing the State to lessen or diminish our guaranteed rights through the passage of legislation or, more frequently, by allowing the State officials to turn their head to all the abuses surrounding them.  Why?  Just because legislation doesn’t affect us today, doesn’t mean it won’t affect us tomorrow.  We need to pay attention to what is happening around us and stop being so self-interested.  We need to stop taking our rights for granted. Allowing only factions of our society to make our decisions for us may strip us of our rights.

People say:  “You can’t fight City Hall!”  That statement may be true if you go to City Hall to do the fighting.  The City Hall comes under the County, the County under the State.  When the State is offends, then we must go to a higher source, the Federal Government.  Specifically Congress and the Supreme Court have the authority to resolve issues abridging our privileges as citizens.  If the State will not correct their encroachment then it is left up to Uncle Sam.  Just like a child who disobeys, punishment comes from his or her parent; the State needs their punishment to come from our higher government or the court system.

Help doesn’t come automatically; citizens need to take the necessary steps to make it happen.  New State legislation doesn’t correct it; it only confuses and enhances the deceiving.  Our duties as citizens are to identify the discrepancies and then together file suits through the court systems when our privileges become too few, For example:

1.     Legislation abridging our right to bear our choice of arms (Amendment 2).

II.     Insurance companies have been allowed the “taking” of property (Amendment 5) through the use of unrealistic evaluation of the replacement value or property (i.e., vehicles or property damage).

III.    Nursing Homes, Hospitals, and especially mental hospitals are sometimes guilty of depriving “life” and “Liberty . . . without due process of law” by using the “Sword of Damacles” over the heads of patients admitted voluntarily through the stripping of the patient’s right of leaving voluntarily.  In other words if a doctor doesn’t give his approval for release, the patient must pay “cash” for his own release because the insurance companies won’t pay.  A poor person is therefore held in an insane prison against his will.

IV.    The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and other “Hip Pocket Agencies” such as the EPA, and the BLM, and environmentalist continue to put the price of human “life” below that of purported endangered species while at the same time abridging the privileges of the people through “taking” (Amendment 5) of property or monies as compensation for development.  These agencies have it backwards; they want us to pay them.

Where does it say in the Constitution or in the Amendments thereof that the people must do the compensating?

Previous legislation proposals want a tree to come to be an endangered species.  But is the tree the real issue?  Or is the real issue you and me?  Taking of our property or abridging our privileges is blackmail, extortion, and/or plain highway robbery.

The same is true of the illegal immigration issues.  The point is the illegals are not citizens!  As such, they have no rights, nor should they.  When they protest, they identify themselves; we should deport them immediately, escort them across the border using the U. S. Military forces.

I say, “Yes to America.”  And I say, “No to the deception that is invading our shores.”  The 14th Amendment says in Section 5:  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  In other words if we want action, Congress has to do it for us.  Congress has shown through history that they tend to wait fifty to one hundred years before acting.  Do we want to wait until we are dead (the future of America lost) before our rights as citizens are protected?  When Congress ignores the people, the people must take steps to force Congress to act.  Life in the United States must not grow into a game of “Simon Says” or “Mother May I.” We are a free people. We must stay that way.

The Supreme Court gives the authority through court actions to force Congress to act on our behalf.  In the matters at hand the Supreme Court may prove to be our protector.

Posted in Amendments, Analysis, Changing America?, Constitution, Duty, History, News and politics, rhetoric, Rights as Americans, Roots | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Interpretation of History based on the Novel The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald and an essay: The fact of the force

 

An Interpretation of History based on the Novel The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald and an essay: The fact of the force

By Trudy A. Martinez

The Beautiful and Damned, a novel written by F. Scott Fitzgerald who succumbs to alcoholism as an escape from his reality, the reality of his transgressions, and writes this book in restitution and as a release from his own pain of realization (so it is believed). The main characters in his novel suffer from a similar reality of transgression as they struggle down different paths towards achievement of their dreams of materialism.

In the end, they achieve it; or they struggle, experiencing hardships, tribulations, ruthless misery, loneliness, and then rewards of satisfaction and self-worth without succumbing to the materialism they desperately seek in the beginning.

The book centers around a young twenty-five (25) year old man, Anthony Patch, a Harvard graduate in the state of sublimity, who thinks of himself in the highest esteem with greatness as a destiny, and inherit wealth, a money aristocracy, gained through the achievements of his grandfather. Anthony is the grandson of Adam J. Patch, known as “Cross Patch”, a man who went from rags to riches playing the stock market on Wall Street, accumulating seventy-five million dollars and a guilty conscience. Although Fitzgerald begins the story in 1913, the actual plot begins in the year 1861 with the grandfather who works his way through the new impersonal forces of a nation destine to turn into a capitalistic society and damnation to some.

