RECONSTRUCTION

By Trudy A. Martinez

According to The American College Dictionary to reconstruct means to construct again; to rebuild; make over. What happens in the South following the Civil War does not meet the definition of reconstruction.  It is only a means of pacifying the guilt of those who originally profit from the slave trade. The actions they take are calculating, necessary moves that prove profitable, once again, for the North, the rich, and the rising upper-middle-class, the bourgeoisie, allowing their entrance into Industrialization. It is a means of gain from the misfortune of the southerners, the poor whites, and the blacks; a means of appeasement; an influx of Hope; a road block to revolution.

History dictates, as long as there is Hope for a better future, the common people will accept the hard times and the struggle to obtain and improve their status. How else can the government justify its action of freeing the salves, while at the same time, breaking the promise of 40 acres and a mule? The blacks are left with nothing more than the Hope of achieving a better tomorrow at the mercy of their previous owners, the Southern Elite.

The Freedman Bureau, a token agency (backed by the government, influenced by the rich, but yet, limited), was expected to achieve the impossible. From the beginning, the bureau has three strikes against it; it offers only hope and token justice by controlling the impersonal forces that determine history. One can only wonder if this is why President Lincoln, the role model for the common man, lost his life. Was the President’s death also determined by of one of those impersonal forces upon history? Did Lincoln make his strategy for reconstruction of our torn country known to the wrong people? These are questions for which we may never find the answers? Violence and a strong middle-class objection always pave the way for change in America, that is, when the change does not benefit the rich and the upper-middle-class.

In America (the land of the free, the government of the people), freedom is never a problem, or is it? Does a government of the people mean all the people: the common people, the blacks too? In 1865, is freedom a myth?

Guilt and restitution for the sins of the past alone does not free the slaves; it is a combination of greed and the desire to follow the footsteps of our mother county, England, into the Industrial Revolution. The slave trade is not just a source of guilt, but also a hindrance to progress placed on society by the greed of the past Northern Elite. The slaves only need to be free, no longer owned like cattle or a piece of property. What happens to the slaves after they are free is of no real concern to the Northern elite. True freedom is a luxury of the rich; one can only acquire freedom through status, prestige, or money; it is not a common man’s commodity.

Look at our past, the evidence is there. Our government is not a government of the people, at least not the common people, as the government wants us to believe; instead we are a government of the rich, the prestigious, the corrupt, the greedy, and the bourgeoisie. Our government is governed by the desires and whims of the rich. The common people are not a concern of the government until their Hope begins to fade; threats of revolution are in evidence by violence, loss of lives, and the voice of the middle-class objections are heard loud and clear.

Our sense of Nationalistic thinking begins with the birth of our flag, the red, white, and blue, signifying the blood, sweat, and tears of our fore fathers who win freedom from our mother country, England; they establish our Constitutional government, our Republic, by which the freedom of all the people are insured and protected. With this Nationalistic thinking, the common people are programmed to think they are unique, free, equal, and that truth and justice prevail; they are one nation, with a common goal. That thinking remains true until the north desires to enter venture into the industrialization of America. Then our common goal is obliterated.

The South didn’t cooperate. The South didn’t want to progress; it was enjoying all the advantages of slavery; it didn’t want to change; its goals differ. The violence of the Civil War is necessary before change can occur to achieve the desires of the Northern rich, to progress, to go forward, and to increase their wealth. The rich control the government; they want change only if it is beneficial to them, not when they pay a cost. The Civil War is a disagreement between the Southern rich and the Northern rich. In America, the rich grow richer at the expense of the poor, the working class, the common man, and the ethnic groups. The more blood, sweat, and tears the common man sheds, the wealthier the rich become. With the emancipation of the slaves, the Northern rich can induce the government into establishing a (forced) public education system. This education of the masses is a necessity for progress (if Industrialization is to occur) and for the rich to prosper from it.

When it becomes evident the common people are more than eager to learn, not only does education need controls, but also limits to and for those segments of society that are to become the working class of the Industrialization. The schools brain-wash the minds of the people by increasing the Nationalistic theme, i.e., to become one, together, with one goal, to increase the wealth of the nation, to build on the American Dream (the programmed dream: as long as we try, work hard; we will get ahead), a new article of faith, a myth. The owners of the means of production and progress keep it that way (a myth) by resisting payment of the true value of labor and by not sharing the wealth with those who make it possible for them to obtain it.

