It has been a while since my last post. After my last post, I decided to take stock of everything and reflect on the feedback I received. Some of what I received seemed to reflect the overall nature of debate in our world today. It seems that we can no longer converse on ideas. We, as a country, seem to have the need to vilify the "opposition".
During the early part of this decade, those that opposed the U.S. military actions abroad were labeled "unAmerican". Now those that were labeled as such in turn apply the same label to those that oppose the President. The same people who vilified those that labeled President Bush and his cabinet as Nazis, minimize the issue of people doing the same to President Obama.
I don't understand why we have changed. 30 years ago, Tip O'Neill vehemently opposed the policies of President Reagan. While he publicly expressed his issues to President Reagan and what he deemed his protection of certain classes, the two actually maintained a cordial relationship. As President Reagan said "We are friends after 6PM". So here you had two political rivals that agreed on almost nothing and yet they considered each other friends and treated each other cordially and with respect.
Now it is not just the goal of both parties to "win" the argument, but one must also belittle the opposition. When a news station opposes the President, they are "not a news organization", but instead a "propaganda arm". If that is true, then explain to me why the same people who have criticize the same party that are "beholden" too.
Yes, I am referring to Fox News. Do I agree with what I see on Fox? Sometimes I do, but I also agree that some COMMENTATORS (yes, I believe the emphasis is necessary) go over the line. Labeling the President as a communist or socialist is wrong and plays into the "oppositions" hands. Does the President have some socialist leanings? I believe so, and he has said as much (health care, wealth (re)distribution, etc). That still doesn't make him a socialist and definitely not a communist.
Saying that though, just because Fox points some of that out does not make them in "lockstep" with the Republican party. Too often, the other media outlets have ignored issues that seem to be "inconvenient" to there ideological profile. Is Fox "fair and balanced"? I leave that up to the individual viewer. However, I do believe that even with their "rightward" slant on the issues, they bring some balance to the news as a whole. The majority of television and print media are slanted left. When a news organization spends an entire segment to "fact check" a late night comedy sketch, but can't do the same to verify racist quotes supposedly made by a political commentator, you know there is an issue.
Obviously Fox addresses an untapped market, given their ratings I think they clearly do. I would put forth that the "surest way" to "destroy" Fox is to address the gaps in one's coverage. If CNN, NBC, et al actually address those who lean right in our country, Fox would have been necessary. Yet, those organization, and the Left as a whole don't see that failing, they speak as if it is a failing of those others for "flawed thinking".
So here we are now, everyone is so entrenched in their ideological thinking, that they can't see that maybe others have valid ideas too. We have become so afraid to be wrong that anyone who can bring up that possibility must be "destroyed" to protect a potentially flawed ideology. There is no growth anymore in this country. One side must win; the other must lose. There is no compromise, there isn't even any real conversations. Promises are made, but not kept. Offers are made with no real intent to follow through.
People change over time on a personal level. As we experience the world, we look at it differently. Our interactions change, our relationships change, and yes our politics change. If this change can happen to us on an individual level, why can't it on a political level. We heard 15 years ago that we would have a permanent Republican majority, now we hear it will be a permanent Democrat one. The problem is that those in power only address those that voted for them and will always do so (i.e. the base). This alienates most of the country, as while there are those entrenched in the ideology of the opposition, most of the country will sway back and forth between parties. This was shown in the "Reagan democrats" and those Republicans who voted for President Obama. They are labeled as independents, but given that they really are the majority, shouldn't they be labeled as such. Instead of addressing their needs, both parties seem to want to bring them in the fold not by showing the value of the party's ideas, but by belittling the oppositions.
Why is this so? Debate is what made this country great. Having the ideas of Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Washington, to name a few, created our great nation. These individuals have very diverse ideologies, but instead of starting with what separates them, they looked at what brought them together and worked from there. This country was founded with checks and balances and that is how we should continue to govern this country. That, I believe, is the actual purpose of the political parties. They should check the most radical ideas of each other. Yet they don't and because of this, we have wild swings in power every 10 years or so. This is sad. I feel that we have failed those who gave their freedom and their lives to give us what we have today.
