Last week, the first aspects of Obamacare went into effect. Most of America, including myself, is dreading the day, a couple years from now, when the bulk of the bill actually goes into affect (assuming it passes the Constitutionality test it faces in the Supreme Court), but the "patients bill of rights", as it is called, aspect of the legislation, which is what went into effect last Thursday, is the only part of the legislation I actually liked-except for children being allowed to stay on their parents health insurance until the age of 26...
I am a Gen X'er, and, as I was taught, one of the early steps that I had to take in becoming an adult, was in getting a job which provided me with my own health insurance. It was at this point that "mommy and daddy" no longer had to "take care of me" and that I could not only provide money for myself, but was self sufficient enough that I could also provide for my own health when needed. What concerns me is the message we are sending to our future generations by saying they don't have to worry about health insurance until well into adulthood.
Becoming an adult is all about personal responsibility and achieving independence, and a big part of that is being able to provide for your own health. Human nature tends towards laziness (unless nurtured otherwise at an early age); by giving the option to not need health insurance until 26 years of age, we are nurturing that part of humanity that is detrimental to a healthy, vibrant and successful society; and, in a small way, we are telling children that adulthood can wait. This in turn could breed a much broader lack of responsibility regarding personal choices like drug use, sex, and money management.
It may also cause social conflict within children once they reach the age of 18-when law considers them an adult: we have seen for decades the conflict that 18-20 year olds have when they consider they are old enough to vote and die for our country in combat, but not old enough to enjoy a beer and burger with their friends and family. What are they to think about their place in life when all need to be independent at the "legal" age of being an adult is removed? Are we to expect them to be ready for the responsibility of raising a family, owning and taking care of a home, and managing a household and career, when all the little steps at being prepared for such things are removed or pushed later and later into adulthood?...
We can hope that this legislation, 20 years from now, will not lead to such social and personal strife and inevitable economic stresses; then again, we were told in the mid 20th century that Welfare wouldn't produce an entire segment of society dependent on government hand outs for their existence.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
American political ideologies Part 4: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.
Today, the core ideologies which were once the basis for the Democrat and Republican parties, have been high jacked by Liberalism and Conservatism, respectively. This high jacking of ideologies which nearly all Americans could identify with, has lead them to be forced into taking back seats to Liberalism and Conservatism. They still exist, but only as shadows of their former selves....
It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...
The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...
Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...
It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...
The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...
Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
American political ideologies part 3: Independents, Moderates, and the Silent Majority
Independents, Moderates and the (so called) Silent Majority all share a similar attitude towards politics, and politicians, in general: all view the political establishment as being corrupt and not to be trusted. All 3 also share many of the same basic ideologies, relative to the legislation that the Federal and State levels of government should be involved in. Their primary differences lie in their actions, and not in their beliefs...
When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.
Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.
For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...
The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.
By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".
The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...
When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.
Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.
For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...
The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.
By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".
The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
American political ideologies part 2: Conservativism and the Tea Party
As with modern Liberalism, Conservatism in America also suffers from an identity crisis of sorts. In short, to conserve something means to preserve what exists or what used to exist. Certain aspects of American Conservatism fit this simple definition, others, however, do not, and can be said to be just as radical-if not more so-than those of modern liberalism...
As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.
However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.
Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...
Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...
Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.
As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.
However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.
Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...
Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...
Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
American political ideologies part 1: Liberalism
There is little question that the dominate political ideology in American politics today is what is called Liberalism-it has taken over the Democratic party, and proponents of it currently hold the highest political seats in our country: President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are all Democrats, and all claim to be Liberals. On it's face, being "liberal" is a good thing-originally it stood for a persons sovereign right to their liberty against authortative governments-or any government, or other, institution which tried, through law or other means, to limit a person's liberty. The problem with modern Liberalism is that it has nothing to do with what Liberalism actually stands for...
To be specific, American Liberalism is based on the work On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Throughout the work, Mill struggles with his belief that a person has a right to their liberty from the authority of governments, against his belief of utilitarianism-which is liberty's exact opposite, and 19th century's American version of socialism. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about an individual's right, and the responsibility of excercizing that right, in society, of their soveriegn liberty from government. True, governments are necessary, but they are a necessary "evil", truly only needed to protect the citizens who agree to be ruled by them, for protection from themselves and outside forces, and for the providing of those services which private enterprise and individuals prove to not be able to provide better for themselves. A close examination of today's Liberals-those who claim to be followers of Liberalism-shows just how far from Liberalism today's followers are, and how they are more Socialists, or Utilitarianists, than followers of Liberalism.
When studying the works of Mill, and particularly On Liberty, it is obvious that the founder of what could, today, be called Liberalism, would cringe at what it has become. One need look no further than what followers of Liberalism today support: government involvement nearly every aspect of an individuals life.
These are the words of Mill as it relates directly to allowing government-of any level-to have more and more say, over more and more aspects, of our society; and todays Liberals in America are doing exactly what he warns against by supporting things like government mandated, and provided for, health care; goverment bail outs of companies deemed "to big to fail"; the printing off and buying up of currency to support programs and spending sprees by our Federal Government on programs and agencies we as a nation have no true need for; further "benefits" for the those said to be living below the poverty level; the Supreme Court broadly interrupting the Constituion so as to allow for broader and broader legislative policy from Congress. Even worse is that all of these things are leading American society and culture down a path that is decidedly based on Socialism.