The Industrialization of America is a boom for the rich. They justify their mistreatment of the working class, depriving them of the fruits of their labor, through the practice and acceptance of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest).

The American government, the government of the people, during times of trouble, during hard times, turns its back on the needs of the common people, the working classes, i.e., the poor whites, the blacks, the Hispanics, the women, and the children. While simultaneously denying the acceptance and practice of the theories of Darwinism, the government allows the unjust practices of industry whose roots are in the theories of Social Darwinism. Why? Because, the theories and practice of “Social Darwinism” allow for a natural selection of the fittest, justifying the actions of the rich by allowing them to capitalize at the expense of the working class, the common people. Masses of wealth accumulate, as a result. So much wealth accumulates that the rich find it necessary to plan their next greedy step into what they refer to as progress, Imperialism.

In conclusion and in my opinion, to reconstitute the government would have been better solutions in 1865, i.e., reconstruct the government, not just the South, but the North as well. The radicals could have gotten the backing of the masses, but fear stood in their way. Fear of revolution like the one unleashed in France in the year 1797. The radicals chose compromise at the expense and suffering of all future generations instead of facing the enviable, the necessity of change, i.e., of defining “freedom”, of defining “the government of the people” and achieving a real government of the people, the common people, all the people. Through the ending of injustice, invoking controls on the greedy, forcing “the owners of the means of production” to pay the true value of the labor and thereby, alleviating the unnecessary blood, sweat, and tears of the working classes, the aim of a government for all the people may achieve. One can only envision the outcome of what such a change might mean to America, i.e., utopia, little or no unemployment, rapid growth, and increased stability, a sense of pride surpassing the Nationalistic theme that gives a sense of false pride and of false reality.

Regardless, America achieves what no other country has ever accomplished: We remain strong and resolute irrespective of our faults. And we will continue to do so as long as we have Hope.

Advertisements

A Life versus Death Struggle

Posted on May 29, 2008

by Trudy A. Martinez

If the Medical Profession Calculates the Value of Life on an Economical Basis, Who Calculates the Value of Death?

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.

Supreme Decisions

The following article was published in the “Inyokern News Review” as a letter to the editor in October 1990.  The letter was written in response to the unnecessary death of a young girl.  The question then was whose life is valued more an endangered species or human life?

The underlying importance of this issue highlights another question: Are we going to allow the loss of the rights guaranteed through the Constitution for all Americans as a remedy?

Even though the article was written in 1990, the issues surrounding it still exist today and will continue until the people’s voice is loud and clear that they will not stand for remedies, which result in the taking of properties.  The Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution clearly prohibits the taking of properties for public use without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment does not say that “We the People” [the property owner] must do the compensating.  Nevertheless, across America, property owners are told they must compensate in order to improve their property when their property is said to be in the habitat of an endangered species.

Supreme Decisions

By Trudy A. Martinez

Tom Turner, author of “Courting Disaster in the Nation’s Capital”, (Mother Earth News, March-April ’88 p44 (2)) says, “The Supreme Court can go for long periods without rendering decisions in environmental disputes.”  Some recent decisions have ruled in favor of property holders.”

“ . . .  The Firth Amendment prohibits “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  The courts have ruled in favor of the property holder’s right to develop their lands and against environmentalist who wish to prohibit such undertakings.

The Mohave Ground Squirrel has posed some problems for our area residence.  Property holders are being robbed of property, money, and peace of mind in regards to this issue.  Inconsistency, extortion, blackmail, and plain highway robbery appear to be the tactics incorporated by the so-called public agency.

A recent death of a young girl in our area reveals that the Mohave Ground Squirrel’s life is considered of more value than human life.  The most dangerous intersection in Ridgecrest goes without a traffic signal because of the prohibiting of development.

Enough is enough!  Agencies such as The Nature Conservancy should be forced to have their day in court against the people of California and other states in the Union, if applicable.  Joint and/or single court action should be ensued.  True, court action may take years; but with the press, public records, documentation, and foresight, the people can again be victorious.

George Reiger author of “Unnatural Developments” says, “Although TNC uses millions of nonprofit dollars annually, it offers little accountability to the public underwriting its schemes”.

The Nature Conservancy’s record is not lily-white.  They want a monopoly with no competition.  If the people stand in their way, they move them, cheat them, and abridge the people’s rights.

