Charity starts at home; so, apparently, does anger

If you are a Facebook user you probably saw this one floating about this past weekend:

"Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this."

Sadly, I saw at least five people pass this along for others to read. Needless to say, I am troubled not so much by the sentiments, but the venomous hintings that the Haitian are undeserving of our aid. Oddly, I agree with some of the points the posting raised.

Most troubling to me were some of the ensuing comments by various readers. I read some comments that were downright hateful and racist--and angry. It shames me to think so many fellow citizens can be so hardened to the plight of those unfortunate.

I was so upset by the original post that I fashioned my own retort:

"Shame on some Americans for decrying we help a people (the Haitians) befallen by a horrible tragedy! And yeah, shame on us that we don't set enough time, money and energy aside to help our own. AND shame on us that we have more than 18 million people out of work, looking for jobs while our politicians and people devote not enough time and energy worrying whether all Americans are treated equally with health care, equal marriage laws and that we complain when someone talks about spending money for research to better our world's environment. Yeah, shame on us self-centered Americans who can see no further than our own wallets."

I was heartened to read more positive letters coming in afterwards. I'd like to think that the current economic conditions are the root cause of some of the hateful words I read, but I still ponder the source of all this anger and resentment.

I also wonder if Americans realize that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that Haiti--yes Haiti, one of the poorest nations on this Earth, offered financial aid to our disaster survivors in 2005. In the end, our nation did not accept the Haitian government's kind offer, but it is the thought that counts. In kind, how can anyone begrudge our people's act of kindness and generosity in light of this horrendous disaster that has, so far, claimed more than 150,000 lives?

In recent years while reading various blogs and comments on online news stories, I have come to a disturbing conclusion about a great number of our citizens.

We are an angry people.

Angry at just about everything, and everyone and maybe at life itself. But I ask why?

It doesn't take a genius to see this, especially after watching some of the town hall meetings last summer. It strikes me ironic the people who criticized our people for providing aid to the victims of Haiti are also saying we need to do more for our own people. To me, these are the same people who think our government is destroying our nation by sticking its nose into every avenue of our day-to-day lives.

Many of these same people who shouted down voices of dissent at the town hall meetings, it seems to me, are the by-product of Reagan doctrines who shut down medical facilities for the mentally challenged; shut down countless programs providing shelter and aid to the indigent. Those same people said these are best issues left to local government, not federal concerns.

Where were these people's concern back then? People took heart when they assumed their federal tax burden would be alleviated.

The problem, in my opinion, was their logic was misguided.

Sure, the federal government can cut its costs by cutting programs left and right. It can pass off these concerns to state and local governments. And yes, perhaps local entities can better address these issues. BUT there is a trade off. The feds can cut their costs by curtailing its services, but in reality they are passing along those same expenses to local governments.

In essence, one hand dropped its load while the other has taken on the additional weight. The costs remain the same, only the provider has changed.

We have become a nation used to its government entitlements, at least in part: Social Security, Food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Home Start, pre-and post school programs, public schools, the interstate and state highway networks, local and federal police forces, and a myriad of other state and federal programs, all designed as a convenience or as a security net in time of need. The list is endless and the costs are vast. AND none of them are free.

These programs are based on moral tenets that we provide aid to those in need.

For those who ask why so many of our people not tended to properly, ask yourself this: Where were you last week when Massachusetts held its special election to fill the late late Ted Kennedy's seat? Why weren't you attending the town hall meetings asking our leaders why aren't they doing more to guarantee health care for ALL of our citizens, no matter what? Do you write your congressmen and women asking they support programs to better serve our people?

Worse still, I have--and I am sure you have too--heard people blame the victims for their plight. Just this past summer after our local CBS affiliate ran a story about the attempted break-in to my home one early August evening; after the story had aired, I read a number of online comments blaming me for the incident.

Point is, we are so busy being angry at God-knows-what, that we spend a great deal of time and energy looking for reasons to lay blame rather than solving the root cause of our problems. I am reminded of the old maxim that is takes but seven muscles to smile, and more than 20 to frown.

Michael Moore, controversial filmmaker, once raised the question (in his documentary Bowling for Columbine) "why are we so afraid?"

I put to each of us to the question, "Why are we so angry?"

"You're not of the body! You're not!"

You know, I have to laugh at some politicians. Yeah, so what else is new? Some of them make it so easy. The two latest and greatest missteps I find of particular interest occurred in the past two weeks.

Most prominently are the recent chronicles of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford as he brings shame to his stature. Amazing, he acts as if his transgressions hurt no one--he is wrong, of course. He mouthed all the right platitudes with his tearful apologies, but he has clearly betrayed his obligations as governor, his duty to state and his voters, and most importantly, he has hurt his wife and his children--who he used to trot before cameras to enforce his familial righteousness. And yet he remains in office.