The grandfather comes to the realization of his transgressions and seeks restitution through reforms, but yet, he begins to force feed his morality and values upon Adam, his grandson, just as he was force feed in 1861 by the new society. Adam’s grandfather uses criticism as a tool molding Adam, I. e., conditioning through the practice of behaviorism; introducing patriotism through inducement to write about the war effort; stressing individualism through emphasis away from oneness towards sameness by restricting free will; producing optimism through the establishment of inheritance, a reward for progress which ultimately produces materialism as a symbol of acceptance. The Stewards of the system, the Presidents are guardians for the rich; they insure the stability of the system through reforms and through necessary changes, amendments to the constitution to induce gratification; to protect property; to protect individual rights; to regulate industry; to investigate deviations and corruption; and to monitor aggressors; and progress, and monetary rewards.

Adam J. Patch, Anthony’s grandfather, who in 1861 joins the war effort, a Union Calvary regiment in the Civil war, advances in rank to a major. Upon his return from the war, Adam sees opportunity for gain; he joins the speculators on Wall Street, the rich, the social elite, in the buying and selling of stock in their new religion, capitalism. “Cross Patch” converts; he gains much ill will, attempting to rub elbows with the rich. While at the same time, another segment of society (others of his own caliber) cheers and applauds as they also join the new aristocracy, the money elite, in their flight upward through the “Impersonal Forces”. Adam’s journey begins with his introduction to Nationalism through his Patriotism and taking up of arms to fight for the Union cause; he replaces his values, his uniqueness, his oneness, and his “love of man” in individualism for a false sense of “oneness”, i.e., “sameness”, a partnership, in all endeavors, in work, and later in marriage. In the Civil war, he fights for a false freedom, the end of slavery, the emancipation of the blacks.

A new freedom guaranteed through the constitution, the bible of the social elite, now expands to include Capitalism which differs slightly from the original views of the fore fathers of America. Through Optimism, his hope for a better tomorrow establishes his desires; his achievement reassures his dream. Adam sees through progress of industrialization he can subordinate the Impersonal Forces to guide him to the new ultimate destiny, Capitalism, the temple of the rich, and a new aristocracy of the money elite. As a reward for his progress he gains Materialism, a symbol of acceptance, progressivism, and a new Article of Faith. He hears the common man’s cry of despair, and turns his back on their voice of Hope which introduces through Populism and progressivism an alternative to struggle through Socialism. The new aristocracy recognizes the introduction of Marxism as an artificial retaliation to Capitalism with no merit, no method of application, or any real threat. The common man’s dilemma justifies itself through the theory and practice of Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer’s economic and social application of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, “Survival of the Fittest” which upholds the Paternalism of The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegies’ contribution, and the form of slavery so nice to society and murderous to the common man. To give in to the common man’s cry will be an injustice and against their “god’s” will for only the “chosen” are to survive the living hell of their existence.

“Cross Patch” did not suffer, he rose to the temple, but yet, falls; succumbs to the reality of his transgressions as he seeks escape through Alcoholism. Illness besets him; sclerosis redeems him to consecration of his past. “He becomes a reformer of reformers.” As a means of restitution, he attacks the escape mechanisms of despair for which he himself resorts; the deceitful decay of his values damns him to obligatory obscurity.

When Anthony’s grandfather marries, he marries well into a social acceptable family; his marriage bares him a son, Adam Ulysses Patch, Anthony’s father. Adam Ulysses Patch grows-up dull, an overrated, superficial, selfish man, and a continuation of Adam Patch himself. Ulysses marries a Boston socialite; the marriage produces one child, Anthony. When Anthony is five years old, his mother dies. Anthony and his father, Adam Ulysses Patch, go to live with his grandfather, Adam J. Patch.

Anthony gets continual empty and unfulfilling promises of togetherness, leaving him disillusioned because his father’s promise of tomorrow never comes. When his father finally follows through with a promise and takes Anthony on a trip abroad, he dies suddenly, leaving Anthony in a panic of despair. Anthony’s impressionable childhood years, five through eleven fills his life with death and despair. He lost both parents and his grandmother. As a diversion to his grief and a struggle against death, Anthony withdraws, indulges nearly his whole existence into an uncontrollable hobby of stamp collecting, his childhood escape from the reality of his meaningless existence. Anthony never feels nurture or love with both a paternal (conditional) and maternal (unconditional) balance in his life.

“He [lives] almost entirely within himself, an inarticulate boy, thoroughly un-American, and politely bewildered by his contemporaries.”