A “Supreme Decision” is not just for the courts but also for the individuals and/or groups of individuals who are affected by mismanaged corrupt governmental concerns.  America is still a government of the people.  It is the responsibility of Americans to remind the agencies that tend to hinder personal rights guaranteed through the Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” to seek restitution.  Not always is the mere joining of special interest groups enough.  The way to pursue action if you want results is to challenge them.  “A squeaky wheel gets attention; a well oiled wheel is left alone.”  The more media coverage there is the better.  The more cases tried, the more examples set.  To question, to challenge, and to fight for the justice and rights that seem to be forever fading is a responsibility of every American.  The oppressive methods of “Special Interest Hip Pocket Agencies” who pursue personal gain by engaging the concerns of corporate, affluent Americans may only be stopped by the judiciary system.  Ignoring the interest of the people is only smart if the people allow their freedom to be abridged.  An agency like the TNC may shine on the outside, but they stink on the inside, polluting the future of America.

The Nature Conservancy needs to be given a copy of the “Fifth Amendment”; better yet perhaps someone needs to read it to them: the blind are sometimes able to see with the aid of words.  (A box of Q-tips may be needed to clear their ears so they can hear what is being said.)  I interpret the Fifth Amendment to say that if we the people are kept from our land through the taking of the land that we the people are supposed to be compensated.

Nowhere in the Fifth Amendment does it say “we the people” must do the compensating!

How does DeTocqueville’s “Democracy in America” help you to understand and deal with the media in relationship to ideals, values, and myth?

By Trudy A. Martinez

Influence and the ramification of world history had a critical bearing upon the construction of the American order. Whereas, today the influence and the ramification of the media’s interpretation of international and foreign affairs has critical bearing on America’s future.

America is an archetype for the world; it was and is a speculative design to emancipate the world into Capitalism, a new world denomination. With the Soviet Union joining the ranks of Capitalism, for a while it appeared the American elite and Soviet elite would become the governing agents of the world. De Tocqueville speaks as if he is living in the twentieth century when he says in his book, Democracy in America,

“There are at the present time two great nations in the world which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to Russians and Americans . . . They suddenly place themselves in the front rank among the nations . . . these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived . . . each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of . . . the globe”(142).

The media had a field day with the Russians conversion into Capitalism. The propaganda of consumerism sways socialism into materialism. De Tocqueville appears to have known back in the eighteenth hundreds that America will come to be a dominate nation because he implies,

“There is less difference at the present day between the Europeans and their descendants in the New World . . . this tendency to [assimilate] brings foreign nations closer and closer to each other . . . “(De Tocqueville 142).

When Russia begins their industrial revolution, she mimics the history of America; Russia put a similar numbing seize upon the common Russian people by confining the common people’s freedom and striking unconstitutional authority over them through the execution of behaviorism.

“As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellows, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They own nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands” (De Tocqueville).

Christianity now openly appears in Russia. Is this the Russian man’s own urge to recapture paradise lost? Or is this merely the media’s communique for justification for Russian people’s persecution by sovereignty clique which is strongly colored by the media’s propaganda towards economic gain? In Russia, the myth, “The Russian Dream” is an external component of “hope”, whereas in America, “the American Dream” is internal “hope”. The difference may be seen in the mannerisms of the people. Russian’s have been on the brink of revolution while Americans accept their fate of oppression while remaining optimistic because the magic ingredient, “hope”, is programmed into the brain at a very early age. In this way America prevents revolution. The question is did Russia wait too long to join the ranks of the Americans? Is it still possible for Russia to pull the blind fold over the eyes of the Russian people without a revolution? Only time will tell. Will history repeat itself in the fashion of Anatole France or America?

The Founding Fathers of America set-up three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The objective is to connect, but yet segregate the distinguish segments of the government for the purpose of providing checks and balances within the system that will protect the government from despotism (dictatorship). “Yellow Journalism” facilitates the influencing of people in the efforts of sanctioning the Constitution through the publishing of The Federalist Papers, (an interpretation of the Constitution), adhered by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Federalist envision a powerful central government with individual state governments all syndicated together in a “firm union” (No. 9) revolving around the main force, the federal government. With this theme, the greatest amount of “liberty” will be afforded the individual states while strengthening the union to protect the union from internal and external fractions.

“The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects” (Madison #10). There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinion, the same passions, and the same interest” (Madison #10).