Personal reflection leads to personal strength. Those that can debate their ideas and LISTEN to those who don't agree show the courage of their convictions. Working towards a common goal, the betterment of this great country" should be the primary goal. Unfortunately, it is not anymore. Why?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Marriage
So I think this may be the post that surprises some. I have thought long and hard on the topic of marriage and I believe that there is a position to be made that has not been addressed. One side says that a marriage should be between a man and a woman and wants the government to enforce that. The other side wants anybody to marriage and wants the government to enforce that. I believe that both sides are wrong about a key part of their arguments.
The Constitution protects against establishment of a national religion. That has also been interpreted by the Courts as preventing government interference in religious exercises unless there is the belief in the physical or psychological harm to an individual. That is where my argument comes into play.
Marriage is a sacrament. A vast majority of religions believe this. Therefore, the government should not be able to decide who can and can't get married. The fact that a couple obtains a "marriage" license from the government should be unconstitutional. It should, and in reality is, a legal document signifying a civil union between two people. I don't know why nobody has attempted to make this legal argument and if they have, I haven't seen it.
If this argument is put forth then I think it fundamentally changes the debate. It then comes down to who can get a civil union. By removing the religious argument, I believe it will shift the support for or against. I believe if two people want to spend their lives with each other for the rest of their lives then they should be able to. If you look at it from a purely intellectual side, by allowing this, it eliminates government issues dealing with proxies and legal expenses due to homosexual couples having to deal with issues pertaining to things like medical insurance, wills and the like.
By leaving the decision of sanctifying marriage to the churches, it then becomes a matter of personal and community choice. If a church chooses to sanctify a marriage then so be it. If the parishioners of that church disagree with that decision then they are free to find another church that more aligns with their beliefs. This happens with some regularity, most spectacularly with the Reformation and recently with the movement of people from the Episcopalian church.
Yes, there will still be those that will oppose civil unions between homosexual couples, but the majority will not as long as the actual issue of marriage is no longer part of the debate. I look at this as a win-win situation. For those who support gay marriage/ civil unions, they get what they want for the most part. For those that oppose gay marriage, nobody is forcing them to accept it and the government is no longer deciding what is and isn't acceptable form a religious standpoint, which is how the Constitution set it up.
The Constitution protects against establishment of a national religion. That has also been interpreted by the Courts as preventing government interference in religious exercises unless there is the belief in the physical or psychological harm to an individual. That is where my argument comes into play.
Marriage is a sacrament. A vast majority of religions believe this. Therefore, the government should not be able to decide who can and can't get married. The fact that a couple obtains a "marriage" license from the government should be unconstitutional. It should, and in reality is, a legal document signifying a civil union between two people. I don't know why nobody has attempted to make this legal argument and if they have, I haven't seen it.
If this argument is put forth then I think it fundamentally changes the debate. It then comes down to who can get a civil union. By removing the religious argument, I believe it will shift the support for or against. I believe if two people want to spend their lives with each other for the rest of their lives then they should be able to. If you look at it from a purely intellectual side, by allowing this, it eliminates government issues dealing with proxies and legal expenses due to homosexual couples having to deal with issues pertaining to things like medical insurance, wills and the like.
By leaving the decision of sanctifying marriage to the churches, it then becomes a matter of personal and community choice. If a church chooses to sanctify a marriage then so be it. If the parishioners of that church disagree with that decision then they are free to find another church that more aligns with their beliefs. This happens with some regularity, most spectacularly with the Reformation and recently with the movement of people from the Episcopalian church.
Yes, there will still be those that will oppose civil unions between homosexual couples, but the majority will not as long as the actual issue of marriage is no longer part of the debate. I look at this as a win-win situation. For those who support gay marriage/ civil unions, they get what they want for the most part. For those that oppose gay marriage, nobody is forcing them to accept it and the government is no longer deciding what is and isn't acceptable form a religious standpoint, which is how the Constitution set it up.
An Explanation
I wanted to make a quick note and reiterate the whole purpose of these post. I want to crystallize how I feel about things in our world. I believe the only way to do that is to write them out and get feedback from others. I want people to pick holes in my arguments. I implore you to tell me when you think I am wrong. I beg of you to tell me when I am being emotional and intellectually dishonest. This will force me to think about what I have said and decide as to whether I need to rethink my opinions or are they truly how I feel.