While schooling abroad a tutor successfully convinces Anthony to go to Harvard, as it will open doors for him, earn him friends, and social acceptance. So Anthony does, he goes to Harvard. After graduation at the age of twenty, he returns to Rome, and acquires culture. Anthony’s shyness as a result of his childhood conditioning and childhood withdrawal hinders him and dictates his conduct for the balance of his life.

Anthony returns to America in 1912 after learning of his grandfather’s illness, sclerosis. In America, he finds himself amidst the feverish election of 1912 which offers too many choices, i.e., William Howard Taft, the President, a Republican, is caught in intense battles between the progressives and conservatives; the progressive on-slaughter produces a split in the Republican Party when Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive, bolts to lead the Progressives on the Bull Moose platform of his “New Nationalism, “which highlights conservationism; William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat and Populist, now faces an opposition with an eastern progressive Taft and a western progressive Taft in addition to a conservative Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, whose program of a “New Freedom” based on individualism and states’ rights. The break in the Republican Party soon ensures the election of Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, with his “New Freedom” policy to the White House and the Presidency with William Jennings Bryan as his Vice-President.

Anthony deserts his plans to live abroad; he decides to resign himself from his personal ambitions until after his grandfather’s death. Adam dreams of the day his grandfather will die, so he can inherit his fortune and live a life of luxury. Adam didn’t work, never worked, and did not intend to work; his income comes from interest on money he inherits from his mother. He contemplates writing as a career, but isn’t able to commit a single line to paper. Someday, someday, someday, never today; always tomorrow, empty devastating promises; just as his father conditioned him through behaviorism. Anthony continually finds incommoding escapes from reality.

Anthony is the recipient of negative, critical observations of his Grandfather’s scrutiny. Everything about Anthony’s life is pre-ordained through the conditioning of hereditary compromise, “Damned.” His “hope” and dream of writing about the middle ages are met with asperity by his grandfather, leaving him with a sense of despondency. Adam Patch lives his life voluptuously a legacy for which Anthony’s vanity is damned.

Anthony imagines:

“himself in Congress rooting around in the litter of that incredible pigsty with the narrow and porcine brows he saw pictured sometimes in the rotogravure sections of Sunday newspapers, those glorified proletarians babbling blandly to the nation the ideas of high school seniors! Little men with copy-book ambitions who by mediocrity had thought to emerge from mediocrity into the lusterless and unromantic heaven of a government of the people—and the best, the dozen shrewd men at the top, egotistic and cynical, were content to lead this choir of white ties and collar-buttons in a discordant and amazing hymn, compounded of a vague confusion between wealth as a reward of virtue and wealth as a proof of vice, and continued cheers for God, the Constitution, and the Rocky Mountains!”

Anthony begins to look for something beautiful in life, something or someone that will help bring him out of disparity. When Anthony meets Gloria Gilbert, the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, who shares the same dreams and the same escapes, he falls passionately in love, and soon marries her. The minister who marries them takes on the air of bourgeois with flashy gold teeth. Both Anthony and Gloria share the same dream, the dream of the day they will be filthy rich. Once they marry, they share their dream as if in partnership; the dream is their future, that triumphant day when Adam Patch dies; they find endless ways of relieving their boredom while they wait to inherit luxury by spending money way above Anthony’s income; and they even purchase an automobile in the fury of materialism sweeping the capitalistic society of America. Anthony and Gloria sink deeper and deeper into the escape mechanisms, using the sensationalism stirring the country as an excuse for their excessive indulgence. They have nothing except the stench of liquor and cigarettes to show for the money spent. They eat, drink, and make merry, while running from their own existence; they contemplate the death of Adam’s grandfather and the celebration of life thereafter as successors to his wealth. The hedonic nature of their existence, their devotion to happiness and gratification full of pleasure, which clouds their succulent dream of riches, is their goal.

In the year 1913, the Progressive Movement blooms; President Wilson maneuvers major legislation through congress, the Underwood Act to lower tariffs and its attachment, a graduated income tax; and the Federal Reserve Act to provide elasticity to the money supply.

War breaks out in Europe, growing into a World War. World War I stimulates the American economy through trade with war filled countries. Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, manages to keep America out of the war, while at the same time tending to some of the restitution of guilt for the money and social elite through progressive reform legislation. In 1914 an antitrust legislation establishes a Federal Trade commission to prohibit unfair business practices. Then in 1916, another burst of legislation brings new laws which prohibit child labor and limit railroad workers to an eight hour day. Because President Wilson’s hard work produces those and other reforms and the slogan, “he kept us out of war,” Wilson narrowly wins the 1916 presidential race and reelection to the office of the Presidency. Up till this time, government protects business over an individual (religion became a business, and corporations consider themselves individuals under the constitution). It appears to the public as if the individual, the common man, is finally becoming a protected concern of the government.

