January 1, 2018 Who Is Citizen? Who Or What Empowers Citizen? What Are The Limits Of Citizen?

2018 promises to be a defining year for America, and for Americans. Remembering the adage about sausage, and the making thereof, this year PPTS will be focusing on citizen, citizen activism, and citizen activists. 

Over the course of the past few years, one of the most profound discoveries I have experienced doing this broadcast has been the lack of knowledge of many of my fellow Americans about the questions posed in the title of this article. 

While contemplating the "arc" or flow of the show for 2018, this reality kept cropping up in the strangest places, but mostly in the live, on-air discussions and the conversations in our chat room. One of the most commonly heard statements from me, especially in the past year (2017) has been that one or another positions held by callers, guests and visitors "just is not constitutionally valid". By this, I mean that neither the Constitution or any laws either pertaining to the Constitution or deriving from it via interpretation of the courts up to, and including the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) support the position asserted. 

In almost every (but not every) case my statement has been upheld by research. It is also true that, on some few (sorry, but it is true) instances it was I who was in error. Strangely enough, it was those very instances which led to the most generous, thought provoking and illuminating conversations on the broadcast, especially in subsequent broadcasts. While proving no one is perfect in their knowledge, these moments gave all participants "permission" to express opinions that were inviting of dialogue, discussion and/or debate. It was as if the show itself became a Court with two sides advocating their views...the very purpose for the show's existence in the first place! I was extremely pleased these moments occurred.

The questions posed in the title will be critical to every American (or anyone who wishes to be) in, and beyond 2018 in my view. I hold this view so strongly that I have decided to make the answers to these questions the purpose and focus of as many broadcasts as it may require to answer them. Why?

Citizen.

I am of the decided opinion that this word demonstrates the power of America, both within itself, and across the planet. The hope of America lies within her people, but who exactly ARE her people?

What does being citizen mean, exactly? While you may have an immediate response, you may be stunned to discover that the quick or easy answer is usually NOT the correct one. So, as an educator, one who believes that knowledge leads to power AND wisdom, PPTS will be holding discourse on answering these and other questions emanating from these foundational questions. 

I also believe that it is YOUR answer which matters most. I want your answers to be valid ones. To that end, I am making a few recommendations for your education in 2018, with an urgent plea that you get as much knowledge as you can, as quickly as you can. It may be true that Civics has not been on the educational agenda in America for some four (4) decades, but PPTS is willing to take you to school just for that very purpose. 

I realise that, for many, this will come as an opportunity. For some it will come as an exercise. For some it may even come as an unwelcome intrusion, a task unworthy of your time, or your energy, or your willingness to participate. 

For those in this third group, it is to you that I plead most: invest. Invest in your citizenship, in your country, and in your causes.

The one thing such a journey will not require of you is your money. (A foundational tenet of the show.) 

All the work can be done at no financial cost to you. Yes, there are opportunities to purchase textbooks, certificates, etc. should you choose to do so. However, any writings directly related to the work I am going to recommend to you are at no cost. 

Because it is a journey this educator strongly recommends (so strongly as to commit some 120+ hours of his personal professional time and his international broadcast to), I will be taking this journey (again) with you. 

Please do not tell me why you didn't. Tell me rather the value of what you have learned because you did. It may be a small number of show listener/followers, and that is completely fine. We hope for a very large number of course. Citizen matters. 

If you are willing to engage in the journey, in this exercise on citizenship, it's okay to let us know; it will uplift us and give us strength along the journey. But display your willingness by your participation here, on the show, and with your own writing or your own feet, or even your own voice. 

After all, what better possible answer to our driving question could there be?

"What are YOU going to do about it?"

For the entire team, I remain,

The Tennessee Progressive

PS:

To begin the journey, I have given you some suggested starting points. Of them, I strongly suggest #1, and #3 (together, simultaneously for consideration and discussion values). 

Your mileage may vary (WMMV)

To Whom Does Citizen Owe...What?

Some Things Obvious...Some Things Not.

As often as we may, as individuals, confront and attempt to resolve the problems this question, more often than not we simply fail. 

Some things we owe to ourselves because we are simply human beings. (At least, that is the presumption I make when considering who may be reading or interacting with this blog.)