There are many opinions and theories about what truly constitutes Socialism, but all of them are based around-to some extent-government ownership, and control, of all private industry; and society based loosely around a 2 class structure: the "haves" and "have nots".
Our Constitution places very strict guidelines on how much influence the Federal Government can (is supposed too) have over our economy and society, limiting it to 18 or 19 very specific things and, despite an improper ruling by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, our Federal Government actually does not have the authority to pass any law that it wants. Thanks in large part to that ruling, Congress, with the support of modern Liberalism, has all the support it has ever needed over the last 2 centuries to attack the Constitution, weakening its built in protections the people once had against Government, while at the same time expanding their power over us all.
On top of its political influences, Liberalism has also had a striking effect on the culture of American society. At the core of modern Liberalism (it must be specified as such because it now resembles very little of what it was originally based on) is a mentality based on avoiding conflict, harm and the desire to make life "easy" for every one-particularly our children. Originally born out of the great depression/World War II generation, this last ideal-that of "making life easier for the next generation"-had good intentions: that generation, perhaps, saw the greatest hardships of any other generation of Americans-besides those who first settled our land in the 16th-17th centuries. Originally meant as a rallying cry to prevent things like another depression and world war from happening through hard work, family values and education, "making life easier"-in the world of Modern Liberalism-has become an entitlement and pacifists mentality. Things such "Obamacare" and the welfare state represent the entitlement aspect of this mentality, while the abolishment of traditional school yard activities like dodge ball, stripping a parent from their right to properly discipline their children while at the same time allowing kids to avoid anything they think is "hard"; as well as allowing basic educational institutions to grade on "bell curves" or tossing out grading scales completely in favor of a simple pass/fail system. The result of the implementation of these ideals on such broad levels has helped to produce 30 years worth of Americans who have no concept of what it means to achieve through hard work; have little to no concept of what can be learned from losing to a close rival; or having the effort it takes to "excel" at anything (except, perhaps, in sports).
A secondary effect of this is that excellence and achievement have also become vilified: those at young ages who strive to stand out are seen as being "weird" or "abnormal", and are placed in so called "advanced" classes, which label them as social outcasts in their school and neighborhood. This segragation also prevents them from having any positive influence over their fellow classmates.
These social and culture ideals are also socialistic: in Socialism, everyone is to be treated as an equal. In cultures based on Socialism, there are 2 classes of people: the ruling class, and every one else. To secure this separation, societies which have historically been based on Socialism, have built their culture and institutions around many of the same ideals that modern Liberals today, in America, support...
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with traditional Liberalism-that which was defined and supported by Mill in 1859. In fact, traditional Liberalism is largely a good thing for people, societies, and cultures to embrace. As it was when Mill first defined it in political and social terms, it became the backbone of the ideals that made America great. That Liberalism would have supported a persons right to choose-concerning everything-without sacrificing human natures natural desire to better itself through effort, hard work, and failure and success through trial and error. That form of Liberalism, traditional Liberalism, was at the heart of our individual spirit, our entrepreneuralship and the responsibility we all once held over our own successes and failures and it would have supported giving people hand ups, not hand outs, from the government. Today, however, Modern Liberalism is little more than Socialism attempting to disguise itself by a word with a better image, and meaning, than that which those using the word today really believe in.
To be specific, American Liberalism is based on the work On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Throughout the work, Mill struggles with his belief that a person has a right to their liberty from the authority of governments, against his belief of utilitarianism-which is liberty's exact opposite, and 19th century's American version of socialism. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about an individual's right, and the responsibility of excercizing that right, in society, of their soveriegn liberty from government. True, governments are necessary, but they are a necessary "evil", truly only needed to protect the citizens who agree to be ruled by them, for protection from themselves and outside forces, and for the providing of those services which private enterprise and individuals prove to not be able to provide better for themselves. A close examination of today's Liberals-those who claim to be followers of Liberalism-shows just how far from Liberalism today's followers are, and how they are more Socialists, or Utilitarianists, than followers of Liberalism.
When studying the works of Mill, and particularly On Liberty, it is obvious that the founder of what could, today, be called Liberalism, would cringe at what it has become. One need look no further than what followers of Liberalism today support: government involvement nearly every aspect of an individuals life.
"Every function superadded to those already excersized by the government,
causes its influence over hopes and fears to be more widely diffused, and
converts, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into
hangers-on of the government, or of some party which aims at becoming the
government."
These are the words of Mill as it relates directly to allowing government-of any level-to have more and more say, over more and more aspects, of our society; and todays Liberals in America are doing exactly what he warns against by supporting things like government mandated, and provided for, health care; goverment bail outs of companies deemed "to big to fail"; the printing off and buying up of currency to support programs and spending sprees by our Federal Government on programs and agencies we as a nation have no true need for; further "benefits" for the those said to be living below the poverty level; the Supreme Court broadly interrupting the Constituion so as to allow for broader and broader legislative policy from Congress. Even worse is that all of these things are leading American society and culture down a path that is decidedly based on Socialism.
There are many opinions and theories about what truly constitutes Socialism, but all of them are based around-to some extent-government ownership, and control, of all private industry; and society based loosely around a 2 class structure: the "haves" and "have nots".
Our Constitution places very strict guidelines on how much influence the Federal Government can (is supposed too) have over our economy and society, limiting it to 18 or 19 very specific things and, despite an improper ruling by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, our Federal Government actually does not have the authority to pass any law that it wants. Thanks in large part to that ruling, Congress, with the support of modern Liberalism, has all the support it has ever needed over the last 2 centuries to attack the Constitution, weakening its built in protections the people once had against Government, while at the same time expanding their power over us all.
