THE RATIONAL STATE: A Discussion of Government

By Rev. J.J. Purcell

Each independent nation and nation-state, as well as any government organized under every independent nation or nation-state, takes on the character of a human being, as it demonstrates character, thrift, concern for others and lesser traits too – like arrogance, impunity and rashness, among others.

It should be the goal of nations and governments to espouse what is best in people and to operate as the ‘rational state’ that could be equated to a well-balanced human individual, who possesses and demonstrates many good and favorable traits and habits during their daily interactions with others. Inasmuch as a state should be rational, it can be assumed that such a state is truthful, well-meaning, industrious, fair natured and analytical. For example, a rational state could not be one bent upon war, corruption or unsavory motives. The inertial drive for the rational state comes from a place of positive choices, which translate into not only the greater good but the inherent morality that is presumed upon any sane, rational and well-balanced man or woman.

However, even rational states can find themselves in predicaments involving war, corruption and unsavory scandals. It should not be, though, a presentiment of the state to involve itself in base actions.

The rational state understands it has a compact with its citizens: The state shall work in the best interests of the greatest number of individuals that hold allegiance to the state. So, it should be able to be presumed that every decision relative to state finances, security, civil rights, industry and business should be meted out with the understanding that government must be partisan to the interests of the largest number of citizens.

Where does morality come into play with state craft? And, if it does, whose morality should come into play? Is morality even a function of government? I think these are wonderful questions because they are relative to the spoken and unspoken agreements between the citizenry and the government(s) that exercise legal authority over them.

Parts of morality are senses of truth and justice. If a citizen cannot believe the truth asserted by the government, or its ability to fairly mete out justice then there will be a fundamental disconnect between the government and its credibility, which is the ability for it to be believed, and its citizens.

If my neighbor came over and asked to borrow a lawnmower and said he had to mow his front yard, I would lend it to him. He asked me to borrow the lawnmower and informed me he would mow his front yard. As a neighbor of his, I want him to mow the grass on his front lawn, because then that improves the presentation of the block upon which we both live. So, his work is a reflection of my pride in my community also, and I am using my own possession – the lawnmower – to help in achieving that mutual goal. However, as the weeks passed, if I noticed that my neighbor’s lawn was not mowed, I would be interested in that because he borrowed my possession to achieve the work that was not done. Then, I might go and ask my neighbor for my lawnmower back. Well, he might say he had no idea what I was talking about because he never promised to mow the lawn and neither did he borrow my lawnmower. This would give me the impression that my neighbor was both a thief and a liar. After this situation, it would not be logical or reasonable for me to transact any business with my neighbor because I could not count on his word.

Government is not so removed from the neighbor who borrowed the lawnmower. If government compels the citizenry for money, with a stated purpose, and then does not use the money for the reason it stated -- and refuses to acknowledge responsibility for the funds it has acquired -- then government is a thief and a liar. Consequently, I do not see any further reason, according to logic and common sense, to transact any additional business with government. However, because government has armies, courts and police forces, I am compelled to accept the government’s lies, distorted vision and thievery. This is in direct contrast to logic and good sense, which no longer can be applied to the situation or its future outcome. Government cannot do business on its word, only through its courts, police and armies. And, because of this, government would be considered ‘irrational,’ as it would have expectations that are non-linear or credible in dealing with the citizenry. Only an irrational person must use courts, police and armies transact their business. Where right and logic is not in use, then force must be used. It is the road of least resistance.

Now, back to the character of nations and governments: If a government cannot be trusted to observe the truth or to act in the best interests of its citizens then it will not be believed and lose its place in the minds and hearts of people as a force for good. Yet, once that is lost, all is lost. In such a case, government would be plowing over its citizenry irrationally, insensibly and without the ability to right itself, since the foundation of a lie cannot hold up a structure of truth. When all is lost, as in this case, human beings revert to lies, half-truths and deceptions in many instances, and this can be applied to governments as well.

It is harder to operate government with credibility than it is to operate government without credibility among its citizens. The ability to remain credible holds hands with the idea of the rational state that operates sanely.

Now the question must be asked: Who is this government and whom does it represent? What are the ideals of its people? What is their morality?

A government must decide if it is rooted in the welfare of its citizens, and to a lesser extent the world in general. Through its actions, positive and negative, government will create a face to the world and a face to its citizens. If the morality of the government cannot be aligned with the view of morality common to its citizens then it must make a facade -- a false face -- so that it can transact business with convenience.

Men and women deserve to be protected from the excesses of government. Through taxation and the payment of said taxes by citizens, citizens become the responsibility of the government. Government exists only because of levied taxes.

A nation can be mighty and immoral. A man or woman can be mighty and immoral. However, it is a condition of man that, for every person who believes they are the strongest, there is always someone stronger, somewhere. However, a government that can stand up morally and in solidarity with the true welfare of its citizens, and is mighty, is mightier because of its relationship to its citizenry. For this to take place, though, government must behave rationally, in service to its obligations and expectations by its citizens.