My goal is to utilize this to build a platform of ideas for future usage. However, I am open to the idea that this may simply be a documentation of a personal journey. With that in mind I ask all of you that may disagree with me to keep reading and please comment on what I write. I give any feedback I get the same weight I would ask that you give my posts. Please do not shut me off just because you disagree with what I have written or think I am parroting "talking points". I'm not, please believe me in that. Just know that your efforts are not in vain at the least, you are making me think. I believe that thinking and listening are concepts sorely lacking in today's world. Hopefully this will be our little corner where those concepts are utilized and encouraged.
My goal is to utilize this to build a platform of ideas for future usage. However, I am open to the idea that this may simply be a documentation of a personal journey. With that in mind I ask all of you that may disagree with me to keep reading and please comment on what I write. I give any feedback I get the same weight I would ask that you give my posts. Please do not shut me off just because you disagree with what I have written or think I am parroting "talking points". I'm not, please believe me in that. Just know that your efforts are not in vain at the least, you are making me think. I believe that thinking and listening are concepts sorely lacking in today's world. Hopefully this will be our little corner where those concepts are utilized and encouraged.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Victim Society
So I thought over what I wrote last week. Sometimes when one attempts to convey a message as potentially emotionally-charged as my previous post, the actual message can get lost. Therefore, I believe that by backtracking a bit, I can get my message across better. So here goes.
I believe that we have become a victim based society. A large portion of the population refuse to take responsibility for there lot in life. Instead, they chose to claim victim status. In the housing market, people mortgaged their houses to the hilt. They bought house well outside their means and didn't plan for the future. Then, when the "bubble" burst, they claimed that it was not their fault and it must be the "big, bad" banks.
People demand that the government provide for them, but refuse to do their part. They want a handout when what they should get is a hand up. We hear that the reason why we need to have people cross the border is that they will do jobs we won't. I don't get that, I know that if I lost my job, I would do whatever was necessary to provide for my family.
This creates a two-fold issue. First, by creating a welfare state, that is one in which the population believes it is entitled to receive all that is necessary to not just live but thrive, it removes any incentive for innovation. By creating a nation in which everything is provided to the individual, the individual loses a respect for what they have. Hard work created this country and made it thrive. By removing the incentives for a better life, I mean why would you strive to better yourself if there was no need.
Second, it creates a situation in which, since everyone is a victim, the true victims are diminished. Their plight is lessened and true justice/ progress can not be achieved. This was the point of my racism post. There are those that are truly oppressed by certain groups can not have their injustices addressed. If one was born to wealth, had everything provided for them and achieved not through hard work, but because of their social status, then they lose the right to claim to be aggrieved when things don't go their way just because of the color of their skin.
Martin Luther King Jr hoped for a world in which "people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". Unfortunately, we still don't live in that world. We live in a nation in which the minority class of an individual is held as a "get out of jail free card" to be used whenever times are tough. Honestly, it makes me angry. I see good people who work hard and overcome true discrimination. Those people face those hurdles head on and achieve not because of any status, but despite it. Then I see those who use their minority status as a way to get ahead, a way to achieve without work.
A good friend of mine pointed out to me that there are two prevalent forms of racism today. One is the overt kind, these are the ones we all see and hear about. These are your Klansman, your skinheads and the like. They wear their racism out in the open. The other group is just as bad. These people coddle those who have a minority status, they believe that they must be protected and provided for. They assume that anybody who opposes these minority groups must be doing so out of bigotry, not because of any ideological or intellectual differences. By not allowing minorities to stand on their own two feet, they never let them walk. Malcolm X believe that for Black society to achieve, they must first help themselves before other could help them.
So in conclusion, yes there are those out there that are bigots. However, I would put forth that they are not the greatest danger. Usually, these types of people are overt about their beliefs. Because of this they can be marginalized and discounted. The problem is those that hide that bigotry behind guilt. They coddle, they defend, they accuse. By allowing everyone to claim to be victimised, we fail to be able to address the real issues and enact real change. That to me is the real failing of society today. How did we go from standing up for other to demanding others must stand up for us and protect us?