On top of its political influences, Liberalism has also had a striking effect on the culture of American society. At the core of modern Liberalism (it must be specified as such because it now resembles very little of what it was originally based on) is a mentality based on avoiding conflict, harm and the desire to make life "easy" for every one-particularly our children. Originally born out of the great depression/World War II generation, this last ideal-that of "making life easier for the next generation"-had good intentions: that generation, perhaps, saw the greatest hardships of any other generation of Americans-besides those who first settled our land in the 16th-17th centuries. Originally meant as a rallying cry to prevent things like another depression and world war from happening through hard work, family values and education, "making life easier"-in the world of Modern Liberalism-has become an entitlement and pacifists mentality. Things such "Obamacare" and the welfare state represent the entitlement aspect of this mentality, while the abolishment of traditional school yard activities like dodge ball, stripping a parent from their right to properly discipline their children while at the same time allowing kids to avoid anything they think is "hard"; as well as allowing basic educational institutions to grade on "bell curves" or tossing out grading scales completely in favor of a simple pass/fail system. The result of the implementation of these ideals on such broad levels has helped to produce 30 years worth of Americans who have no concept of what it means to achieve through hard work; have little to no concept of what can be learned from losing to a close rival; or having the effort it takes to "excel" at anything (except, perhaps, in sports).
A secondary effect of this is that excellence and achievement have also become vilified: those at young ages who strive to stand out are seen as being "weird" or "abnormal", and are placed in so called "advanced" classes, which label them as social outcasts in their school and neighborhood. This segragation also prevents them from having any positive influence over their fellow classmates.
These social and culture ideals are also socialistic: in Socialism, everyone is to be treated as an equal. In cultures based on Socialism, there are 2 classes of people: the ruling class, and every one else. To secure this separation, societies which have historically been based on Socialism, have built their culture and institutions around many of the same ideals that modern Liberals today, in America, support...
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with traditional Liberalism-that which was defined and supported by Mill in 1859. In fact, traditional Liberalism is largely a good thing for people, societies, and cultures to embrace. As it was when Mill first defined it in political and social terms, it became the backbone of the ideals that made America great. That Liberalism would have supported a persons right to choose-concerning everything-without sacrificing human natures natural desire to better itself through effort, hard work, and failure and success through trial and error. That form of Liberalism, traditional Liberalism, was at the heart of our individual spirit, our entrepreneuralship and the responsibility we all once held over our own successes and failures and it would have supported giving people hand ups, not hand outs, from the government. Today, however, Modern Liberalism is little more than Socialism attempting to disguise itself by a word with a better image, and meaning, than that which those using the word today really believe in.
Monday, September 13, 2010
American political ideologies: Introduction
For over 20 years I have been an observer and student of the relationship between government and society. Though I have no formal education in the subjects of politics, philosophy, economics, social economic theory and the American Constitution and Constitutional theory, I have studied all of these as hobbies since my teens. Studying these subjects as I have, has, I believe, provided me with one serious advantage over those who are formally educated in them: I approach all of my studies without the bias of a 3rd party influence. Many may not take my opinions seriously-which is their right; but I have had my self education validated by those who are are formally educated in these topics. Do I still have much to learn regarding these topics? Absolutely, and I continue to do so, but that does not take away what I have learned up too now concerning these topics....
Over the coming weeks I am going to lay out what I believe are the 4 primary political and social ideologies which dominate America today in a 5 or 6 part series (as of this introduction I am undecided as to how many parts I want), how they interact with each other, and how they have helped to lead our country to the precipice of social, economic, and political collapse we are at today.
I hope those who come back to read them all do so with as open a mind as possible: America's greatest strengths have always been our unity and individuality-traits based on freedoms we are granted by our Constitution. These traits are what lead to the many great inventions and our being able to overcome all the many obstacles our nation and society faced through the end of WWII. These strengths have left our society, economy and culture over the last 40 years, and hopefully, in writing the following series, I will do my small part to remind all who read them, to help bring them back as the back bone of what America is all about.
RR
Over the coming weeks I am going to lay out what I believe are the 4 primary political and social ideologies which dominate America today in a 5 or 6 part series (as of this introduction I am undecided as to how many parts I want), how they interact with each other, and how they have helped to lead our country to the precipice of social, economic, and political collapse we are at today.
I hope those who come back to read them all do so with as open a mind as possible: America's greatest strengths have always been our unity and individuality-traits based on freedoms we are granted by our Constitution. These traits are what lead to the many great inventions and our being able to overcome all the many obstacles our nation and society faced through the end of WWII. These strengths have left our society, economy and culture over the last 40 years, and hopefully, in writing the following series, I will do my small part to remind all who read them, to help bring them back as the back bone of what America is all about.
RR
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Detroit fires: a dicotomy of governmental failure.
Early this past week, a shocking event that many local Detroiters referred too as a "natural disaster" occurred. It was an event that I believe underscores the many failures that the various levels of our government are blamable for today...
What started as severe thunderstorms, quickly turned into a raging fire storm, as downed power lines fell throughout the city, igniting as many as 10 individual fires in different parts of the city, which then spread, and burned 85 structures-many to the ground-in a 4 hour period.
The blame for which something like this could be allowed to happen, is easily spread around, but it all falls squarely on the hands of one governmental agency or another.