Yet, even at this fundamental level, the answers to the question are different for every living, breathing human being. It doesn't take very long, even in the solitude of our private thoughts before we come headlong into conflict. That conflict usually occurs when we arrive at that magical point where "should" and "do" collide. 

I once worked with a man who had a terrible habit of saying, to whomever might be listening:

    

    "Review the basics once a year. It takes about a year to review the basics."

              ~W. Clement Stone

I've always considered these to be some of the most profound words I have ever encountered. In the rush to live in today's world, with constant movement, raging emotion, and rambunctious information, assailing us at every moment, it can be difficult to concentrate on the basics--even the basics of who it is that we, individually are. Sometimes, finding out who we are at some given moment surprises, shocks, or amazes us. We can find it taking much longer, and much more concentrated time than we ever thought necessary to get to that point of "Me". Many times, we at first do not believe we have arrived because we do not recognize what we see before us. You may believe this has happened only to you; you would be grossly mistaken. 

Some folks ignore or avoid this moment at every turn. They don't care for what they see, how that feels, or what the realization means not only to them, but of them. Who would want affinity with that person? Each of us experiences this reality daily, yet believe no one could possibly share our perception of the experience itself. 

What has this to do with answering the question?

Simple. We do try to convey our best selves whenever we are called to interact with other humans. Think of those communities you exist within. Work. Family. School. PTA. Union meeting. Grocery. Bank. And, yes, voting booth. 

The simple truth is that we carry this self with us no matter where we go, or what we do. We fly forward with the gigantic hope that our best self will somehow outstrip even our limited abilities, and show up anyway. Mostly, we are disappointed in that hope. But, every rare once in a while, someone shows up that we cannot imagine being us because of the greatness of their appearance. In life, that can happen when we, almost without thought, do that which is right and not that which is convenient, or invisible, or practiced, or easy, or even best. You know, those moments when you silently hope against hope that someone else sees, notices that you. You wonder how that person might become the usual, the habitual you. 

Eventually, you recognize that this person can only become the superior you with painful, relentless practice. For many, that is a price too much to pay. They retreat, in defeat, leaving themselves only the other self which they must somehow learn to accept and accommodate. It is a constant battle that these folks will lose much more often than win.

The real truth is that this is most, if not all of us. It takes more than most of us can muster once, much less every day of our lives. Yet, we do know that there lies, deep within us, Citizen. Proven in war, and peace, our sense of that greater than ourselves rests deep in the core of our being. Americans seem to have an extra dollop of that. We are a nation of winners who have, upon occasion lost. But, those battles we have won mean more to us than life itself, if we are honest about it. Of course, some of those winning moments truly matter most. With more practice such moments could even become usual. But what purpose could compel the tough work required to be that person as a matter of habit, like breathing?

It's difficult to really atomize such a concept. Sometimes, the circumstances dictate the person. Sometimes, the person dictates the circumstance. This is the muddled world of citizen. When should someone stand up, and step out, and declare themselves to be either in favor or, or opposed to something? Many would say that the more muddled or confused, or strained the circumstance, the more likely the best of us is compelled to show up, and show off. Sadly, many more would declare that the best self must be always protected, regardless of circumstance, and become as fair weather citizens. Pretenders all. 

For citizen, as for self, it is not the easy, or the convenient, or even the imperative that compels us to the fore. Before citizen can change a nation, citizen must change citizen. Given that citizen does have a bit of a civic flavor to the terminology, the implication is that citizen is the force for change where citizen lives. Not just under the home roof, but at every point between the kitchen table and the council table at the Courthouse. Just as there are significant concerns on one end of the citizen spectrum, so are there significant concerns at the courthouse, and the Statehouse, and the Whitehouse. But, regardless of the home in question, there are questions which citizen is obligated, yes obligated to ask, and answer. Some examples:

How many people in my community went hungry yesterday? 

How many people in my community were homeless yesterday?

How many people in my community were without any money?

How many people where I live live in poverty?

How many people where I live do not/cannot access basic healthcare?

How many people in my community need, and cannot find honest, honorable, respectable work?

How many people in my town cannot read, or write?

How can I help? What is available, and what can I do about it?

I challenge you here, now. Choose the question which seems the most outrageously false to you. Get undeniable facts from the most authoritative source you possibly can. You will be stunned, flabbergasted, gobstopped. Then consider the last two questions. Remember the who that you are. Consider the you that you might be, or would wish to become. You are citizen. 