To paraphrase JFK, he wanted us to live asking what we can do for our country, not ourselves. How did we flip that message around?
I believe that we have become a victim based society. A large portion of the population refuse to take responsibility for there lot in life. Instead, they chose to claim victim status. In the housing market, people mortgaged their houses to the hilt. They bought house well outside their means and didn't plan for the future. Then, when the "bubble" burst, they claimed that it was not their fault and it must be the "big, bad" banks.
People demand that the government provide for them, but refuse to do their part. They want a handout when what they should get is a hand up. We hear that the reason why we need to have people cross the border is that they will do jobs we won't. I don't get that, I know that if I lost my job, I would do whatever was necessary to provide for my family.
This creates a two-fold issue. First, by creating a welfare state, that is one in which the population believes it is entitled to receive all that is necessary to not just live but thrive, it removes any incentive for innovation. By creating a nation in which everything is provided to the individual, the individual loses a respect for what they have. Hard work created this country and made it thrive. By removing the incentives for a better life, I mean why would you strive to better yourself if there was no need.
Second, it creates a situation in which, since everyone is a victim, the true victims are diminished. Their plight is lessened and true justice/ progress can not be achieved. This was the point of my racism post. There are those that are truly oppressed by certain groups can not have their injustices addressed. If one was born to wealth, had everything provided for them and achieved not through hard work, but because of their social status, then they lose the right to claim to be aggrieved when things don't go their way just because of the color of their skin.
Martin Luther King Jr hoped for a world in which "people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". Unfortunately, we still don't live in that world. We live in a nation in which the minority class of an individual is held as a "get out of jail free card" to be used whenever times are tough. Honestly, it makes me angry. I see good people who work hard and overcome true discrimination. Those people face those hurdles head on and achieve not because of any status, but despite it. Then I see those who use their minority status as a way to get ahead, a way to achieve without work.
A good friend of mine pointed out to me that there are two prevalent forms of racism today. One is the overt kind, these are the ones we all see and hear about. These are your Klansman, your skinheads and the like. They wear their racism out in the open. The other group is just as bad. These people coddle those who have a minority status, they believe that they must be protected and provided for. They assume that anybody who opposes these minority groups must be doing so out of bigotry, not because of any ideological or intellectual differences. By not allowing minorities to stand on their own two feet, they never let them walk. Malcolm X believe that for Black society to achieve, they must first help themselves before other could help them.
So in conclusion, yes there are those out there that are bigots. However, I would put forth that they are not the greatest danger. Usually, these types of people are overt about their beliefs. Because of this they can be marginalized and discounted. The problem is those that hide that bigotry behind guilt. They coddle, they defend, they accuse. By allowing everyone to claim to be victimised, we fail to be able to address the real issues and enact real change. That to me is the real failing of society today. How did we go from standing up for other to demanding others must stand up for us and protect us?
To paraphrase JFK, he wanted us to live asking what we can do for our country, not ourselves. How did we flip that message around?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Racism
So I figure why not start big. Lately all we hear is people accusing one another of being racist. First, I didn't realize that there were so many mind readers in this country. Evidently there are many people on the left that can hear unspoken words and thoughts. I must be ignorant, but I thought the people screaming racism towards any dissent were the same people screaming that decent was the American thing to do just a few years ago.
By the way, as a point of order, please don't ever claim "reverse-racism". By doing this, you are actually saying you are not being discriminated against. Racism is racism. I fail to understand why a large portion of the country seems to believe that only white people can be racist. There is a simple test when it comes to racism. If one race says or does something against another and the spectre of racism is raised, reverse the races in your head. If it seems wrong then, it was wrong from the start.
Do I believe some people are against the President due to part of his race? Sure I do, but it is a small portion. I also believe that there are those that will support the President no matter what because of his race. Even then, during the primaries, there were those on the left that felt his mixed race meant that he wasn't actually an "African-American".
Racism exist, yes and on both sides. For every Klan member or skin head, there is a member of the Black Panthers on the other side. Yes white-Europeans held back and abused other races, but ask the Mexican Indians about the Spanish or the Chinese about the Japanese.
I believe that what we need to do is fight racism when we see it. However, I also believe that those that can somehow infer it in others should take a long hard look in the mirror first. The truth in this country is that a majority elected a President who was a minority. While issues still arise from time to time, the general populace does not stand for it.