Criticism enters Anthony and Gloria’s relationship, criticism of others and each other. They travel and squander money on endless drunken parties. Anthony attempts to work, but finds self-assurance and opportunism wins out over technical knowledge in Capitalistic America, so he resigns. With no ambition, but he continually attempts to please his grandfather.

“Anthony completed a Chestertonian essay on the twelfth century by way of introduction to his proposed book.”

An essay, Anthony’s grandfather will never admit to reading. He suggests Anthony write about the Germans, offers to pay expenses, that is, as long as he conforms to his grandfather’s values. Anthony’s grandfather objects to Anthony’s curiosity and need to write about the era of the “Dark Ages”? Is there a secret in this period of history that will reveal a mystery of mankind that some men want to be kept a secret?

At one of their drunken parties Maury gives his thinking on some secrets, but “Maury’s adaptation left his friend disappointed and Gloria had shown her disinterest by falling asleep.” Then again at a later date, Anthony and Gloria join friends and a drunken party ensues. Adam Patch, who that very day gives funds to help the national cause of prohibition, decides to disinherit Anthony (without Anthony’s knowledge) after an abrupt unannounced and unexpected visit to see Anthony and Gloria at their summer home. He appalls at the sight of a wild drunken party in progress; he condemns Anthony because of the unrighteous way he is pursuing life. A lifestyle he also employs in his youth.

Both Anthony and Gloria are in a state of panic from the realization of his grandfather’s visit. They ponder ways to make up with his grandfather with righteousness. All attempts fail. They move back to New York City, where they find inflation accelerates the cost of an apartment to above one-third of their income; their income dwindles. Anthony continues to seek restitution and forgiveness from his grandfather, but is kept from his grandfather’s sight.

When Adam Patch dies, all the newspapers relish in the opportunity to tell of his riches and dream of industrialism using tainted propaganda (they avoid mentioning Adam’s attempts to make restitution for the error of his ways through the reforms he sponsors and finances). When Anthony discovers to his dismay, he is not mentioned in the will of his grandfather, he decides to contest the will. The newspapers have a heyday when the terms of the will are made public and also print items concerning Anthony’s suit. Rumors run amuck and Anthony becomes bitter. Anthony’s bitterness increases as he is reminded of the cruelty of life with the death of a proud man, who dies from the indirect actions of some young thugs; a man who obviously got caught up in the Impersonal forces and reduced to a job beneath his stature, the job of a janitor in the building where Anthony lives. When Gloria gets an inheritance after the death of her mother, Anthony learns her beliefs differ from his and he and Gloria begins to argue more and more as they both begin to sink further and further into obscurity. All Anthony’s attempts to becoming a successful writer fail. They again live for today. The beautiful Gloria enters the glamorous motion picture industry as an illumination of her beauty against Anthony’s wishes. Their animosity for each other grows and so does their criticism.

The British intercept and communicate to Washington, D.C., A secret order, the Zimmermann notes, which instructs the German foreign minister to invite Mexico and Japan to join the Central power, (if the United States joins the war effort) and offers the booty of lost lands in the southwest to Mexico as an enticement. Wilson publicizes the Zimmermann note to win votes for his proposal of arming American merchant ships and employ other means necessary to protect American vessels and citizens at sea. Wilson states, “No one was immune from the German aggression”. Journalism assists Wilson; they cry and shout hysterically about the evil morals, philosophy, and music of the Teutonic characteristics of Germany, stirring up the American people to correct the world situation and go to the aid of England and France, who are on the side of God, in their fight for glory.

Then on April 2, 1917, Woodrow Wilson reverses his previous stanch of emphasis on the individual when the United States of America declares war on Germany and enters the war on the side of the Allies. All meaningful legislation Wilson maneuvers through congress suddenly become obsolete, e.g., the Underwood Act which lowers tariffs on imports is now useless as in time of war there are no imports; the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit unfair business practices is worthless as the government contracts with big business (exclude small business) for urgently needed war materials.

America’s interest in the First World War begins with an increase Nationalism in 1898, when America declares war on Spain. The Spanish American War is the signal of America’s entrance into “Imperialism”. The culmination of Nationalism and Imperialism are the indirect cause of America’s entrance into the First World War and of the World War itself. The question to the President and to the congress from big business investors who invest heavily through-out the world and especially in England, our mother country, is: “How [can] America remain isolated in foreign affairs when Americans [stands] to lose so much?”

With the end of the American Revolution, Quincey Adams, then President of the United States, took America into Isolationism for the purpose of staying out of foreign affairs and European wars. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, wants to end the Isolation of America and involve America in foreign affairs for the purpose of greedy Imperialist who plan America’s entrance into the First World War. Woodrow Wilson becomes their partner in this endeavor; he is a very clever man, who thinks “God” ordains him. He pursues the “Politics of Morality”. He is a southern white Presbyterian, who is out to save America and is now out to save the world.