In other words, if we are to remove the causes of faction, we will destroy the liberty that “is essential to political life” (Madison #10). “Liberty” is to remain to preserve political life. Therefore, the effects of faction require controls through “sameness” (the concept of a partnership, in love, in marriage, in all endeavors), thereby, stifling individuality of the masses and effectively changing the value of man from a sharing nature to a selfish nature, making us all “as good citizens those who have no sympathy for any but themselves (De Tocqueville 194)” in order to form an equality basis.

In religious terms equality means “oneness”; i. e., we are all equally individual in the eyes of God, whereas in a capitalistic industrial society, equality has come to mean “sameness”. Thus, (in most cases) the individual is stifled; he is kept from realizing full knowledge or a true (creative) individuality. This is due to the controlling of the effects of faction within the society.

To effectively control a notion of sameness “the law increased the strength of . . . authorities (De Tocqueville 112)” while at the same time “it enfeebled more and more those which were naturally weak . . . the body is . . . free . . . the soul. . . is enslaved” (De Tocqueville 112). When a man’s soul is enslaved, reality escapes him; he is no longer free–liberty becomes a fantasy. “Liberty of opinion” comes to be taboo. This taboo of opinion may be seen through the lack of literary genius in America (when an intellectual emanates to show his/her genius in the literary field, he/she is quailed through tyranny of the majority) (De Tocqueville 114 – 119). “Sameness” is achieved through the ideology of Locke with “a passive affect, man is driven, the object of motivations of which he himself is not aware (Fromm 18). It is a concept whereby a few govern the masses, a system by which a sovereignty clique discontinues  a man’s conception of revolt through a myth, a fantasy with the help of the media, the Fourth Undeclared Branch of Government.

The arrangement of the American nation is contrived by a combination of perceptions: Locke’s ideology braced with a notion of “sameness” and a strict moral code with the execution of purism. The concept stresses religious freedom and the separation of the church and the state. But instead of separating the church from the state, the church is incorporated into the state delivering and individual through optimism into contention with an infinite quantity of objective forces (impersonal forces) joined together in harmony and charted to confuse, bewilder, and overwhelm common man and deliver him into submission of the greedy ambitions of the affluent.

“Men who live in democratic communities . . . seldom indulge in meditation . . . they . . . naturally entertain very little esteem for it . . . he risks less in making use of some false principles, then in spending his time in establishing all his principles, on the basis of truth” (De Tocqueville 165).

When you consider the happenings in Russia and read about the transition of socialism (communism) to capitalism, you find yourself wondering if there isn’t a conspiracy of the rich to control not only America but also the world.

“. . . The rich in democracies always stand in need of the poor; and that in democratic times, you attach a poor man to you more by your manner than by benefits conferred. The magnitude of such benefits, which set off the difference of condition, causes a secret irritation to those who reap advantages of them; but the charm of simplicity of manners is almost irresistible; affability carries men away and even want of polish is not always displeasing. This truth does not take root at once in the minds of the rich. . . that population does not ask them for sacrifice of their money, but of their pride” (De Tocqueville 197).

If America is not aware of America’s devious past, how can the governing few duplicate America’s history in a country on the other side of the world with such precision? How will they know the duplication must be precise to be efficient and to be effective? Why else is religious freedom now suddenly allowed in Russia?

“To minds thus predisposed, every new method which leads by a shorter road to wealth, every machine which spares labor, every instrument which diminishes the cost of production, every discovery which facilitates pleasure . . . seems to be the grandest effort of human intellect. It is chiefly from these motives that democratic people addicts itself to scientific pursuits . . .” (De Tocqueville 167).

As a result of man’s agony perplexed by the overwhelming impersonal forces, common man was and still is forced to conform or seek escape from his reality through the escape mechanisms. Common man ceases to be an individual with a free choice; the freedom guaranteed by the constitution eludes his grasp.

After the Civil War in America, major steps were taken to prevent a repeat of such a catastrophe. A mandatory school system is put in place to educate the masses. But doesn’t it make you wonder if educating the masses is the real reason? Or is the school system set-up to play games such as ‘blind man’s bluff” with the youth of America? Is history white washed? Are the masses controlled to prevent revolution? “Hope” appears to be the magic ingredient which guides the youth through behaviorism into a new way life with new values.