The first to be blamed is DTE-the semi private utility company which supplies energy to the city of Detroit and many surrounding areas. (I call it "semi" private, because all energy companies are very reliant on government regulations). DTE's blame lies with the thousands of power lines which fell down that day-many of those lines were reported by residents as being potential fire hazards because they were already hanging so low, but DTE is cash strapped due to their inability (due to governmental controls and regulations) to raise rates, to raise the funds, to make the improvements to their electrical grid that are so desperately needed.
Its been almost 10 years since I lived in metropolitan Detroit-sagging power lines due to age was a problem then, and it will continue to be a problem until DTE is allowed to raise rates so that they can afford to fix and upgrade a system built, and based, on technology developed in the first half of the 20th century.
Second on the list of blame is the city of Detroit itself.
Like most cities these days, Detroit is facing serious budget short falls. As a result, all services were cut-including the fire department. On top of laying off firemen, the city also also "deactivates" between 8 and 12 fire companies daily due to budgets constraints. The result of these cut backs was that what initially started out as 10 individual small fires, turned into blocks of burning buildings because response times were as long as 2 to 3 hours.
Another failure on the list was the 9-1-1 service in Detroit.
Many complained that when they called in, they were treated rudely and with disrespect. Frustrated 911 operators, overwhelmed by the events and other emergencies happening around the city due to under staffing-also related to budget issues-were unable to handle the situation they were presented with.
Defenders of government would say that this is just a sad reality of today's economy, but I disagree.
One of the standing theories about government's role in society is that they are to do things which private citizens and corporations have proved unable to do for themselves. To uphold this role, governments should be prepared for economic downturns. Many corporations do this (see Ford and why they didn't need a government bailout 2 years ago), why can't governments? Why is it that governments have only 2 options when our economy takes its inevitable downturns: raise taxes and/or cut services? (I actually have an idea to solve this problem, but people won't listen to me when I speak of it).
Add it all up and you get a perfect picture of why and how governmental bodies can and will fail: This, perhaps, could have happened to any government, run by any ideology, but it has to be pointed out that Detroit has long been a bastion of Democratic and Socialistic ideals, and has been control by Democratic politicians for the last 100 years, and in that time just about every socialistic program you can think of has been tried there, and they have all failed. The cumulative result of these failures has lead the city to where it is today: financially bankrupt; unable to provide its citizens with basic services, and such rampant corruption that many of its past, and present, democratic leaders are already in jail for corruption; facing prosecution for corruption; or mired in controversy due to suspected corrupt activities.
I point all this out because the same sort of people who have politically controlled Detroit over the last 100 years are now in power in our Federal Government-people like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Mrs Clinton. People who believe in 'sharing the wealth', giving to the "poor" without getting anything in return. People who believe in punishing the successful because they make a certain amount of money. These people over step their constitutional and legislative bounds on a daily basis and they, on the heels of the Bush administration (which covertly upheld the same socialistic ideals), will do the same to our nation as their counterparts in Detroit have done to that once great and proud city-lead it down the inevitable path of collapse and destruction.
What started as severe thunderstorms, quickly turned into a raging fire storm, as downed power lines fell throughout the city, igniting as many as 10 individual fires in different parts of the city, which then spread, and burned 85 structures-many to the ground-in a 4 hour period.
The blame for which something like this could be allowed to happen, is easily spread around, but it all falls squarely on the hands of one governmental agency or another.
The first to be blamed is DTE-the semi private utility company which supplies energy to the city of Detroit and many surrounding areas. (I call it "semi" private, because all energy companies are very reliant on government regulations). DTE's blame lies with the thousands of power lines which fell down that day-many of those lines were reported by residents as being potential fire hazards because they were already hanging so low, but DTE is cash strapped due to their inability (due to governmental controls and regulations) to raise rates, to raise the funds, to make the improvements to their electrical grid that are so desperately needed.
Its been almost 10 years since I lived in metropolitan Detroit-sagging power lines due to age was a problem then, and it will continue to be a problem until DTE is allowed to raise rates so that they can afford to fix and upgrade a system built, and based, on technology developed in the first half of the 20th century.
Second on the list of blame is the city of Detroit itself.
Like most cities these days, Detroit is facing serious budget short falls. As a result, all services were cut-including the fire department. On top of laying off firemen, the city also also "deactivates" between 8 and 12 fire companies daily due to budgets constraints. The result of these cut backs was that what initially started out as 10 individual small fires, turned into blocks of burning buildings because response times were as long as 2 to 3 hours.
Another failure on the list was the 9-1-1 service in Detroit.
Many complained that when they called in, they were treated rudely and with disrespect. Frustrated 911 operators, overwhelmed by the events and other emergencies happening around the city due to under staffing-also related to budget issues-were unable to handle the situation they were presented with.
Defenders of government would say that this is just a sad reality of today's economy, but I disagree.
One of the standing theories about government's role in society is that they are to do things which private citizens and corporations have proved unable to do for themselves. To uphold this role, governments should be prepared for economic downturns. Many corporations do this (see Ford and why they didn't need a government bailout 2 years ago), why can't governments? Why is it that governments have only 2 options when our economy takes its inevitable downturns: raise taxes and/or cut services? (I actually have an idea to solve this problem, but people won't listen to me when I speak of it).