The best and the brightest, the aristocrats, the alumni of three or four Eastern colleges, join the war efforts by applying for officer school. Anthony, however, is determined to be unfit for service as his ideals are un-American. West Point emerges. The propaganda of journalism guides Americans causing a sudden shift in attitudes. Everything is glorious, every race, (except the German race) is a great race. The previous outcasts and scapegoats now join the armed forces and are forgiven. Patriotic citizens favor the arm forces with alcoholic drinks all across America.

The sign of the times adds to Anthony’s disparity. When Anthony receives word the jury bases its decision on the immorality of his lifestyle, the verdict they deliver favors the testator; Anthony reciprocates by appealing the decision as he feels the fortune is his birthright.

Government institutes the selective service act which includes all qualified men regardless of social position.

“All males between the age of 21 and 30 were ordered to personally appear at their polling place in the Election District in which they reside.”

The purpose of appearance is to register for the draft. The war effort produces two million volunteers and three million draftees. This allows Anthony to enter the war as a private with no mention of the previous reason for his exclusion as an officer. Anthony, an aristocrat by birth right, is destined to rub elbows with the lower classes, to see the growing dissension first hand and the impersonal forces at work, the behaviorism tactics thrust upon the men with the malice of school boys, the odd and playful fancy of all army administration, the stressing secession of immeasurable detail, the indignity of the common man’s position, the breaking of man’s spirit, the changing of values, the fears, the disappointments, the hate, the lies, the regret, the emotional unstableness of war.

It is too late, he is no longer an individual; he is a puppet, lacking the ability to make a decisions on his own. Anthony moves from one disparity to another, doubt is born; he is nervous, irritable, afraid, and angry at the world. It is then he makes a fatal error in judgment; he lies and suffers the consequences as he sinks deeper into depression and a drunken daze. His punishment, confinement; Anthony is going mad; he feels a sense of terror, a fearsome ménage of horror. He exhausts himself and becomes ill with his release from confinement.

“He was aware that his illness was providential. It saved him from a hysterical relapse.”

Mail from Gloria requires his attention as Anthony and Gloria grew further and further apart. The war is near an end. Anthony did not leave the states; his imprisonment at Camp Mills is an enigma. The camp is under quarantine from influenza; it is a filthy, windswept, cold, dreary muddle, a breeding place for disease. When word comes the enemy, Germany, is ready to surrender. West Pointers become angry because the war is going to stop before they get a chance to go overseas. Then suddenly the war appears over and Anthony is on his way home to New York to Gloria. There is a celebration in the air; people are drunk with happiness and alcohol.

Gloria’s life apart from Anthony brings her to the realization her once close friends are not really friends, but mere acquaintances, selfish and unfulfilling. Her own morals diminish. Anthony is a stranger to her, someone from her distant past. She is filled with memories and with regret for not living her life differently, for not succumbing to her birthright of motherhood. But now she is faced with Anthony and the possibility of fulfilling a mutual dream of being filthy rich. Things change, prices highly inflate; their income dwindles further; the stocks drop, and their investments are not paying; they both sink into disparity and engulf in parties and alcohol again. Their life is like a yo-yo, up, down, up, down. Anthony (in need) takes the job of a salesman, selling stock to those who cannot afford them; he is destined to failure. Their dollars shrink not only in amount, but also in purchasing power.

As the need for war materials end, America is suddenly sent backward. President Wilson travels abroad to Paris, France, leaving his responsibility and legacy of the Presidency and the American people behind. He is greeted as no other ever was greeted, he thinks, as the “savior” of the world. Wilson comes equipped with his famous fourteen points to bring peace to the world, a way to end all wars, through application of the fourteenth point, the League of Nations. The League of Nations allows reason to prevail in settlement of the problems of the world. There is evidence of starvation on the streets of Europe; the swollen stomachs of young children also suggest malnutrition. President Wilson is no match for the other three great powers at the peace conference. Britain’s Lord George, France’s George Clemenceau, and Italy’s Orlando are ruthless, greedy, domineering, authoritarians with stubborn revengeful streaks: their deceitful pride does not allow Germany, the loser of the war, to sit in the conference for peaceful resolutions. A big mistake, a mistake that will cost the world greater destruction; it will spark the attitudes and actions of those responsible for the “Treaty of Versailles”. Woodrow Wilson makes grave errors as the President of the United States, he listens to the money elite, he leaves America unguided for six months, he fails to appoint an influential Republican to the America delegation at the peace conference, and he thinks of himself as the “savior” of the world which leaves him vulnerable to his fate. Getting ill in Paris forces him to trust others and forces him to compromise beyond his original beliefs. When Wilson returns home, he faces unbearable world embarrassment as the Senate will not sign nor recognize his achievements, the “Treaty of Versailles” and the fourteenth point, the League of Nations. The President succumbs to his fate and collapses, leaving America to the wolves and his second wife.