What are YOU going to do about it? Not because you must. Because you can.

I am, and remain,

The Tennessee Progressive

One Series Ends; Another Series Begins

It has taken PPTS 28 weeks to present a 24 week series we call "The War On The Poor". During this series, we looked at eight principle battlefields upon which this war is currently being waged. Having now looked, in three week "chunks" at each of the eight battlefields, we have completed the research, but have not yet determined any useful conclusions, talking points, or action plans for this war. We will, but we want you, the progressive soldier to have some time to consider how this information can be of the best use to you in your cause, where you live. That got the team talking.

Without "finalizing" and putting to bed this issue, one we obviously believe to be singularly important to us, because we do absolutely believe it to be of the greatest importance to you, our conversations have turned to what many would believe to be the next important question:

How do we use this information to determine our future actions? How can we implement a determined strategy in time to have the impact we wish on the November, 2014 elections? Who should lead us? How should we communicate with those leaders effectively, in a timely manner so as to create the opposition against our adversaries? What would victory look like?

It was that last question that had a bunch of people looking squarely into my face, as if I should, somehow not only be able, but willing to forcefully and passionately discourse on THE answer. Hundreds of pairs of eyes, mind you, from across the nation are looking at me like I'm somehow the Shell Answer Man.

I gave that job up some long time ago now. Having had the position for more than four decades, I felt that I had done my part; that it was well time for someone else to pick up the ball and run with it, as it were. The trouble was that I did have a few answers. I thought they were good ones. I want(ed) to put them out for consideration. (Note the sliding transition?) I think they should be considered; moreover I believe they are such correct answers that they should be immediately employed across our nation, right now.

Where are we going, as a nation? That's a huge question. While not necessarily the answer many would accept in 2014, I do happen to be a bit of an historian by nature and education. If you want to truly understand the nature of a thing, look at the people involved in, subject to, or affected by that thing. In 24 recorded 2-hour events, PPTS has done just that. But, there lies at the heart of our nation today a much more, I would contend, fundamental question than our show's mantra of "What are YOU going to do about it?"

In our latest show, we begin to search for not merely a functional or useful answer to this question, but one which compels us, as citizen, to act. That is, after all, the Progressive way. (It's available for you here, on the right sidebar under our "Current" shows listing.

In the coming weeks we will look both to history AND current affairs to come to some fundamental conclusions about the answer to this question. Through our staff research and (hopefully) yours, we should have some civil discourse  about the answer to this new question. In fairness, this question is not new. It has been answered on several occasions before, in (and before) our history as a nation.  We'll use that historicity to look at some potential answers to this notion of where we are, or at least where we should, as citizen, be leading our nation into the decades and centuries ahead.

My contention is that we do have the opportunity to reevaluate the conditions which led to previous answers, so we can understand how to make current decisions that will make those answers better for us as citizen. This is neither easy, or easily dismissive work. Yet, in my view it is the most immediate and necessary work citizen can do for our nation, and for our democratic republic. We do stand to lose both. The fact that you do not fully appreciate the truth of that statement so alarms me that I am putting the resources available to me into full use. This isn't play time, and the work required is absolutely NOT for the feint of heart, or for the "sunshine patriot".

I hope you will join us for these next weeks as we hear from history as we ask, and answer this most compelling question of our time.

For PPTS,

The Tennessee Progressive

June 14th, 2014 "The War on the Poor:The Battle For Religion" (Part 2 of 3) "Dialogue"

Today's show now posted for your viewing and commenting pleasure, is a "raw" cut, which means it has not yet been edited. When that edit is complete, I will reload the edited version to the Blog Talk Radio site, and this blog as well.

In a quick re-listening (always a difficult task for me), I must tell you I was not drunk. That being said:

The working title for this episode was "Dialogue".

The term comes from two Greek words of origin. The first is "Dia", which is most correctly translated as "two". The second word is "logos", which most correctly translates to the English word "words".

The rather common definition of the term, then, comes to us as "Two words". The words themselves are each owned by another than yourself. The idea behind it is that it takes two to have dialogue, or discourse on some subject or another.