Is there “freedom of the press” in America? Or was and is “freedom of the press” the means of suppressing the masses? Does the press induce the public through the media (newspapers, magazines, television, and the movies) to satisfy the desires of the stronger faction? In the 1890′s as in the 1950′s, “yellow journalism” was a dominate force at work, feeding off the majority, oppressing the weak, with ideologies of Palmer and McCarthy. In 1948 the press is embarrassed. The press got caught wearing the Republican Hat when their papers hit the street announcing Truman’s defeat based on their opinion polls which were to sway the public to their way of thinking. When in actuality, the Democrats went to the polls (the only poll that counts) resulting in a triumph for Truman over Dewey.

“. . . The stronger faction could readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in the state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger”(Madison #51).

The words of De Tocqueville and our forefathers are still true today: the stronger factions control the minds of the masses through the incorporation of TVism into the daily life of millions of Americans. A couch potato became reality when America began growing its vegetation in the living room of the American family.

Nearly every American couch has at least one fat potato planted on it an average of 7.5 hours per day; their job is to watch the “booby-tube”. What to buy? Who to buy it from? Get the dope; get duped; violence, violence, and more violence.

It makes one wonder: is there a conspiracy to shorten the lives of as many Americans as possible to make way for the fresh cheap labor that’s coming to America in the Jungle of new factories, industries, and McDonald’s?

In Mojave, McDonald’s has a new crew, all foreign workers (fresh, cheap, labor); these workers may be working for less than minimum wage. I overheard a conversation between two managers discussing a labor wage contract below the rates of minimum wage laws. How can this be? America makes it possible with laws on the books that allow hiring below minimum wage when the employee is in a training status. Who is to say that a training status doesn’t mean an alien–aliens have to start somewhere learning to be good consumer–iced Americans. McDonald’s are justified aren’t they? After all the American youth are not capable of working: the American youth is not interested—French- fries–fried brains are more along their lines; they have taken up other occupations–materialistic in nature, the materialism of others. Bottle sucking is out; sniffing and intravenous feedings are in.

Meanwhile, the masses of new soon-to-be Americans are converted through the consumerism of advertisement and subliminal messages into materialism to be damned in a hell on earth as the “American Dream” requires props (status symbols) that announce your status with a flare.

The lawyers and judges provide the checks and balances that may keep us safe from tyranny: hence, they control democracy. The trouble is they may be duped too. Legislation has seen controls put upon the media in regards to commercials seen on TV; this action should result in alleviation of some of the control over the minds of the youth (a tendency to convert the youth to the idealism of consumerism by way of deceit seen on the screen). If we require seeking assistance in protecting the privileges guaranteed through the Constitution and the Amendments, the Supreme Court becomes the interpreter and protector of the rights of the people as it is implied in the federalist papers. But not many people ever bother to read the Constitution or the Amendments; the belief alone satisfies. The myth; the American Dream; the red, white, and blue; and the hope for a better tomorrow keep us at bay: separate, divide, and control. A Disneyland of fantasies without revolt, without revolution; the American public is “the object of motivations of which he is not aware” (Fromm 18).

One could say with Democracy in America Tyranny of the majority is born. A foreigner, a French man says it all when he looks through the looking-glass into the “fairy-tale” land of America and says,

“The error arose from seeing the interest of the nobles perpetually contending with those of the people, without considering the issue of the contest, which was really the important point. When a community . . . is equally divided between adverse principles,–it must either experience a revolution, or fall into anarchy . . . social superior to all others must always be placed somewhere . . . liberty is endangered when this power finds an obstacle which can retard its course, and give it time to moderate its own vehemence . . . Unlimited is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent” (De Tocqueville 115).

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 have allowed 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.  Have we become so self-interested that we do not see the forest for the trees?  Has everyone begun to take our rights for granted thereby allowing only factions of our society to make our decisions for us?
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 the offender than we must go to a higher source, the Federal Government.  Specifically Congress and the Supreme Court have the authority to resolve issues that abridge our privileges as citizens .  The State is not going to slap their own hand that 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.
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 omitted voluntarily through the stripping of the patient 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” 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.  Where does it say in the Constitution or in the Amendments thereof that the people must do the compensating?
Previous legislation proposals wanted a tree to become an endangered species.  But was the tree the real issue?  Or was the real issue you and me?  Taking of our property and abridging our privileges are blackmail, extortion, and 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 protested, they identified themselves and should have been deported immediately, escorted across the border by 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 have made a habit of waiting 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 has sat on it hands in the past, the people had to take steps to force Congress to act.  Has life in the United States become a game of “Simon Says” or “Mother May I?”
The Supreme Court has been given 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.