Rapid growing unemployment emerges at the end of the war and the American attitude suddenly changes; they are disillusioned, alienated, and feel abandoned. The working class, the common man, is disciplined as strikes break out all over America and businesses refuse to cooperate with the need and the demands for higher wages. Investment and get rich quick schemes flourish. Old prejudices arise once again; organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP emerge working against each other when needs of dissention are planted by big business and journalism, thus resulting in race riots. Prohibition brings more drinking.

“To have liquor was a boast, almost a badge of respectability.”

The Jazz age blossoms, a “live for today” attitude, a form protest of the times, and age of nonconformity and dissent, allowing sexual permissiveness to lead to a decline in morals in urban America. Big business and Journalism produce a Red Scare that drives an unjustified fear into the hearts of the common people. The Red Scare is brought on by the fears of big business of the new communist party, a combination of Marxist-Lenin theory which arises out of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and sends chills down the backs of the capitalistic business world. Lenin believes only revolution throughout the world will bring about the culmination of Marx’s theory of the Dialectic, communism, and Lenin’s theory of implementation through force. Lenin says to the communist people, “We must send professionals, professional revolutionaries, through-out the world and make it happen”. Take over the world from the owners of the means of production, the Capitalist. When Journalism capitalizes using propaganda to influence the people of America against such notions, the result is the “Red Scare”. The propaganda of Journalism causes man to go against his neighbor, his friends, snitching becomes an everyday practice, and the feeling that no one can be trusted begins to take over society. America has been censored, and it is back to Isolationism, dramatic plays get labels of pornography and art leads to extreme reactions of delight or discuss.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations, the FBI, is established to investigate suspect aliens and radicals under the strenuous, inhumane campaign of Attorney General Palmer. Hundreds of Russians who are not guilty of any crimes, nor communists, get deported; six thousand people, mostly American citizens, are arrested (prompted by suspicion) and taken from their homes without cause, warrants, or justification, and then held against their will. There is no evidence of a communist plot, but few Americans speak out because of the false illusion journalism makes. Palmer continues to send false messages of fear to the American people, causing mass hysteria, coupled with the fear of an unknown. The government allows the Attorney General to violate the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans under a false pretext of a revolution, a fear of communism, an unjust fear, that starts with business, the owners of the means of production, as a method to prevent revolution as they know their oppression of the working class is unjust and can result in revolution with the help of the communist. The remembrance of the historical French Revolution is still fresh in the mind of the greedy capitalist.

It is back to “Isolationism” when Warren G. Harding wins the election of 1920. He is a weak man who uses pompous phrases with no definite appeal, who “looked like a President”, who likes the taste of whiskey, and who lets the machine bosses set the policies.

“By 1923 the post war depression seemed to be giving way to a new surge of prosperity,–‘less government in business and more business in government’”. “Advantages rather than responsibility were also the goal of the representative of business and finance who shaped the domestic policies of the Harding Administration.”

Harding’s soap box approach gives way to a bubble that bursts by dirt of a scandal, the Teapot Dome Scandal, which is conveniently withheld from the public until the day after his questionable death.

Sigmund (Sex) Freud, the Jewish German, introduces his Freudian theory of the Libido, the ego, superego and the Id, the selfishness of man, the “I want” struggle of the conscious and the unconscious mind for the pleasure and gratification, a theory that becomes his passport out of Germany at the onset of World War II, his escape from death at the hands of the fascist movement of Adolph Hitler who rises out of a quilt filled Germany to bring destruction and death to the world as restitution for their transgressions against Germany, the superior race. Freudianism gives rise to Narcissism as an explanation for the common man’s dilemma. The Freudian theory, based on the Capitalistic society, reaffirms and conveniently compliments “Capitalism. In actuality man’s narcissism is a direct result of the Capitalistic society replacing the values of man from “Oneness with God” and “Oneness with Man” to “Sameness”, a concept of partnership, in marriage, in work, in all endeavors, giving man Materialism, Narcissism, Alcoholism, Sexism, Darwinism, and justifying the “Paternalism” of the Capitalistic societies Gospel of Wealth, the form of slavery that is so nice to society and murderous to the common man.

Gloria’s self-esteem declines abruptly into paranoia as she realizes her beauty and freshness is fading and is replaced with wrinkles. Along with Gloria’s beauty, her love for Anthony also fades, but she stays faithfully by him in their partnership of marriage even as he sinks deeper and deeper into his alcoholic escape. They still share the same dream of riches.