'News Entertainers' miss the mark in the American Republic

By Rev. J.J. Purcell

For most of my working years I was a journalist, and I will not feel remotely offended if anyone characterized these years by saying I was an 'activist journalist.' Yes, I was. Though that career is relatively long ago, and I have since found new interests and a new way of life, some part of me is still a writer/editor/publisher.

I was a child in the 1960s, though not of the 1960s. When people were marching against the Vietnam War, for Women's Rights, Civil Rights, No Nukes and against governmental corruption, I was barely out of diapers. But, those messages resonated with me the very moment I was aware of their importance, when I was still no taller than my Dad' knee, right up until today. This is not to say that I was ever blessed by the world or my loved ones for my strong opinions about the rights of others in this better-than-all-other countries. In contrast, I paid very dearly for advocating for the poor, for others' rights, civil liberties and against thieves and charlatans in office.

It turns out that thieves and charlatans in office seem to run things in this world, or at least the parts of it I have seen. And, no one bothered to tell me that these guys and gals would not relent when discovered and written about, and would be very angry, indeed, with me for trying to throw a flashlight on whatever they were doing that invoked the need for public examination.

You see, what I learned about "Journalism" came from Revolutionary thinkers, like Franklin and Payne, etc. And, those crafters of American Journalism regarded the News Industry as being yet another, more informal check or safeguard against tyranny. The News informed a responsive citizenry about the events of the day, using facts and records of transactions, eyewitnesses and expert opinions. Because, if arguments did not meet this level of credibility then they could not be worth very much. This was the difference between gossip and news -- the facts.

Today, ignorant  so-called "Conservative" masses want to arm themselves against imaginary threats, which most of them are too dense to understand in the first place, whereas it involves who is trying to take what from them under the guise of who knows. The American citizen today is less articulate, literate, informed, understanding of American history and more pliable by smooth-talking, well-groomed thieves than at any time before, in my opinion. Today -- 2014 -- represents a new 'low-water mark' for American intelligence, which has almost become a term that is mutually exclusive.

In my day, newspapers who were in conspiracy with certain political candidates and office holders, in Monmouth County, New Jersey, essentially blackballed me. Political activists holding government office, I have been told, made the rounds to advertisers that they would be "in trouble" if the powers that be took advertising in my old rag. And, business people do not want to subsidize crusade. Yes, I understand that.

However, at some point, discrimination, thievery of government funds by officials, outright racism, sexism, blatant corruption of office through many mechanisms (no-bid contracts and public purchases of land being the worst offenders) should be enough that, armed with the proof of these things, the public should be moved to right whatever was wrong. Yet, that is not my experience.

When someone becomes a "Conservative," something must happen to them. Blinders come down like air respirators from an airline seat overhand. The sound of the burst of air from those overhangs forbid the passenger from hearing a single thing being said around them. They cease noticing the world other than in the narrow reference of from their seat. And, once it has been accepted that everything wrong with the world lies in the poor, minority, women, homosexuals, immigrants and old people then there seems to be such a clarity of ignorance that it is used as eyeglasses for the rest of the now-Conservative's life.

There are Republicans and Conservatives who are Women, Black, Poor, Illegal Immigrants even: And, they are absolutely either insane or just barking ignorant.

People don't fight for things that are right anymore, and have not for a long, long time. In fact, judging by my experience, no one wants to hear a thing. No one wants to see a thing. They want whatever news they see to be in a video and not longer than 3 minutes so they can get 'caught up.' But not very much that is terribly serious can be said in 100 words, or spoken about effectively in a minute or a little more or less. Critical thinking demands a smidge more than that to have the fact set necessary for clear logic.

There is always the other side of the matter, though, and that song goes something like this: Put a good-looking girl into a short skirt, have her read from cue cards made up for her, bat her eyes and act really sincere about whatever it is she is reading from the cards. This is the explanation for how FOX News came about, in all of its 'glory.'

I was always a fan of newscasters like Bill Buetel and Roger Grimsby, both anchors at Channel 7 Eyewitness News in the '70s. There was nothing lovely about either of them. They were two old white journalists who covered stories the old-fashioned way -- by being there, reporting and taking pictures. While Bill was dapper enough, Roger was a bulgy eyed, caffeine-stained rumple who could never make it through the first cut of people looking for the next "Megyn Kelly." Of course, Bill had advantages. He was smart, honest, literate, no one's puppet and he had actual talent for news. So, him and Megyn would have been a horrible match on air.

Conservatives have learned to punish the messengers and provide whatever balms they must when dealing with the semi-conscious, preoccupied masses of the country today, the majority of whom are actually Democrats and more liberal than anyone feels comfortable about on the Right. They put on a show. There is smoke, mirrors and affable faces smiling. Oh yeah, they are stealing everything they find, beginning wars of luxury (forget about convenience anymore), undoing the work of the Civil Rights and Women's movements, and dragging our country, our nation straight through the mud to a dirty end. This is how great powers shrink and contract into obscurity. We are well along this road already.