Add it all up and you get a perfect picture of why and how governmental bodies can and will fail: This, perhaps, could have happened to any government, run by any ideology, but it has to be pointed out that Detroit has long been a bastion of Democratic and Socialistic ideals, and has been control by Democratic politicians for the last 100 years, and in that time just about every socialistic program you can think of has been tried there, and they have all failed. The cumulative result of these failures has lead the city to where it is today: financially bankrupt; unable to provide its citizens with basic services, and such rampant corruption that many of its past, and present, democratic leaders are already in jail for corruption; facing prosecution for corruption; or mired in controversy due to suspected corrupt activities.
I point all this out because the same sort of people who have politically controlled Detroit over the last 100 years are now in power in our Federal Government-people like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Mrs Clinton. People who believe in 'sharing the wealth', giving to the "poor" without getting anything in return. People who believe in punishing the successful because they make a certain amount of money. These people over step their constitutional and legislative bounds on a daily basis and they, on the heels of the Bush administration (which covertly upheld the same socialistic ideals), will do the same to our nation as their counterparts in Detroit have done to that once great and proud city-lead it down the inevitable path of collapse and destruction.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The media's influence on American politics and society.
Being a freelance writer and broadcaster, I take a great risk when I speak out against the current practices and influence of print, television and radio media outlets in America. In fact, I am quite certain that my doing so has cost me both work and respect in the local market which I do most of my work in; but I am nothing if I do not voice my opinions: in my opinion, the influence of media on the general public is far beyond being out of control, and someone within the "industry" must be willing to speak out against it to put it back in its rightful place in society. If that person must be me, a small time freelance sports writer in a top 75 American market, so be it; but it should be someone who has an inside knowledge of how and why the industry operates the way it does...
The founding fathers of our nation believed that a "free press" was the surest way that a body politic would keep its elected leaders in check and to be informed of their goings on. In sum, they believed that a free press was essential to keeping any government from attempting tyrannical control over its people.
For almost 150 years, the media in our country generally served this role-as a check on government: making sure that our state and federal governments weren't over stepping their bounds relative to the Constitution. Some time in the early half of the 20th century this all changed. Whether it was the advent of radio and television, which in turn lead to the creation of the FCC to monitor and regulate the "content" of our airwaves, I don't know; but in and around this time the whole purpose of our media changed from being primarily a source of information, to being a source of opinion formation-and by extension, legislative policy making. All of a sudden the general public started caring more about what a writer or broadcaster-usually a person with no more practical knowledge of legislative policy than themselves-thought, than getting the information themselves and forming their own opinion, and media outlets were quick to feed the public what they wanted.
Televisions shows like 60 minutes and 20/20 sprung up over night; entire radio stations were dedicated to news gathering and giving of opinion; editorials in newspapers were moved from the back pages to the prominent "top half" of the first page. At first, all these new mediums did their best to base their opinions on the facts at hand, but they rapidly learned that the public really doesn't care about the facts. The more over the top, and "far out there" the opinions and positions were, the more people listened or read; and the more that people listened or read, the more money "journalistic" institutions made. The more money they made, the more political influence they would wield...
There was a time when all media outlets were bound, in some cases by law, but in all cases by "journalistic integrity", to go out of their way to not overly attempt to influence people, but the profession has given up that ideology en masse. Today, the "news" and media outlets would rather impress their views upon people, than to simply present the facts, and the people don't seem to care.
To be fair, the news media are businesses, and as such they are only responding to market trends-that being the desire of consumers for "opinionated" programing; but the media, just like any business which serves the public at large, has a duty to the public to at least provide some balance to the opinions they put out for public consumption, but they do not. In fact, nearly all outlets are deliberately slanted towards one ideology, which, in general, is "liberal". Compounding the issue is that nowadays, media outlets no longer take any pains to hide who they support for state and national offices, thereby providing the public a false representation of which candidates are most "popular".
There is no real solution to the pathetic nature of our media today.
So long as the masses prefer ignorance over fact. So long as the masses prefer entertainment value over substance. So long as the masses "dont care", the media in our country will continue to be a contributor to our nations political and social woes, as opposed to a leader in finding solutions to our problems.
The founding fathers of our nation believed that a "free press" was the surest way that a body politic would keep its elected leaders in check and to be informed of their goings on. In sum, they believed that a free press was essential to keeping any government from attempting tyrannical control over its people.
For almost 150 years, the media in our country generally served this role-as a check on government: making sure that our state and federal governments weren't over stepping their bounds relative to the Constitution. Some time in the early half of the 20th century this all changed. Whether it was the advent of radio and television, which in turn lead to the creation of the FCC to monitor and regulate the "content" of our airwaves, I don't know; but in and around this time the whole purpose of our media changed from being primarily a source of information, to being a source of opinion formation-and by extension, legislative policy making. All of a sudden the general public started caring more about what a writer or broadcaster-usually a person with no more practical knowledge of legislative policy than themselves-thought, than getting the information themselves and forming their own opinion, and media outlets were quick to feed the public what they wanted.
Televisions shows like 60 minutes and 20/20 sprung up over night; entire radio stations were dedicated to news gathering and giving of opinion; editorials in newspapers were moved from the back pages to the prominent "top half" of the first page. At first, all these new mediums did their best to base their opinions on the facts at hand, but they rapidly learned that the public really doesn't care about the facts. The more over the top, and "far out there" the opinions and positions were, the more people listened or read; and the more that people listened or read, the more money "journalistic" institutions made. The more money they made, the more political influence they would wield...