If you haven't read about it--or seen it on the news-- here's the scoop! He recently disappeared and--no one, not his family, not his staff--no one knew where he was. His aides told reporters the governor was out on a nature hike in the Appalachian Trails. THEN the truth became apparent. As it turns out, hiking the backwoods was the farthest thing from this man's mind.

Sanford was nowhere in America, not North America anyway, but in Argentina dallying with his mistress (on Father's Day, no less!)! In his confession, he admitted spending five days crying in the arms of his Argentinean lover, all on his state taxpayers' dime.

Yeah. Crying... really? Like I believe that. The governor has claimed he will repay his state for this amorous trip, but would he have done so had he not been caught? And then there's this, just days earlier Nevada Sen. John Ensign admitted he too, had an eight-month extramarital affair with a member of his staff. You really have to ask yourself, what is it with these guys?

Now don't roll your eyes, go with me on this one; in 1966, "Star Trek" aired an episode called "Return of the Archons."

The premise was not so far removed from the current woes of the Republican Party. The inhabitants of planet Beta III lived in a repressed society where uniformity of thought and sexual repression was the norm, not the exception. Except for periods called the "Red Hour," conformity was not only practiced but demanded. During those periods of the red hour, Betans went totally wild; their reserve of emotion ripped from them in total abandonment.

Violence against one another (sexual, emotionally or otherwise) left virtually no one unscathed.

What Betans found most frightening was to be singled out as being (gasp) individual... the words "you're not of the body!" could prove most damning!

This cry strikes me as nearly identical to the mantra of the Republican Party.

Now I am not claiming the Republican Party wears the mantle of impropriety solely. Lest I be accused of partisanship, I've not forgotten about the acts of former N.Y. governor Elliott Spitzer or 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards. We all know the Democrats have had their share of scandals; human feelings and weaknesses know no political lines, BUT the Republican Party has made family values the very mantra of what they stand for... and they have perfected the choir where their condemnation of anyone who doesn't agree with them is clearly heard, felt and all too often, punished.

What this really means is, "this is what we believe but don't hold us to it..." and of course, this is the Republicans' version of "don't ask, don't tell." In other words, "DO as I say, NOT as I do."

I tell you, any time a politician gets before a camera and microphone proclaiming "I stand for family values," I immediately wonder who is hidden in his or her closet, AND those who proclaim most loudly are, to me, most immediately suspect.

Back in 1998, Gov. Sanford (then Representative), who like so many other Washingtonian Republicans, stood in condemnation of President Bill Clinton when the details of his affair with Monica Lewensky became public. Sanford was on record saying the President's behavior was reprehensible and he should be removed from the highest office in the land.

Now all these years later, his words have come back to haunt him.

My question is why hasn't Gov. Sanford resigned his office? His recent actions only prove his hypocrisy as he has avoids the same question being posed to him. How are his actions any different?

These are the same men who work so ardently to protect the sanctity of marriage and family values. I think of men like former Sen. Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Sen. John McCain, and countless others who, at the very least, stand on shaky ground when professing their morals best represent American traditional family values.

The reality is, these are the very men with whom I want to share nothing. I question what these men are afraid of, and what do they think they are really protecting us Americans from? Which brings me to a somewhat related topic.

In the recent film "Were the World Mine, a TV news reporter confronts two lesbians seeking marriage, "What about traditional family values?" he asks. One of the two women laughs and responds by saying, "We have families, we have values!"

Yes. But obviously not those shared by they who feel they have the right to demand conformity from everyone else, i.e., "my morals are superior to yours."

The problem posed by those who loudly proclaim they are against same sex-marriage think those "nasty homosexuals" who have dared ask for the same protections represent values different then their own. The falsity of this notion is that each and every person is raised in a family unit--whether it was in a father-mother family, a single-parent family, a grandparent, an adopted family, a blended family and yes, even some in a same-sex family... so really, whose values are different?

Family values have been assimilated and ingrained from the moment we are born. Is it so unthinkable, so unreasonable that gays and lesbians would want to perpetuate those same values in their daily lives?

To me, what is most important is to lead our lives honestly, courageously and happily and with the dignity afforded us by our creator. For those who claim their way is the best way--the only way, act as bullies "with a toy" they are unwilling to share; they are deluding themselves and running away from what they don't care to take the time to examine or attempt to understand. Here's the blunt universal truth: love is love. Period.

And finally, this is why Gov. Sanford and hypocrites like him need to examine their own values before passing judgment on others. Personally, I do not believe anyone has the right to make people's lives here a hell on earth. You know, the lines in the Holy Bible "judge not lest ye be judged" says it best.