Before the words matter, the concept of dialogue should be addressed. Sometimes, by voluntary participation, two different words, or ideas, or positions find each other in the same place at one time. In these days, many feel compelled not to speak at all. Most of those who feel a significant allegiance to one position or another may not come to that position from a logical path. When faced with the option of participating in discourse, any number of emotional responses might immediately feed the mind, while completely ignoring the voice. Words make us think. They also make us feel. Emotions do not think. Logic does not feel.

It would therefore make some sense that these two relational differences might at first seem to be antithetical to the entire notion of dialogue. That's because they are. These two worlds exist as polar opposites, yet they do feed into the human determination of what in politics we call "position". Do you have a position on ____?

How many times will your initial response be something like "Well, I'm not sure. Let me give that some thought (and emotion) and I'll get back to you. Would that be alright?" Why should it be? Why not?

Asking for, or offering a position on virtually anything can nail you forever to that particular spot, no matter what the topic may be. It may be a voluntary assignment, or an involuntary determination placed upon you by another. We have this overwhelming competitive spirit as humans (well, at least those of us with a belly button!) that we will most often immediately gravitate to the internal opinion that we are needing to be "right" (correct). Our opinion or understanding of a topic really takes a back seat to our intent to win.

Politics is filled with this dangerous paradigm. We must, however recall that, across the arc of human history, politics has started or ended many fewer conflicts between humans than religion ever has. Human secularism has sought to fill it's population from that perspective, namely if religion has wrought this, then religion just is not for me. Further, and in these days more commonly, we hear that having a religious identity or a personal faith is an outward sign of our ignorance. I refer to such thinking as "fleeing to the extremes" because that is precisely what we do. How can dialogue exist in such an environment?

Oddly enough, that very truth has become a defensive weapon on one side, and a powerful offensive weapon on the other side of the Battle For Religion. One reason fleeing to the extremes is so potent for both sides is that the middle ground is vacant. It is the middle ground where dialogue potentially exists. As a result, dialogue just doesn't happen.

Is it possible to create dialogue in such a place with views, opinions and/or convictions are so concretized as if hard wired within us? What is it that we fear losing, and at what cost? If we can come to grips with this answer, not only does dialogue become possible, but so does dialogue about pretty much anything else. Therein lies the hope of some, and the greatest possible danger to others. The ideology surrounding this concept is the power center for both. When we exit the possibility of dialogue, we give up the possibilities for dialogue, consensus, and compromise. We need not give up our religious or faith beliefs to have such a dialogue, yet we constantly feel threatened at the notion.

Abortion. Marriage Equality. The Death Penalty. These are but brief examples of a very long list of issues which are, or are alleged to be centered around the idea of "religious liberty". Some look at our First Amendment to The Constitution as giving American citizen the freedom OF religion, while others view the statement as insuring the American citizen the freedom FROM religion. Sadly, there are very few better examples of fleeing to the extremes. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a State Religion. This comes from history, specifically feudal and fiefdom theology of Europe, where towns were said to belong to a specific religion. We said that we would not have such a thing as a State Religion here in America. Some States and Commonwealths did establish official "State" religions upon their founding. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts come to my mind. Utah comes to mind. Pilgrims were considered to be a religious sect. That notion, and those constitutional foundations have since been repealed.

Bring us forward through the annals of our national history, and you arrive at the notion of religious liberty as it applies to virtually everything, and usually in a most negative way. The Catholic Church is excoriated for it's denial of child sexual assault while protecting the perpetrators from the world of Justice. Many Catholics now face the wrath of ignorance by those who tell them that being Catholic automatically implies their support of pedophilia. This is the cultural insanity that can originate in one wrong logical thought. Why bother having a dialogue about this, or any other religion-centric topic?

For the same reason we should come together, and reason together.  The American citizen is not asked which side should win. The American citizen is not asked who is right in the position they hold.

The American citizen is required to answer the question that asks "What is the best result for the citizen?"

If we can just come together with our different opinions and convictions, especially with the answer to this question as the basis (and limit) of civil discourse, there is much we can do. There is much we cannot do, issues we cannot reasonably arrest and force into the common marketplace of ideas, debate and discourse. But there are many things we can do. Having a reasoned, civil, respectful, honest discourse is something we can, should, and must do. We must determine that we will not flee to the extremes.

Even in conversations about religion.