There was a time when all media outlets were bound, in some cases by law, but in all cases by "journalistic integrity", to go out of their way to not overly attempt to influence people, but the profession has given up that ideology en masse. Today, the "news" and media outlets would rather impress their views upon people, than to simply present the facts, and the people don't seem to care.
To be fair, the news media are businesses, and as such they are only responding to market trends-that being the desire of consumers for "opinionated" programing; but the media, just like any business which serves the public at large, has a duty to the public to at least provide some balance to the opinions they put out for public consumption, but they do not. In fact, nearly all outlets are deliberately slanted towards one ideology, which, in general, is "liberal". Compounding the issue is that nowadays, media outlets no longer take any pains to hide who they support for state and national offices, thereby providing the public a false representation of which candidates are most "popular".
There is no real solution to the pathetic nature of our media today.
So long as the masses prefer ignorance over fact. So long as the masses prefer entertainment value over substance. So long as the masses "dont care", the media in our country will continue to be a contributor to our nations political and social woes, as opposed to a leader in finding solutions to our problems.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Another Obama speech full of lies
Today in Ohio, President Obama spoke on the economy with the purpose of improving our economy-an economy that he, his administration, and his political party, have failed miserably at helping despite literally printing money and throwing it at it hoping against all hope it would stick. And, like all good politicians, Mr. Obama got up in front of (what looked like) hundreds of people and told well spun tale of lies and almost truths, without actually giving any real, tangible solutions to our nations economic woes. No, instead, our president took the opportunity to point the finger of blame, and chastise the other party for all their mistakes-essentially, he did the same thing that he and his party accuse the other of doing right now. All the while he did this, he told a series of glaring lies, among them were that the Republicans, "who are responsible" for the economic mess we are in now, were "in power for 8 years" (they were in power for 6 under Bush, Dems had it the last 2), that he believes in a "small, efficient federal government", and that he believes that its the "entrepreneurs who are the backbone our economy". He told others among his string of well spoken political rhetoric, but these 3 stood out most too me.
Why? Because they are so obviously lies to anyone with a half a brain in their head.
Only the the ignorant, bottom feeding, kool aid drinking, easy to manipulate masses who lap up everything Obama says like thirsty dogs at the trough, believing what this man says is gospel everytime. Yes, it is mean to call so many people, such ridiculous names; but look at the proof of what this president has done since he has been in office: he has supported health care legislation that, by some estimates, will put hundreds of thousands out of work; force a rationing of health care for the elderly and definitely increase the size of the Federal bureaucracy by at least 10%; and he supports tax increases that are detrimental to business creation.
Despite all this and the obvious hypocrisy between what he says and what he does, millions of people are still willing to support him just because he speaks well at a podium.
Mr. Obama spoke at length, in this speech, about how believes we need to stop allowing jobs to be shipped over seas; about how we should be buying products made in America, by Americans, with our money-instead of products made over seas, but out of the same side of his mouth he says he stands against corporate tax breaks, which is where Obama shows his ignorance. Mr. Obama claims that he wants to create jobs in America, and that he wants companies to start producing and distributing the products we buy, then he must learn that the easist way to do that is-like it or not-through corporate tax breaks.
Mr. Obama claims to be for entreprenuralship, but seems to fail to realize that that means people have to go into business for themselves; which means that if he wants entreprenuralship to returen in mass to America, the best way is-cut taxes.
Mr. Obama claims to be worried about the size of our national deficit, and yet every bill he passes adds to it...
I will digress...My dislike for the our Presidents fiscal ideologies is well known to all those who know me, but there was one thing that Obama said that I did agree with: that it is the job of the government to do for people and business, what they can't do better for themselves.
There is just one problem with that statement though: in the almost 225 years we have been governed under the Constitution, governmental agencies have yet to prove that they can do anything better than private enterprise-except spend money.
Why? Because they are so obviously lies to anyone with a half a brain in their head.
Only the the ignorant, bottom feeding, kool aid drinking, easy to manipulate masses who lap up everything Obama says like thirsty dogs at the trough, believing what this man says is gospel everytime. Yes, it is mean to call so many people, such ridiculous names; but look at the proof of what this president has done since he has been in office: he has supported health care legislation that, by some estimates, will put hundreds of thousands out of work; force a rationing of health care for the elderly and definitely increase the size of the Federal bureaucracy by at least 10%; and he supports tax increases that are detrimental to business creation.
Despite all this and the obvious hypocrisy between what he says and what he does, millions of people are still willing to support him just because he speaks well at a podium.
Mr. Obama spoke at length, in this speech, about how believes we need to stop allowing jobs to be shipped over seas; about how we should be buying products made in America, by Americans, with our money-instead of products made over seas, but out of the same side of his mouth he says he stands against corporate tax breaks, which is where Obama shows his ignorance. Mr. Obama claims that he wants to create jobs in America, and that he wants companies to start producing and distributing the products we buy, then he must learn that the easist way to do that is-like it or not-through corporate tax breaks.
Mr. Obama claims to be for entreprenuralship, but seems to fail to realize that that means people have to go into business for themselves; which means that if he wants entreprenuralship to returen in mass to America, the best way is-cut taxes.
Mr. Obama claims to be worried about the size of our national deficit, and yet every bill he passes adds to it...
I will digress...My dislike for the our Presidents fiscal ideologies is well known to all those who know me, but there was one thing that Obama said that I did agree with: that it is the job of the government to do for people and business, what they can't do better for themselves.