For my part, as personally un-saint-like as I have been in my private life, I have never accepted a bribe (they've been offered), signed a story that I thought had one fact wrong, or stopped being activist until my retirement from public life. And, I can live with that score. I suppose journalists are not unlike ball players when they are about to retire: Did I do enough, was the work good enough, can I live with the record as it stands right now -- forever. One day, everyone who serves in those many professions where there is an expiration date on people and talent must one day be OK with whatever their career was, and not want to do one more day in it. Well, that's me, thank goodness.

To be patently clear, I do not see a lot of good journalism out there, other than in my state's paper of record, The Star-Ledger, or on TV at MSNBC. The rest of it is more "news entertainment." I remember when baseball players stopped calling themselves "ballplayers" and became "sports entertainers." And, I want to see them play on the field as much as I want to submit my eyes and ears to the shrill ranting of news entertainers as well. I'd so much rather have journalists giving me the news and ballplayers entertaining me by playing a good, solid match of whatever sport they are in. But, apparently, those are old-fashioned sentiments as well.

The New Politics of Racism in Suburban New Jersey, Pt. 4

By Rev. Jim Purcell, MPS, CPSP1 (Ret.)

Strictly in theory, the Middletown Township Committee has to vote as a body on things like who will be named to what position, if a body will be created or disbanded as an advisory group or any other kind of group affiliated with the municipal government, among other things.

In reality, though, GOP committee people do not express individual leadership skills and vote as a small herd. It is less the Round Table, so to speak, than it is the Borg, of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame.

I have already been asked why I do not include discussion of the democracy and 'one-member-one-vote' nature of the committee more heavily when discussing the governing body and its decisions relative to the controversy about the abolishment of the Middletown Human Rights Commission. This is because such 'democracy' by the committee is in theory and ceremony only. The real power behind such votes are not even the mayor, past or present, associated with the town through the course of time, but the Republican Machine that has controlled the community for the past 40 years.

In fairness, members of the Republican Party in Middletown Township who serve on the governing body do have opportunities in office to express their ideas, from what I can tell after years of covering the town. However, these expressions are more private at first, certainly not 'off the cuff' ever or without prior consultation with the town GOP's Political Machine. GOP office holders in Middletown row their oars in the same direction and no one plays as an individual in the political game -- and benefits from that organization.

Yet, this is not how a government organized under the Government of the United States is supposed to operate -- doing things the way they are done in Middletown laughs in the face of the American system of rule within its own borders, in my opinion.

Well, the core with this, of course, is that no political party is supposed to run any town or community in the United States of America -- yes, their candidates/officer-holders do but the darn political party is supposed to have nothing to say. This is where Middletown takes a 'hard right turn into crazy.' The idea that the electorate votes and sends cardboard cut-outs instead of bona fide representatives of the people's will to a governing body, which then gives license to any measure brought by the town's GOP Political Machine, which is led by several attorneys that are paid by the township for various services, is ridiculous and goes on every single day in Middletown.

Hailing a cab in Middletown?

This is not the first place I have stated that the leadership of the Middletown Republicans have historically been involved with overseeing governmental borrowing from a Newark law firm for several decades now. This must be legal, or else law enforcement would have been involved in this years ago, but it nonetheless smells as bad as Johnny On The Spot after a day at the circus.

The Middletown Committee is not, historically, a group of independent-minded people looking to do local government as much as they are a collection of the hopeful and ambitious seeking to be helped in careers and futures by the Middletown GOP, which is the most influential community politically in the county -- and one of the most influential in the state. In addition, so many state legislators and officials hail from Middletown it seems being closely aligned to the Middletown GOP can often lead to advancement in the ranks of politics or professions (particularly law or engineering).

Where does all this arrive where it involves bias? Not just of race but certainly that too. Its collected excesses have made Middletown one of the last all-White gated communities in New Jersey, if not the Industrial North East, intent on not allowing diversity or thoughts other than those in the 'group speak' of a small ring of influential, anonymous attorneys who are the real force behind the community's governance; not the committee people -- not the elected representatives of the people.

However, Middletown stoics, intent on never giving sway to the laws that govern the rest of the land, or the diversity that is so present nearly everywhere else in the Garden State, cannot win forever and, one fine day, this government will have to join the rest of the world.

Does all this make the elected and non-elected politicians of Middletown racist? Well, after much consideration, the community is 93 percent White -- and that is the proof in the pudding, isn't it? If race were not one of the single-most important issues to the powers that be there, how would the town have otherwise acquired a Native American population that is many times over the number of traditional minority residents in town? No, working-class Blacks and Hispanics are definitely be kept away from the town as per plan.

There is an old saying in the Black Community that, in many places, someone could get in trouble for a "DWB" as easy as a "DWI." And, I asked what DWB was and was told: It's 'driving while Black.' It happens in places where there usually aren't a lot of Black residents and it is a means of keeping Blacks intimidated.

I found it so hard to believe such things happened in my late teens. A lot has changed since then, and then again a lot of things about this world have remained the same since then -- just ask anyone you meet on the streets in Middletown.