When the dream comes to be reality and Anthony recovers the family fortune by winning the lawsuit, Adam Patch’s estate, the ligancy of Anthony’s birthright, it appears to be too late for Anthony, he appears beaten, and he withdraws once again to his childhood obsession. Had Anthony’s victory come too late? Was his victory now his damnation? There is no turning back. If Anthony was given his grandfather’s estate without a fight, his reaction may have differed; he may have succumbed to materialism. But now all Anthony can do is reminisce, to look back on his hardships, his tribulations, his ruthless misery, his loneliness, and his justification in obtaining his birth right, an autocracy. He is no longer materialistic in his thinking.

“Great tears stood in his eyes, and his voice was tremulous as he whispered to himself. “I showed them,” she was saying. “It was a hard fight, but I didn’t give up and I came through!”

What then is his gain? Is not the advantage of a money autocracy, a form of materialism and Anthony’s gain? Anthony diverts the Impersonal Forces and takes responsibilities for his own life. He does this without succumbing to Materialism. It is not for us to judge Anthony. Anthony’s “hope”, his optimism, is his inheritance; he gains satisfaction when he gains his birthright, his inheritance. Anthony’s previous actions reflect the mood and the atmosphere of the post war era of World War I. The post war era of World War I and World War II differ.

“Franklin D. Roosevelt assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his Inaugural Address, ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself’.”

Approximately three months after Roosevelt is elected to the Presidency, America sinks to its lowest point in the Great Depression. Thirteen Million people are unemployed and almost every bank closes. Roosevelt is a man of action destined to reestablish the faith in Capitalism.

“In the first ‘hundred days’, he proposed, and congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.”

Businessmen and bankers fear the actions of Roosevelt and dislike the Nation being taken off the gold standard, the deficit budget, and the concessions made to labor. Businessmen and bankers are unwilling to pay for the changes, but they reaped the rewards through Materialism and want to keep them. Roosevelt is a man of action and knows these actions are necessary to prevent a possible revolution from within with the growing unrest of the middle classes; he responds with new programs of reform:

“Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.” ‘In 1936 he was re-elect —–he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidation key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the government could legally regulate the economy.”

Roosevelt pledges a “good neighbor” policy against aggressors in the Western hemisphere which transform the Monroe Doctrine, a doctrine America now feels they have the strength to protect. Roosevelt seeks to keep America out of the European wars while pledging to help nations that are under threat or attack. America is to remain neutral? How can America remain neutral and follow the contradicting policies put into effect? The President is given power to implement embargoes that threaten or attack other nations. Problems arise all over Europe. Japan becomes aggressive again and Germany unifies under their fascist leader, Adolph Hitler. The French fall to Germany’s aggression. Aid short of war is the policy of foreign affairs in America. With this attitude, war is inevitable.

Through Roosevelt, America helps to strengthen the countries that will eventually retaliate against it because America suddenly becomes unable to defend the Monroe Doctrine as Roosevelt pledges. The Philippines, America’s stepping stone to Asia, is in jeopardy to Japan. Roosevelt feels the salvation of the world peace will ultimately depend upon the relations between opposites, i.e., Russia, the communist, and the United States, the capitalist. Therefore, he devotes his energies to the planning of the United Nations, the afterbirth of Wilson’s fourteenth point.

When Japan retaliates against America through the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, America’s efforts are redirected into global warfare. Internally the American political machine retaliates upon citizens of Japanese descent, removing them from their homes against their free will into what is referred to as protective custody, imprisonment, stripping them of their due rights as Americans; rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. In times of war Americans have no rights. Roosevelt’s health deteriorates. He dies in 1945 just prior to the close of the war, Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, is not informed of the developments and difficulties of the wartime problems that suddenly come to be his problems to solve. He tells reporters:

“I felt like the moon, the star, and all the planets had fallen on me.”

During World War II he headed the Senate war investigating committee, checking into waste and corruption and saving perhaps as much as fifteen billion dollars.

As President, Truman faces crucial decisions. At first he follows Roosevelt policies, policies which damn America into becoming a police state for the correction of world unrest, pledging the lives of Americans to solve world problems while at the same time ignoring the suffering needs of Americans at home; he witnesses the signing of the United Nations charter. But it isn’t long before he develops his own policies.

“He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, ‘symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President to my own right.’ It became known as the Fair Deal.”