There is just one problem with that statement though: in the almost 225 years we have been governed under the Constitution, governmental agencies have yet to prove that they can do anything better than private enterprise-except spend money.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
"Burning the Quran day"-a bad example of 1st amendment rights
One of the many great aspects of living in America is that we have freedom of speech and expression. At the same time that this is a great freedom, it is also one of the most abused freedoms we have. Of course, you will never hear me say that our 1st amendments should be changed in any way what so ever, but unfortunately for America, we will always get idiots like a Christian minister in Gainsville, Florida:
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Church has decided that he wants September 11th to be known as "Quran burning day" because of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the insistance of Muslims to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City. In sum, Paster Jones believes that it is time that we "stand up against Muslims", and this his way of wanting to stand up against that culture and their religious beliefs.
There are, of course, better ways of "standing up" to a cultures belief system which you believe is a danger to the world-like proving that your belief system, through actions based on their teachings, is better....
Pastor Jones' intentions may be good, but they certainly are not refective of the moral character and virtue the religion he preaches attempts to teach, nor are they logical given the attitude that radical Muslims have against "western" civilization in general. All Pastor Jones actions will do is anger that society of people further-giving them more reasons to hate America, and her political and economic allies; it also gives a black eye to a religion that has yet to fully distance itself from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked its sister religion, Catholicism.
There is a line that people have to learn to draw when utilizing their 1st amendments rights in America-a line that Liberals have taught society to blur more and more as each generation passes. With the freedoms that American's have, comes great responsibility-the responsibility to utilize them properly and at the right times, and using an anniversary representative of one of the saddest days of American history is not the time, or place, for such a thing as making a statement against another religion.
Fortunately, it is obvious that Pastor Jones' actions will back fire horribly on him as many of America's leaders are speaking out against his desire to go through with making September 11th "burning the Quran day". Sure, he may have 8000 or so supporters on Face Book, but they are a vast minority of Americans. Fortunately we have the right speak out against Pastor Jones' idea. Fortunately, many of us can let the world know that, despite having no love for the radical Muslimic beliefs that lead to the 9/11 attacks on our country, there are many more of us who dont support this person's actions, and that we believe there are better, more appropriate and responsible ways, to express our anger towards radical Islam....
The best way, I think, to fight idea's and people like Pastor Jones is by ignoring them-by not giving them the time of day, by not recognizing them, by simply looking past them. By recognizing Pastor Jones and his idea, and giving it all this attention, all we are doing is giving it an importance that these sort of ideas do not deserve; we make it out to be worthy our first amendment rights, when it really isn't. In the end, all we do by giving ideas like these the time of day, is to give freedom of speech a black eye.
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Church has decided that he wants September 11th to be known as "Quran burning day" because of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the insistance of Muslims to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City. In sum, Paster Jones believes that it is time that we "stand up against Muslims", and this his way of wanting to stand up against that culture and their religious beliefs.
There are, of course, better ways of "standing up" to a cultures belief system which you believe is a danger to the world-like proving that your belief system, through actions based on their teachings, is better....
Pastor Jones' intentions may be good, but they certainly are not refective of the moral character and virtue the religion he preaches attempts to teach, nor are they logical given the attitude that radical Muslims have against "western" civilization in general. All Pastor Jones actions will do is anger that society of people further-giving them more reasons to hate America, and her political and economic allies; it also gives a black eye to a religion that has yet to fully distance itself from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked its sister religion, Catholicism.
There is a line that people have to learn to draw when utilizing their 1st amendments rights in America-a line that Liberals have taught society to blur more and more as each generation passes. With the freedoms that American's have, comes great responsibility-the responsibility to utilize them properly and at the right times, and using an anniversary representative of one of the saddest days of American history is not the time, or place, for such a thing as making a statement against another religion.
Fortunately, it is obvious that Pastor Jones' actions will back fire horribly on him as many of America's leaders are speaking out against his desire to go through with making September 11th "burning the Quran day". Sure, he may have 8000 or so supporters on Face Book, but they are a vast minority of Americans. Fortunately we have the right speak out against Pastor Jones' idea. Fortunately, many of us can let the world know that, despite having no love for the radical Muslimic beliefs that lead to the 9/11 attacks on our country, there are many more of us who dont support this person's actions, and that we believe there are better, more appropriate and responsible ways, to express our anger towards radical Islam....
The best way, I think, to fight idea's and people like Pastor Jones is by ignoring them-by not giving them the time of day, by not recognizing them, by simply looking past them. By recognizing Pastor Jones and his idea, and giving it all this attention, all we are doing is giving it an importance that these sort of ideas do not deserve; we make it out to be worthy our first amendment rights, when it really isn't. In the end, all we do by giving ideas like these the time of day, is to give freedom of speech a black eye.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Perspectives and politics part 2
With our leaders' positions so illogically based, and those we elect focused more on what they can do for the themselves, or for special interests, and not on specifically doing what is proper for the nation as a whole, it is no wonder that America's Federal Government has become incompetent and unable to pass even the most basic of all legislation without finding the need to write that legislation to include ridiculous add on's and riders which have nothing to do with the actual legislation that the premise of the bill was written for.
No other proof needs to be offered of the ineptitude of our Nations leadership than the statements of Harry Reid in the summer of 2009. Senator Reid (D) was asked about the health care legislation (known as Obamacare) that was before Congress at that time. Specifically, he was asked about the monstrous length of the bill-some 2000 plus pages-and if he had bothered to read every page. Mr. Reid's reply: that he believed that most of Congress does not read "most" of the legislation they adopt, nor did he believe that "80%" of Congress could even "understand" legislative language.
Why is this important as it relates to perspectives? Because perspectives are the basis for all our decision making: if even supporters of Obamacare didn't bother read the bill, or couldn't understand it, then how could they have even had a perspective from which to decide on whether to vote yes or no in passing the legislation?
What could possibly be the perspective of Congress, in regards to the American people-the people they are hired by us to serve-when they pass such monstrous and incoherent legislation such as Obamacare, and most of those who vote for it aren't even able to understand it?
Health care legislation aside, what about the other 2 large issues facing America today?
There are those in Congress, and Mr. Obama himself, who stand against the Arizona law to help fight the illegal immigration problem in their state. Why? From what perspective are they basing their opinions concerning the matter? It certainly isn't from a Constitutionally legal perspective (the U.S. Constitution is very clear that States have the right to enforce laws that the Federal Government to be incapable of enforcing, and in the case of the securing our border with Mexico it has proven unable to do so), and they refuse to explain why except to say something to the effect that we should welcome "all who seek the freedoms America offers".
How about our economy? On what economic basis are the opinions of Congress regarding current job and economic growth, as idea after idea they have to turn our economy around and create job growth fails miserably, and is only making the situation worse down the road?
This is why perspectives become important: a perspective with a basis in poor logic, leads to an opinion based on poor logic, which can lead to a bad idea being passionately supported by those who don't fully comprehend it because it is too illogical to understand rationally-but it "sounds" like a good idea.
I believe solving the problem is easy: we, the people, must be diligent when it comes to who we elect to public office-of all levels.
The surest way is to never stop asking them "why" and "how" they believe what they believe will work: "why" will their idea for fixing things work better than another idea; "how" will they implement it; etc...
I've watched many a debate, and many a question and answer session of politicians at all levels of government, and few reporters, journalists or people ever ask questions that start with "why" or "how". And on those few occasions that such questions are asked and the standard political double speak is given, you never hear a "what" question for further, and simple, explanation, and even why that question is asked, and the standard political double speak is given again, the reporter or person asking generally gives up-they stop pressing for a proper and adequate answer to their question.
We should never stop asking them.
We should never stop forcing them to answer.
We should never take double talk as an answer.
And we should never accept "no" and never stop asking until we are satisfied that whoever the politician is we are speaking too, has given as much of an answer as they are capable of giving.
The vast majority of "we" the people don't realize the power we wield over the politicians we elect to public office, but they do; and it is why they continue to hold power despite have no real perspective of what they are trying to do for us.
No other proof needs to be offered of the ineptitude of our Nations leadership than the statements of Harry Reid in the summer of 2009. Senator Reid (D) was asked about the health care legislation (known as Obamacare) that was before Congress at that time. Specifically, he was asked about the monstrous length of the bill-some 2000 plus pages-and if he had bothered to read every page. Mr. Reid's reply: that he believed that most of Congress does not read "most" of the legislation they adopt, nor did he believe that "80%" of Congress could even "understand" legislative language.
Why is this important as it relates to perspectives? Because perspectives are the basis for all our decision making: if even supporters of Obamacare didn't bother read the bill, or couldn't understand it, then how could they have even had a perspective from which to decide on whether to vote yes or no in passing the legislation?
What could possibly be the perspective of Congress, in regards to the American people-the people they are hired by us to serve-when they pass such monstrous and incoherent legislation such as Obamacare, and most of those who vote for it aren't even able to understand it?
Health care legislation aside, what about the other 2 large issues facing America today?
There are those in Congress, and Mr. Obama himself, who stand against the Arizona law to help fight the illegal immigration problem in their state. Why? From what perspective are they basing their opinions concerning the matter? It certainly isn't from a Constitutionally legal perspective (the U.S. Constitution is very clear that States have the right to enforce laws that the Federal Government to be incapable of enforcing, and in the case of the securing our border with Mexico it has proven unable to do so), and they refuse to explain why except to say something to the effect that we should welcome "all who seek the freedoms America offers".
How about our economy? On what economic basis are the opinions of Congress regarding current job and economic growth, as idea after idea they have to turn our economy around and create job growth fails miserably, and is only making the situation worse down the road?
This is why perspectives become important: a perspective with a basis in poor logic, leads to an opinion based on poor logic, which can lead to a bad idea being passionately supported by those who don't fully comprehend it because it is too illogical to understand rationally-but it "sounds" like a good idea.
I believe solving the problem is easy: we, the people, must be diligent when it comes to who we elect to public office-of all levels.
The surest way is to never stop asking them "why" and "how" they believe what they believe will work: "why" will their idea for fixing things work better than another idea; "how" will they implement it; etc...
I've watched many a debate, and many a question and answer session of politicians at all levels of government, and few reporters, journalists or people ever ask questions that start with "why" or "how". And on those few occasions that such questions are asked and the standard political double speak is given, you never hear a "what" question for further, and simple, explanation, and even why that question is asked, and the standard political double speak is given again, the reporter or person asking generally gives up-they stop pressing for a proper and adequate answer to their question.
We should never stop asking them.
We should never stop forcing them to answer.
We should never take double talk as an answer.
And we should never accept "no" and never stop asking until we are satisfied that whoever the politician is we are speaking too, has given as much of an answer as they are capable of giving.
The vast majority of "we" the people don't realize the power we wield over the politicians we elect to public office, but they do; and it is why they continue to hold power despite have no real perspective of what they are trying to do for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)