Honestly, crying racism all of the time is almost as bad as actually being racist. By using the term whenever you disagree with the other side, you belittle the strength of the term and weaken its ability to spotlight true occurrences. Just remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.
By the way, as a point of order, please don't ever claim "reverse-racism". By doing this, you are actually saying you are not being discriminated against. Racism is racism. I fail to understand why a large portion of the country seems to believe that only white people can be racist. There is a simple test when it comes to racism. If one race says or does something against another and the spectre of racism is raised, reverse the races in your head. If it seems wrong then, it was wrong from the start.
Do I believe some people are against the President due to part of his race? Sure I do, but it is a small portion. I also believe that there are those that will support the President no matter what because of his race. Even then, during the primaries, there were those on the left that felt his mixed race meant that he wasn't actually an "African-American".
Racism exist, yes and on both sides. For every Klan member or skin head, there is a member of the Black Panthers on the other side. Yes white-Europeans held back and abused other races, but ask the Mexican Indians about the Spanish or the Chinese about the Japanese.
I believe that what we need to do is fight racism when we see it. However, I also believe that those that can somehow infer it in others should take a long hard look in the mirror first. The truth in this country is that a majority elected a President who was a minority. While issues still arise from time to time, the general populace does not stand for it.
Honestly, crying racism all of the time is almost as bad as actually being racist. By using the term whenever you disagree with the other side, you belittle the strength of the term and weaken its ability to spotlight true occurrences. Just remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.
The start
I have talked for a while about getting involved in politics. As I get older I realize that I have to get going if I am ever going to do it. As part of a "ramp up", I have created this blog.
Looking around at our country, I realize too many people are shut off from the rest of the country from an intellectual standpoint. Too many people refuse to believe that they may be wrong (or even worse, they know they may be wrong and are afraid to be shown as such). I believe to truly be successful in politics, I have to be able to listen to other opinions and be open to the fact that I may be wrong. I have many ideas, but I know that those have changed over time. I know that they will continue to do so. That is not to say that I don't have core beliefs. I do, those won't change. Still even in those cases where it is my core belief, I believe it is beneficial to hear other opinions.
With that in mind, here is the groundwork. Overtime, I intend to put mind thoughts down for all to see. I am sure that some of you will disagree. I hope you let me know this and why. I believe discussing things with people of different opinions helps us all. Saying that, I ask for one thing; if you respond, please show thought. There is enough name calling amongst the children of this world. The only thing one proves by labeling or name calling is to show one's own lack of thought. I believe it says "I can't counter your argument intelligently so I will resort to name calling". Respect is something sorely lacking in this world. I hope this is one place it can still exist. I always respect thoughtful, intelligent opinions even if I think they are wrong. I may offend from time to time. While I would not apologize for it, understand that you opinion may offend me. I still respect and defend your right to have it.
Hopefully this will be enlightening.
Looking around at our country, I realize too many people are shut off from the rest of the country from an intellectual standpoint. Too many people refuse to believe that they may be wrong (or even worse, they know they may be wrong and are afraid to be shown as such). I believe to truly be successful in politics, I have to be able to listen to other opinions and be open to the fact that I may be wrong. I have many ideas, but I know that those have changed over time. I know that they will continue to do so. That is not to say that I don't have core beliefs. I do, those won't change. Still even in those cases where it is my core belief, I believe it is beneficial to hear other opinions.
With that in mind, here is the groundwork. Overtime, I intend to put mind thoughts down for all to see. I am sure that some of you will disagree. I hope you let me know this and why. I believe discussing things with people of different opinions helps us all. Saying that, I ask for one thing; if you respond, please show thought. There is enough name calling amongst the children of this world. The only thing one proves by labeling or name calling is to show one's own lack of thought. I believe it says "I can't counter your argument intelligently so I will resort to name calling". Respect is something sorely lacking in this world. I hope this is one place it can still exist. I always respect thoughtful, intelligent opinions even if I think they are wrong. I may offend from time to time. While I would not apologize for it, understand that you opinion may offend me. I still respect and defend your right to have it.
Hopefully this will be enlightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)