Truman retaliates against Japan after sending a warning shot of fear into the world and bringing the world to a peaceful means of communications, the coalition of the United Nations and the entrance of America into a Cold War, a military dominated complex. Truman campaigns successfully in 1948 against Dewy, the same man that tells the Spanish governor to get out of the Philippines when America declares war on Spain and helps allow American big business to take its first greedy step into Imperialism. With Truman as President, America does not revert back into Isolationism as it did during post World War I; instead, America pursues the “Truman Doctrine”, the Marshall Plan which stimulates economic recovery in war-torn Western Europe. Truman takes the stanch to fight against aggression rather than feed and nourish it. He negotiates a military alliance to protect Western nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When postwar antagonism utilizes aggression to bring about communism in Korea, America along with the United Nations holds a line above the old boundary keeping the war a limited one.

When Truman gives his address to the nation in 1948, he states his views outright:

“We have rejected the discredited theory that the fortunes of the nation should be in the hand of a privileged few, instead, we believe that our economic system should rest on a democratic foundation and that wealth should be credited for the benefit of all. The recent election shows that the American people are in favor of this kind of society. Every segment of our population and every individual has a right to expect from his government a fair deal.”

Truman meets with opposition from business and congress in implementing his strategies; he wins some, and loses some. Truman seeks a “war against world poverty”, but is hindered by business and congress from achieving the same justice for all the American people. Truman also meets with opposition in his efforts in Korea from the military. General McCarthy voices opposition to Truman by making allegations. The Tyding Committee declares McCarthy works a “fraud and a hoax”, but the backlash of the Korea war gives McCarthy an audience which produces another Red Scare sending school children under their desks in fear of atomic bombs; these scare tactics continue in force until 1953, but are not held with the severity as they are in the previous scare of 1919:

“Slander, lies, character assassinations—these things are a threat to every single citizen everywhere in this country. When even one American—who has done nothing wrong—is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.”

How is true justice to prevail in America when men like Truman, who fight for the individual, are made to look silly under the false threats of communism brought on by the fear of business paying their fair share of wars which are of their making and for their profit or prevention of losses in their Materialism? Truman is a man of the people who fights for legislation and reforms that help the common man. Under Truman the common man is not reduced to the bread lines with the severity of oppression from big business as they are in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Truman listens to what the people say and makes his intention know to follow the designs of America people, when Eisenhower is elected President in 1952, he plays along with the game of politics, but in his farewell address he seeks restitution and warns America of things to come:

“The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every State house, and every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need of this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved, so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisitions of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted . . . Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial military posture, has been the technical revolution during recent decades . . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we would, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy would itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite (January 17, 1961).”

In conclusion, the Steward of the rich, the President, is merely a guardian for the rich, whose policies differ from guardian to guardian, giving only the minimum amount of change or adjustment to prevent revolution and establish “hope” or reestablish faith in the system. There is but one exception, Harry S. Truman who becomes the President because of the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Truman’s administration during the postwar era of World War II brings changes to the American society, helps the common man, through establishment and revisal of reforms, thus preventing or attacking the abuse, massive oppression, discrimination, and fears that were felt by the common man and the middle class in America at the hands of big business and government in the post-World War I era under Harding.

And in my opinion, the Capitalistic Society is a nation whose processes, rewards, and acceptance through Materialism can be the damnation to one’s soul if an individual chooses the wrong path upward through the impersonal forces toward an American dream. However, it is also a reward (through non-conformity) because under the Capitalistic society the freedom of choice of which road to take on the travel upward through the impersonal forces toward the American dream is left up to the individual, not the government.

Posted in Amendments, Analysis, Books, Changing America?, character analysis, concept, Constitution, History, Life's lessons, Literature or books, News and politics, rhetoric, Rights as Americans, Roots, Truth, Understanding, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Armed with Feathers

Armed with Feathers

Posted on June 19, 2006by gramatrudy

Armed With Feathers

By Trudy A. Martinez

I came up pillow in hand.  Resounding agitations arouse not only me but also my anger.  With a fury, I hurl the pillow in the direction of the origination of the noise.  Kit knows not to scratch the chair; that cat knows better. The racket her nails make, protruding inward, pulling outward, creates a reverberating, irritating, and displeasing noise. The noise awakes not only me but also a demon who seeks her out.

“It’s only 4:00 A.M…” I scream.  “Leave me alone. I want to sleep.”  And then I exclaim with dramatic emphasis, shaking a finger at her while I speak.  “Don’t you dare touch that chair again with your nails?” 

Her body stretches out and moves upward while her nails position themselves in the chair ready to scratch.   When the sound of my angry voice reaches her ears, she stops. She glares at me. She tests my patience. 

I stare back.  She releases her nails from the upholstery. She then slowly moves away in defeat.  “Now get out of here!” I exclaim as I hurl another pillow as she exits.

“She’ll be back.” I think. “Maybe, just maybe I can grab a few winks before then.”

image

Posted in Animals, Cats, Children, Jounal entry, Life's lessons, memories, Out of Sight, rhetoric, That's Life! | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment