You've got to be kidding me!!

Well, this was supposed to be the big day.  The day people on both sides of the political spectrum were waiting for.  The question on everyone's mind was:  will the Republican American Health Care Act (AHCA) pass the House of Representatives and head on to the Senate, or will it die?  Your perspective on the bill, and the Affordable Care Act's (ACA, or Obamacare for easier recognition) 'repeal and replace' fight will determine how you view the result, which was the bill being pulled because there wasn't enough support for passage.  Now both sides are going into full spin mode, trying to make the lack of a vote be a good thing.

On my way in to work, I was listening to the news (yes I'm old, I've become that person who listens to radio news instead of music.  Not that I don't like music, but listening to the news at least lets me feel somewhat in touch with the world around me).  The host was talking about the potential fallout if the bill didn't pass.  One point he brought up was how many times the House of Representatives voted to defund or repeal the ACA during the Obama administration (the number he quoted was 40).  A quick look across the internet shows it to be six repeal attempts, with numerous other efforts to delay, defund, or otherwise limit the ACA.  The main point the host made was:  they had no problems passing something when they knew it had no chance of making it (either the Senate wouldn't let it through, or President Obama would veto), but when they actually have the chance of doing something, they can't.

I thought about that point for a moment (I didn't believe the 40 number immediately, but I do remember the House of Representatives had done the delay and defund tactic every budget at the very least).  And it suddenly struck me: the government was shut down in 2013 over a defund attempt (which affected me personally).  I know our government had pretty much turned into kabuki theater (making big shows in order to placate the masses), but if people couldn't remember this and call BS on their representatives for this, then we truly have no one but ourselves to blame for the result. I thought to myself 'I should actually be upset about that.'  But I wasn't, because I already believed all of those attempts were kabuki theater, and had nothing of substance behind them.

I know there's a difference between just stopping something from happening and actually trying to create legislation and laws (I did pass civics class).  However, I believe there's a bigger point to be made here and I'm going to make it by asking a question:  did the Republican party EVER have a plan to put in place when they got the opportunity to get rid of the ACA?  Simply looking at what's happened since January, my answer would have to be 'no'.  They just wanted the ACA and what they felt it represented (a step towards socialized medicine) gone.  I won't ascribe any other motives, as I have no evidence.

I've said in the past I believe the American health care system needs to be 'blown up' and restructured from scratch.  I've also said that shouldn't be done until we as a country agree on what we want health care to do and be.  I haven't moved from that.  A moment from the health care debate between Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders in February summarized the foundational question that needs to be answered:  is healthcare a right?  Whatever your answer to this question is, and it should be backed up by logical arguments, this needs to have a definitive answer one way or the other.  If the answer is 'yes' then the system put in place needs to reflect that.  If the answer is 'no', then people need to stop expecting healthcare as if it's a right.  Our current problem is the fact the system is an amalgamation of yes and no, and the one thing everyone agrees on is that it needs to change.

End of the year, and I haven't said much...

It’s the end of the year, and this will be the second post I’ve done in 2016. Yeah, life took over again. However, with this year being an election year, I made a conscious decision to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself because it was just getting too messy and there were a lot of angry and upset people. I’m not going to quit being someone’s friend simply because I don’t ascribe to their political viewpoint. While I believe my vote is my business, I have no illusion my vote is secret. My county knows which ballot is mine and I’m sure it would take them less than an hour to find it. At the same time, I don’t believe in screaming from the rooftops who I voted for. If who I voted for is going to be a point of contention between us, then for your sake I’ll say I voted for your favorite candidate. And we’ll leave it at that. In my estimation, life is far too short to have something so transient come between me and someone I like.

So: In about a month, we will have a new President. Someone who has held no prior elected office, and in some respects appears to be a blank slate (perhaps he’s kept his true opinions to himself, but I think Twitter shows otherwise). His choices for different cabinet posts run the gamut from political professionals to business leaders. There’s one thing I’ve noticed though. If you look at some of his choices (we’ll take the EPA and Education in particular) you see an interesting phenomenon. Allow me to give some information on those people, and then discuss what I see.

His choice for the EPA is Scott Pruitt. Mr. Pruitt made his mark as the Oklahoma Attorney General fighting the EPA on its regulations, particularly in regards to oil and gas drilling. On the surface, this looks like a ‘fox in the henhouse’ type of choice. And this same observation could also be applied to Trump’s pick for Education, Betsy DeVos. She is an education activist from Michigan. Her perspective on education is one of ‘school choice’, providing vouchers for parents to send their children to private education, if they so choose. Which could result in a mass exodus from public education, and/or significant defunding of school districts.

In thinking about these, and some other choices (I’m thinking Housing and Urban Development and Labor in particular), I’ve come to a conclusion. Using business as a baseline of understanding instead of government, these people were nominated for these positions not as a ‘fox in the henhouse’ but rather to reduce the size of that department, or perhaps to even shut them down.

There are examples of businesses sending people into problematic organizations or departments for this purpose. Whether it’s simply to ‘trim the fat’ or to close it down, they have no other purpose. Those people tend to be categorized as ‘hatchet men’, since they're doing a lot of cutting.

Something else to keep in mind is, when you look at these two departments, they are fairly recent cabinet creations. The EPA was created in 1970 by President Richard Nixon (it was originally put in place by Executive Order, but the order was ratified by Congress). The Department of Education was created in 1979 by law and signed by President Jimmy Carter. Neither of these departments have a long history, and both tend to be controversial in their activities. This makes them preferred targets for elimination by those who do not like government departments and the like.

Looking at this a little further, this fits well into Conservative views on government. For those in the Republican Party who ascribe to the quote by President Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem.” These choices match well with this view. Get rid of the bureaucracy and overreach by the Federal Government by cleaning out the bureaucrats and closing down the unnecessary departments.

Whether or not this is what Trump is trying to do has yet to be seen, as well as what the result will be. I am not ‘cautiously optimistic’ at this point. I am simply cautious. I cannot remember there ever being this much acrimony and divisiveness in the changing of administrations. I’m not talking about just the Republicans and what they potentially are implementing, but also the Democrats and their reactions. The election is over, and if we believe in our system of government, then, in a paraphrase of the late Leonard Nimoy’s Mr. Spock in ‘The Undiscovered Country’ “we must have faith that things will unfold as they should.” I say this for myself first and foremost.

There is one other darker element to this, and it is a concern for the country at large regarding the acrimony and divisiveness: If things do not significantly change, and if both sides continue to refuse to discuss and work together to solve the problems and issues our country has, and resolve to do only those things you want to do, the resulting polarization may leave us in an ungovernable situation. Now please keep in mind, I would hope that I’ve proven throughout all of this that I’m not one of those screaming Trump is not my President, or otherwise having a meltdown over the election result. I’m someone who has some serious concerns that the person we elected is going to do more harm than good in the long run. Now, what does that make me? A liberal? A ‘loony leftist’? No. That makes me someone who is more concerned about my country than about what half-baked political party is in charge of the government.

Spring has sprung! Fruits and nuts galore!

I try.  I really do.  I keep thinking I need to sit down and write posts, if for no other reason, than to ensure people I’m still alive, doing well, and at least paying minimal attention to the world around me.  However, life rears its ugly head and then it’s another 2-3 weeks before I think about posting again.

I looked back on my post from last year about this year’s beauty contest (otherwise known as an election).  On the Democratic side, I don’t seem to have been too far off base.  Bernie Sanders has turned into a somewhat effective opponent for Hilary Clinton.  He’s honestly done better than I thought, and while the nomination appears at this point to be Hilary’s to lose, it’s not over yet.  More surprises may be in store for us, and I think it will be interesting to see the final result.

The Republicans?  I was way off base.  My only thought at this point is:  Are you freaking kidding me?  Each primary and caucus causes my mind to revert to the old DOS command line saying ‘error:  abort, retry, fail?’  I sit, with my mind spinning as it tries to reconcile what I’m seeing with what my mind tells me should be reality.  I keep trying to say different things, but nothing coherent or complete seems to come out of my mouth.

Donald Trump a year ago seemed to be the comic relief for this election.  Now, he’s the lead candidate for the nomination.  I’ve sat there on many nights, trying to listen to him speak on his ‘positions’ and what he believes needs to be done.  I just can’t do it.  Usually, I can MST3K candidates, or just shake my head.  However, when he speaks, it’s as if someone is drilling and I need to move away to make it stop.  Even reading his statements in print doesn’t help.  I keep seeing where he makes statements that would cause other candidates to go down in flames, and he just keeps on going sometimes even better than before.

Now, I’m seeing comments and statements where if Trump does win the nomination, it could fracture or even destroy the Republican Party.  I am not someone who delights in the misfortune of others (in German, it’s known as schadenfreude).  However, when the party leaders and the pundits conduct their post mortem on this election season, there are some significant questions that need to be answered.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party disappear.  Competition is necessary in this country, if we are to continue growing and improving.  If one of the political parties disappears, there will be a vacuum.  What would take their place?  It may be a case where the replacement is worse than the original.

It’s not the first time a major political party has disappeared in this country.  The record of their replacements, however, is mixed at best.  The first to go were the Federalists, who all but disappeared in the 1810s.  It took until the 1830s for the Whig party to emerge in its place.  You can look up the Whigs to see their history.  They only lasted until the 1850s, when the Republican Party moved into prominence.

So, we’ve had two major parties who’ve managed (for the most part) to change with the times from the 1850s until now.  Has the Republican Party lost that ability?  Will we see a new party rise out of their demise?  Or, will the GOP once again make the necessary changes to remain relevant to the American electorate?  I guess, as the saying goes, only time will tell.

A Short Note for Veterans Day

    Yes, it's me.  I'm back.  No, I don't want to talk about the national beauty contest we call an election.  If you can't figure out why, read the previous sentence.  My garden?  I've got a garden year in review post working and should have that up in the next couple of days.  In the meantime, I will break my blogging silence and provide a short history on today's federal holiday:  Veterans Day.

     Veterans Day wasn't always known as that.  According to History.com (I'll pretend it's a little more reliable than Wikipedia.  Not that I have anything against that site), the day was originally known as Armistice Day.  It was first commemorated in 1919, the year after the end of the First World War (It was known as 'The Great War' then).  It was made a Federal Holiday in 1938.  In 1954, after lobbying by veterans organizations (from the Second World War and the Korean War) the name of the holiday changed from Armistice Day to Veterans Day, and is to commemorate veterans of all wars. 

     There are some other items about the history of the day I was not aware of (even though I apparently lived through some of it) – such as the Federal observation of Veterans Day being changed to the fourth Monday in October in order to ensure three day weekends and encourage tourism from 1971 to 1978, it certainly would have made a difference this year, with the holiday in the middle of the week.

     So, if you know someone who is a military veteran of a past (or even current) war, take a moment and remember their service.  It's a solemn remembrance of the sacrifices others have made so we can enjoy what we have today.

How I Learned to Stop Grumbling and Love Politics

Once again, I’ve decided I need to sit down and write something for this blog. I really can’t say why it takes so much effort sometimes to sit down and write. It’s not that I don’t have something to say, there are a lot of things I could comment on. Maybe it’s just the effort of trying to get my thoughts together to the point where they’re somewhat coherent. Anyway, I’ll hit a couple of big news stories and add my commentary. That should be fun, no?

I’ll hit the political side of things first. It appears the 2016 Presidential campaign season has begun in earnest. Major names officially declaring they’re running include (but certainly will not be limited to) Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson. If you’re curious about whether or not your favorite candidate is running, you can go to this site. 

My thoughts? It’s really early, so most of the candidates seem to be in a pack and not breaking free. Two of the more interesting choices so far are Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. Why do I find Rand Paul interesting? To me, he’s attempting to claim the mantle his father had in the last two Presidential elections: that of the Libertarian who speaks to the individual freedoms this country was built on. It plays well to a certain percentage of the electorate, but doesn’t bode well for the general election. He’ll fire up the partisans, but not much else. I’ll be curious about his candidacy’s effect on Republicans. Sanders? To me, the interest centers on the fact he is a self-identified Democratic Socialist. Right now he appears to be playing the part of a Rand Paul for the Democrats, where he appeals to the partisans but that’s about it. Depending on how well he does, he could be the first identified Socialist since Eugene V. Debs ran in 1920 from prison to receive a significant portion of the vote. Personally, I think there are too many people who are still allergic to the term Socialist to vote for him. But I think it will be an interesting barometer of how our society views itself to see how many people agree with him to the point of voting for him. Again, I don't see him winning the nomination, but he could pull the Democrats farther to the left than usual.

Police in general seem to be sinking fast, as you can find mention of incidents involving police and how they treat people almost daily. Baltimore seems to have been the focus this last week, with the Freddie Gray incident, indictment of six police officers, and the riots after the funeral. It’s an unfortunate situation when people feel the need to express their disappointment, rage, and frustration in that way. On the other side, no matter what the situation you treat people as humanely as possible. The appeal of ‘can’t we all get along’ does apply to both sides. At the same time, you cannot discount the grievances of the citizens, or the concerns of the authorities. We’re all part of the same society, and we need to strike a balance. And that is something that is sorely and sadly missing at this point.

There are other things I could probably read, think about, and comment, but those are the two biggest. For me personally? Since it’s spring I’m trying to get the house and yard set for the summer to include a re-start of the garden. It’s been difficult since we didn’t do anything last year while waiting for the painting that never happened and the garden area grew back over. Additionally, I'm trying to expand the space to allow for more plants. We’ll see how that goes. I’ll get a picture in later, once I’ve got it set.

A ‘Vote of No Confidence’

 

     I know, I’m silent for months and then I start putting out multiple posts in a week.  It’s all part of the fits and starts with me.  Sometimes I can’t put things together for months and then it’s a big blaze of posts all at once.  Just bear with me on this one, as I try to work through my thoughts.

     I have some difficulty with recent events regarding the ‘outing’ if you will of Mozilla’s CEO (he gave $1,000 in 2008 to a group which did not want California to have same-sex marriage) and the subsequent reaction by both sides before and after his resignation.  It’s not whether or not I agree with his opinion (he is more than welcome to it), or his choice to resign (if you’re becoming the focus instead of the company, than maybe you need to remove yourself from the situation).  I have an issue with this concept of ‘boycotting’ a product or company seemingly for almost no reason.

     Here is what gets to me. Calling for a boycott of Mozilla products (or Chik-fil-A as another example) for whatever reason says to me that you don’t believe simply telling your friends, family, neighbors, and acquaintances that you will no longer use said product is not enough to achieve your desired result. Or, more specifically, you don’t believe your position is in the majority (aren’t we supposed to be under the rule of the majority?) and so you intend to force your position through coercion rather than reason.

     Allow me to give an example of what I mean:  I do not like Rite Aid.  I have used them in the past, and their customer service has left much to be desired.  As a result, I do not get my prescriptions from them and avoid shopping there for anything.  I also let people know (when an appropriate situation comes up) that I will not shop there and why.  Is that a boycott?  No.  In my mind, it is a choice.  I have ‘voted’ if you will with my feet and my wallet.  Now, if enough people follow my lead (or maybe I’m following someone else’s lead, who knows?) then their bottom line will suffer to the point they will either change (feedback is important) or go out of business.

     To summarize, I believe screaming ‘boycott!!!’ because a business does,or doesn’t do something you think is right is ‘quitting the field’ of persuasion because you either can’t be bothered to try and persuade others, or you’re just being selfish and throwing a tantrum to get what you want.  Either way, to the adults of the world you end up looking and sounding childish.

So this is what it takes to get me back to blogging

 

     Yeah, I know, it’s been a really long time.  I went and looked at my blog and realized it’s been almost six months (October 2013 was the last post) since I last posted.  It’s not that there weren’t things to post about.  Christmas, New Years, current events, I would see something and start thinking ‘I should post about this’. Then life would take over and it would be two weeks later and the momentum for posting was gone.  But now, I’ve latched on to something and I’m not going to let go.  So, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, and off I go...

     Political minded individuals are aware the Supreme Court decided today that there should not be any limits to how much an individual (or corporation – I believe they can be considered the same thing for the purposes of money and campaigns) can donate to campaigns.  The bottom line is:  for those individuals and entities who are so inclined, they can contribute the maximum individual amount (there is still a limit to how much can be given to an individual campaign) to as many campaigns as they like.  So, now your favorite bogeyman (George Soros or the Koch brothers are the best known for both sides of the political spectrum), can spend as much money as they like on as many races as possible to get the government they want into power.  Does it scare you?  Maybe it should.

     There are some people who believe this is another of those decisions that signal the end of the republic (or at least the end of the world as we know it – yes I like that using that phrase just to give people the earworm), others believe this is freedom.  I tend to look at it this way:  Those who have the money can spend it on the candidates they want, as many as they want.  I do not have a lot of disposable income that I can invest in the political process, and the only thing I have is my vote.  This decision tells me that money is more important than voting.  Remember the golden rule.  No, not the ‘do unto others’ one, that’s just crazy talk, the one I’m thinking of is ‘ he who has the gold, makes the rules.’  Money has spoken, and the vote just lost part of its voice.  How long before voting has no voice?

Just a rant

 

     OK, this idiocy categorized as the government shutdown has been going on for almost two weeks now.  There doesn’t appear to be an end in sight, and when there might be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out to be a freight train attempting to run us (the country collectively) over.  Both parties in power have barely moved from their starting positions.  If someone isn’t careful, or some sense of agreement doesn’t start showing, this country is in serious danger of going down in pyrrhic glory.  I’m not in as bad of shape as some, as I was one of the ‘lucky people’ to get to go back to work, but there’s no longer any guarantee of anything at this point, so that is definitely coloring my perspective.

     I thought we elected people to represent us.  Is this situation really what we wanted the people to represent us to give us?  Now that I think about it, when you look at the perspectives being expounded by those on the left and the right on the internet and across the radio and TV, maybe it is.  People want what they want, and to hell with everyone else.  Apparently we are no longer a ‘society’ but rather a group of individuals who happen to inhabit the same geographical area.

     I thought the Constitution was designed at least in part to protect its people.  Allowing things to continue like this is not protecting people.  The shutdown and the resulting furloughs, park closures, etc., seem to be designed to cause maximum harm.  And the government we have in place (and I am including all branches of the government in this)appears to be incapable of protecting us anymore.  What does that say about this country and the people we have running it?

     For those who are of the opinion that ‘the government shutdown/impending debt ceiling fight is a good thing’, take a look around when you are out and about.  The people you see are being affected by this, whether directly or indirectly.  I ask you to think about what that says about you, if you are willing to inflict suffering on other people in such a seemingly callous manner?

     You’re upset about how much the government has influence on our lives?  Fortunately or unfortunately this is how our government and society is set up today.  Want to go back to how the government ran when this country started?  That is not realistically possible.  In other words, that horse has left the barn.  Our government and society has evolved and changed due to the different incidents and philosophies that have come and gone over the years, for better or worse. 

     Yeah, Ook has really come out swinging this time.  He’s howling and banging his club.

Well, this is unfortunate

(Image Credit artofmanliness.com)

     What do I mean by unfortunate?  Well, those who know me will know that I am an employee of the U.S. Government.  That means on October 1st, because the President and the Congress could not reach an agreement to fund the government either through continuing resolution or annual budget (I know, haven’t seen one of those for a while but they are supposed to be done), then non-essential portions of the government ‘shut down’ until the situation is resolved.  I was one of those considered ‘non-essential’ and was sent home after setting up my out of office for my work email (not with the snarky comment I wanted) and ensuring there were no ‘loose ends’ to be dealt with by the military personnel who now have to do their work and the civilians.

     The bottom line of this impasse (for lack of a better term) is:  the House of Representatives (controlled by one party) is holding funding for the government hostage in order to change a previously enacted law through ‘defunding’.  The Senate and President (the other party obviously) will not let the funding pass with the defunding legislation attached.  They ‘passed’ funding bills back and forth, with the only difference being the defunding legislation.  At this point, no one is talking, the fingers are pointing, and there appears to be no end in the immediate future.  Ideological purity has taken the place of governing, and apparently every issue is a ‘hill to die on’.  Everything is a fight instead of a negotiation.  The process of lawmaking no longer fits the ‘sausage making’ metaphor.  It better fits the ‘death matches’ of the Roman Coliseum, with the fervent party supporters playing the part of Caesar, determining the fate of the combatants.  Well, if you’ll excuse me I don’t want to have the gladiators, I’d rather have the governors.

     Now, as much as that law is based on good intentions (we all know where that leads), it is really the height of arrogance to think you can hold the government or the country hostage in order to change the law.  Last time I checked, that was what the legislative and judicial branches are for.  But hey, we can just throw everything out the window I guess.  Personally, I really do not care what political party or persuasion you are. If you cannot do what is necessary in order to ensure the government functions as smoothly as possible, then you do not deserve to be in office.I know I am taking this very personally, but I think I’m allowed.

Not Just Reading, but Understanding is Fundamental

 

Oh my. What an interesting time we seem to be living in. There appear to be a recent proliferation of concerns about a number of different issues (gun violence/control and economy/taxation are a couple of examples). One thing I have noticed while perusing the many different opinions is the use of the word ‘fundamental’. Whether it’s a fundamental right, or a fundamental liberty, it’s used as part of an argument to bolster an individual’s assertion or position. Maybe it’s just me, but simply describing something as fundamental doesn’t immediately or automatically make it so.  I guess people presume you’ve done the research because they don’t back up this assertion with any evidence.  I may not be from Missouri, but I do tend to follow the state’s motto ‘show me’.

A very recent example of this use of fundamental is the to a certain degree implied argument that people around the world have a fundamental right to homeschool (my children are homeschooled, and I greatly value the opportunity given – full disclosure). I’ve looked at the situation which brought this out. To (greatly) summarize the situation:  a German family began homeschooling their children in 2006, in violation of German law. After being fined (and nothing I found says they paid the fines), and having German authorities come to their house and take their children to public school, they were asked by Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) to move to the United States in 2008.  Once they arrived they applied for asylum (they had other countries in Europe they could have chosen). The basis of their asylum application was they were being persecuted for homeschooling in accordance with their religious beliefs. The asylum case is now in front of a federal circuit court. An immigration judge in January 2010 granted them asylum, an immigration appeals court judge denied it in May of 2012.  The case is currently in front of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments in April 2013. The United States government is arguing against granting asylum. The government’s argument is: the family isn’t being persecuted or singled out for their religious beliefs by the law, as Germany does not allow anyone to homeschool their children. HSLDA is providing legal representation for the family and puts forward the following counterargument: the family is being persecuted because homeschooling is a matter of individual liberty and is therefore a ‘fundamental right’. Now, I’m no lawyer (and I don’t play one on TV), but the issue here is the application of the asylum law. In short, people are granted asylum if they can demonstrate they are being persecuted for religious reasons or because they belong to a particular social group.

Now, please keep in mind I am a homeschooling father so I am approaching this from a pro-homeschooling perspective. Here is how I see homeschooling involved in this situation: Both the United States and Germany (as well as a number of other countries) have addressed the issue of homeschooing in their laws. The United States allows it, with each individual state applying its own requirements. Germany (I know the German homeschooling law was made in 1938, so please don’t use the Hitler argument. Please?) forbids it. I know the law in my state, and I follow it. Maybe I disagree with it, but I still follow it. I have difficulty believing one of the rights upon which all other rights are built (which is one of the definitions of fundamental) is to homeschool. There may be (I can’t think of any off the top of my head) countries where there is no educational system whatsoever (there are most certainly communities where this is the case).  Are we to provide those communities with homeschooling curriculum, because it’s a fundamental right? That might be akin to that community being Eve, and we are the serpent providing them with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It’s an application of our culture and beliefs without consideration of their culture.

Another argument is that homeschooling is essential to freedom of thought. This argument assumes the parents cannot tell their children what the school is teaching them goes against their religious beliefs. I cannot count the number of times my wife or I have commented to our children (either during an event or after) we did not believe something presented because of our religion. We also explained to our children WHY we didn’t believe that idea or concept. Yes, it’s work. It can be difficult. But sooner or later, our children leave us and they will encounter these things through their interactions in society. When we take the time to explain why we disagree with something, we are teaching our children freedom of thought. We are also teaching them logic and apologetics.

Since religion has been introduced as an issue, let me put this forward.  From a religious perspective, the imperative to ‘be subject to the governing authorities’ stated in Romans 13:1 appears to be ignored in this situation. Not paying the fines levied (bad law or not) is not being subject to the governing authorities.  Not only this, but we are to live peaceably with our neighbors.  How peaceable were they being towards their neighbors when they brought the authorities into their neighborhood?  Or with the media attention they brought in with their cause celebre? Before you respond, I know the counterargument is from Acts chapter 5 where Peter tells the Jews they must obey God rather than men.  I haven’t found a passage in the Bible where it commands us to homeschool our children. 

I understand there are those who are concerned that this case shows the U.S. governments ‘anti-homeschooling’ bias and this is a harbinger of coming persecution against American homeschoolers.  As I stated above, the case involves granting asylum, not whether or not one of the questions on a future immigration form will be ‘do you intend to homeschool your children?’ Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, or I’m stupid, but I just don’t see persecution coming because of that particular choice. Maybe because my reason for homeschooling is about the quality of the education my children receive instead of being based on a moral imperative. Please let me reiterate:  I’m thankful for the opportunity and the ability to homeschool, and do not want that taken away.  On the other hand, I’m not going to be a ‘chicken little’ responding with fright just because the government mentions the word ‘education’.  If I did, I will miss situations that are or will be a matter of concern.  But hey, what do I know?

It’s not personal, it’s just politics

 

     It has been over two months since I last put something on this blog.  I wish that I could blame my life and my schedule for my lack of posts, but I can’t.  These two months really been a struggle for me to determine when I should write and what I should write about.  On the one hand, I could go on a somewhat theological tangent.  That would be interesting to me, but I’m not sure anyone else would enjoy it.  On the other hand, I could be like so many other people and rail on about the current state of affairs in this country.  But even with that topic, there are so many possibilities.  One thing that seems to hinder me is:  by the time I finally figure out how I feel and what my true position is about a particular topic or issue (not sure if it’s paralysis by analysis, or truly trying to wade through the nuances), it’s well after the swell of emotion and discussion of that issue, and anything I put together comes off as ‘Johnny come lately’.  But, now I feel called to comment on our current mess dealing  with the economy.  So:  late, early, or on time, here goes nothing (or something, we’ll see when I’m done).  I will be up front and state that I do have a personal stake in this situation, and I am trying to keep the personal out of this post as much as possible.  It is ultimately very difficult, so if I fail at being impartial, you at least know why.

    As I write this, America seems to be on a road similar to what I mentioned with Hostess.  Both sides (and please look it up.  One side may have proposed this madness, but both sides latched on and agreed to it) signed a sort of ‘mutual suicide pact’ for the American economy.  The ‘sequester’ as it has come to be known, was supposed to be something both sides wanted to avoid at all costs.  What we have seen is that this was the case, until both parties saw the opportunity to gain a political advantage.  Now, both side are alternately trying to tell themselves this isn’t as bad as they said, or it is that bad and they’re blaming the other party for the mess.  In the meantime, the rest of the country gets to find out in an ‘up close and personal’ fashion what these arbitrary cuts will mean to both personal and federal/state/local economies (unintended consequences, anyone?) 

     I looked through all this and I have come to the following (somewhat disturbing) conclusion.  This marks (to me and I may be wrong) the first time the politicians and/or government have OVERTLY done something, either through omission or commission, not in the best interest of the country.  It’s finally gotten to the point where scoring political points with their supporters is more important than the good of the country, and they don’t care whether people know it or not.

     I believe this is something we as a country and a society need to ponder.  Now, I will say this is not a ‘throw the bums out’ type of general grumpy comment.  This is more of a ‘wow, have we really gotten/sunk to this point?’ kind of concerned response.  We as a country need to take a serious look at where things are going politically and thoughtfully consider whether or not we like it.  If we don’t, then we need to use the legitimate tools at our disposal to make it known we don’t like where things are and are going.  We also need to start trying to change who we have in government.  Let me state clearly right now, I don’t advocate overthrow or revolution.  I don’t think it’s necessary.

     There, I’ve said my piece.  Now, I’m going to stand back and see what the future holds.

You’re so Selfish!!!

 

     Well, it’s happened.  You would have to have been living under a rock the last week or so to not know Hostess has been allowed to liquidate its assets and shut down operations after over 80 years.  Those on the right and left – generally speaking – have their favorite ‘bogeymen’ involved in this situation:  For the left, we have the ‘corporate fatcats’ who fiddled while Rome burned around them (giving themselves extravagant raises while in bankruptcy).  For the right, we have the ‘labor unions’ killing the golden goose (going on strike – which appears to be the ‘straw that broke the camels’ back if your will).  Now, I really think both sides share a pretty close to equal blame.  We’re in a down economy (generally speaking – there are always some industries and sectors that are up), with elevated unemployment and underemployment, and both management and labor engage in practices better suited for a booming economy.  Both sides would have been better served if they acted in a practical manner.  However, what ended up happening was the follow-through of a sort of mutual suicide pact.  Both sides knew the end result of certain choices, but they made them anyway.  I show this picture of Hostess Donettes as a memorial to a fallen icon of American society.

     Reading through the articles and comments made by both sides made me wonder why we seem to have a ‘damn the consequences, I want what I want’ society?  I believe it has to do with the economics of our society.  I’m not talking about whether we’re in a recession or boom time.  I’m talking about capitalism.  If we have a capitalistic society, then we inherently have a selfish society.  What is the goal of every person in this society?  To accumulate as much wealth (or material) as possible for themselves, with little to no regard to the consequences to others.  To have a society that places the individual and individual wealth in a position of primacy, while attempting to provide services to take care of those who are unable to accumulate wealth, or not enough for certain contingencies and issues is a society at cross-purposes with itself.  Now, I’m not saying socialism or communism is the answer, as they are just as selfish.  Basically, as George Orwell so eloquently put it in his book Animal Farm ‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.  The focus is on the collection of wealth, of making people subservient to the state and those who ‘represent’ the state.  Ultimately, it is a selfish society, as people are either in charge and gathering to themselves as much material and wealth as possible, or they are serving and worried about whether or not they will have enough to survive.

     What would be the alternative to this?  How about a society where the focus is not on the individual and/or the accumulation of wealth, but the focus is on the group, and ensuring everyone in our community has what is necessary?  Again, I’m not talking about what modern society understands as socialism, but what I am talking about is a society/community like what we see in the bible.  The book of Acts specifically.  We see in the early church where everyone in the early church brought their goods and wealth together and worked together to ensure everyone in the church was taken care of (to include widows).  If we truly consider ourselves a Christian nation, and are striving to follow His teachings, this should be our goal.  If we worry about ourselves, then our focus is not on others.  We are told God will provide for our needs.  If we believe that, then at some point we need to stop worrying and trust in that.

It’s harvest time!!!

The seasons are changing, and many fruits and vegetables are now being harvested.  I do believe it’s also time to harvest the nuts (both real and people).  We’ve now moved into fall and the general election season.

What does this harvest of nuts entail?  There are the signs popping up everywhere (although their growth does seem to be stunted this year, but the early crop was good), as well as sounds galore (TV and radio ads – not too many so far, but it’s a little early so I have no doubt this will increase as we move further along in the election season).  But the animal voices indicative of the change in season really seems to be picking up. 

     Why do I call them nuts?  It is because all they do is try to convince me (the general me, not the specific me) not to vote for someone.  I have not seen or heard anything telling me who to vote for in a positive sense.  Even if there’s a ‘you should vote for (Romney/Obama/Ron Paul/whoever) because…..(wait for it)……the others are (Mormon/Muslim/socialist/evil rich person/fruitcake).  Really?  That’s supposed to convince me who to vote for?  If I use those arguments and believe them as to why I shouldn’t vote for that person.  Then the only logical conclusion I can draw is not to vote for anyone.

     It seems more and more this is what modern politics is about.  I want to put a challenge out there:  is there someone who can tell me why I should vote FOR someone without using a negative argument about someone else?

     I have to admit there are some times I wish politics would go away.  If there were no such thing as politics, I think our lives would be SO much better.  Then again, maybe we have to deal with the (seemingly) annual harvest of of nuts.  At least for now.

Squirrel!!!! Rabbit!!!!! Chicken!!!!!

 

(Note:  This is something I worked on a little while ago, but my points are still valid)

     I watched, with just a little amusement, the whole issue with Chick-fil-a over the last couple of weeks.  To me, this was one person who isn’t in government or running for office expressing his opinion.  I looked at the plethora of opinions floating around the internet and the phrase ‘opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one’ ran through my head.  I am not going to add my opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage to those already out there.  My reasoning for doing that are:  1) It isn’t relevant to what I want to talk about.  And 2) it would distract from the points I want to make.

     My thoughts boil down down to two points:  1) All the talking and ranting about the Chick-fil-a ‘incident’ (for lack of a better term), both pro and con, gave them free publicity.  2) This discussion about a fast food restaurant and the personal views of it’s president distracted people from issues truly deserving of our focus.

     There is a saying, primarily in business and advertising circles, ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’.  If you look at this from that perspective, the net effect was:  people who had no idea that Chick-fil-a existed now do.  Any of those people who chose to patronize them as a result of this probably made up for anyone who stopped.  Look at the different celebrities who ate there in support of the company president, additionally, look at what the sales were for ‘Chick-fil-a appreciation day’.  On the surface, it looks like a net positive for the company.  Now, if I were the kind of person who believed in conspiracy theories, I might think the whipping up of this furor was deliberate in order to improve their bottom line.  Looking at this whole situation in that way, you could say the company was ‘crazy like a fox’.  A conspiracy like that is extremely difficult to prove without rock-solid evidence, so I leave the idea to the realm of conspiracy theories.

     The second point I mentioned above is the more important one in my opinion.  This country has issues to resolve, especially in an election year.  The country is still trying to recover from a recent economic downturn, and there are governmental issues needing attention and discussion.  Instead, we spent our time and energy discussing whether or not Chick-fil-a should be banned, protested, or supported.  The net result, in my opinion, was valuable time and energy that could be better used discussing and dealing with the issues this country faces and how the government and/or the people can deal with them was wasted.  Is same-sex marriage an issue?  We only need to look at the furor this one statement raised to conclude it is. If the discussion focused on federal, state, and local laws and educating each other to our perspective, it would have been more profitable.  If you want to hurt a business owner for their ‘less than intelligent’ statements?  Just don’t do business there.  And be clear when speaking to others about why you won’t do business there.  We as a country cannot hope to resolve the economic issues of this country if we keep losing our focus like a dog chasing squirrels and rabbits.

I Think I Got Off the Merry Go Round….And I Feel Fine

 

(Image credit artofmanliness.com)

     Well, life got in the way again.  One of these times, I’m going to get life to not interfere when I start thinking ‘I haven’t blogged in a while, I should get back to that’.  I did have an idea or two I kicked around, but by the time I could have posted them, they no longer seemed relevant.  Maybe I’ll post them anyway and put a little disclaimer at the beginning.  Yeah, that’ll fix it.

     So, we are now hot and heavy into the political season.  The national conventions are occurring, complete with candidates and speeches.  Not sure there’s a whole lot of substance there (choose your favorite cliché – all flash no heat, no ‘there’ there, or any others I’ve missed).  I was talking with my father the other night and he asked if I had been following the convention.  I had to think a minute before I said something about just catching the highlights.  Afterward, I began to think about how little I had been involved in following the political process this year.  Part of it has to do with what I discussed here.  As far as I’m concerned, the end is known, the drama is going on for the sake of the play itself.

       I’ve been working my way through a rather interesting book this summer.  The theme is how the colonists weren’t following God’s laws when they rebelled against England.  I cannot say I agree with everything the author was saying, but there are a number of points where we do agree.  A particularly interesting section of the book contained a quote from John Wesley.  Wesley was confronting the colonists on their claims of ‘no taxation without representation’, among other things.  Here is the quote:

‘If Parliament cannot tax you because you have no representation therein, for the same reason it can make no laws to bind you.  If a freeman cannot be taxed without his consent, neither can he be punished without it.  For whatever holds true with regard to taxation holds true with regard to all other laws.  Therefore he who denies the English Parliament the power of taxation, denies it the right of making any laws at all.  But you have never disputed this power over the colonies.  You have always acknowledged statues for the punishment of offences and for the preventing or redressing of civil wrongs.  And the reception of any law draws after it by a chain which cannot be broken, the necessity of accepting taxation.

But I object to the very foundation of you plea.  You have confidently asserted that “every freeman is governed [only] by laws to which he has consented.”  But that is absolutely false.  In wide-extended dominions, a very small part of the people are involved with making laws.  As with all public business, this must be done by delegation, and the delegates are chosen by a select number.  And those who are not voters, who are by far the greater part, stand by as idle spectators.

But the case of voters is little better.  When they are near equally divided, almost half of them must be governed, by not only without, but even against their own consent.  And how has any man consented to those laws which were made before he was born?  Our consent to these, nay and even to the laws now made in England, is purely passive.  And in every place, as all men are born the subjects of some state or another, so they are born passively, as it were, consenting to the laws of that state.’ (italics mine).

     I think, in this highly contentious political season, we would be well served to keep in mind Wesley’s comment about voters.  Somewhere, whether national, state, or local, a political majority is not what we chose and is governing against our consent.  There is nothing wrong with trying to get your particular candidate or number of people in the party you prefer elected.  But treating elections like an all-or-nothing proposition is a prescription for disaster.

     Personally, I am more than willing to let the political process (I’d call it Kabuki Theater, but I don’t want to insult Kabuki) go through its’ motions and let the chips fall where they may.  No matter which party wins the race, I still have my responsibilities to take care of.  That is where my focus is going to be.  I will be educated of course before I put my ballot in the mail (we do all-mail voting here), but I find myself a much better person when I’m not dealing so much in the minutiae.

Let’s put it out of our misery…..

 

(Image credit http://failblog.cheezburger.com/thereifixedit/)

I haven’t written for a while. Biggest reason for that is that life took over. One of these days, I’ll have life under control (yeah, right). I also haven’t been overly motivated to write. It’s not that I haven’t had ideas bouncing around my head, but none of them seemed to flow into a coherent thought stream that I could write down and not growl at the end result because it didn’t meet my standards (yes, believe it or not I do have them). This however, is something that won’t leave my mind.

There comes a time, when you are working on a project, that if you’ve made too many adjustments and/or corrections, you need to break the whole thing down and start over from scratch. I’m starting to believe that we, in this country, have hit that point with health care. We’ve been trying to make adjustments/corrections for quite a while now, and the end result bears no resemblance to either where we began, or the desired result.

We’re in the beginning stages of implementing the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, as some would have it). The desired result (at least for those who’ve championed the legislation) is for health care to be accessible and affordable for everyone. It’s still rather early to determine if either component of the desired result is in reach, but I’ve got a feeling there are still a number of issues that need to be dealt with.

I’ve written about this issue before.  There are two common points of agreement (or maybe one depending on how you look at it) on this issue: 1) the current system is insufficient to provide affordable and accessible care for all. And 2) changes need to be made. Once you move beyond those two points, paths rapidly diverge. Is the focus on cost, or eligibility? Do we need to look at the care side of the equation, or the financial side?

I believe all of these areas need to be looked at, because there are issues in each of these areas. The problem, at least to me, is that each of these areas need to be addressed in the context of the other areas, but they’re not. They are each being addressed in a vacuum, as if each can be ‘adjusted’ or ‘corrected’ as needed without looking at the effect on the other areas. I think the reasoning behind such an approach is: we hope we only need to make minor adjustments in order to achieve the desired result. Perhaps we think it will be a ‘magic fix’. Whatever the thought process is, the end result is something that is unwieldy, cumbersome, and ineffective.

I realize what I’m putting forward may be extremely unpopular, but I truly think the system needs to be ‘blown up’. Ensure nothing of the previous system remains, and then start putting something completely new together. I’ll be completely honest, though.  I am not going to push this with a lot of energy, because until there is agreement on what the end result needs to look like, we’re going to end up with something that looks amazingly like what we’ve got now. I just don’t hold a lot of hope that the current crew in charge, or those that want to be in charge, would work on this in a way that is best for everyone.

Does anyone know what normal is anymore?

Sometimes I wonder if I've moved into a world where the normal rules don't apply. I could say more about that, but I won't. I'll just relay some thoughts about the BP Oil spill.

I was listening to a conversation the other day revolving around the BP oil disaster, how long it's been going on (it's really been almost two months since it first occurred?) but there were two main points that stood out to me:

1) You haven't really heard anything from the environmentalists about this. Not that long ago, if there was a hint of an oil spill anywhere, environmental activists would have been out in force demanding the oil companies pay. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard much of anything. Oh there was some noise and whimpering and whining at first, but it's pretty much died out. Maybe they're just waiting for the final damage assessment before they 'lower the boom', but that's just the cynical skeptic in me.

2) These people were actually talking about physical harm being done to executives, on the order of 'showing on TV these executives being punched in the face, etc.' To me, it spoke back to the days of the Roman Forum and the gladiators. I guess we really are not that far removed from those days of 'unsophisticated' violence. How much of a push would we as a society need to want to see killing and death (real killing I mean) on television?

One other thing I've noticed about this disaster: has anyone noticed you don't hear stories about oil and gas prices rising to outrageous levels? We saw it with Katrina, and while this may not have the same potential, I would have thought the cost would have gone up at least a little. Petroleum being a scarce commodity and a significant amount being lost. I will admit I've been distracted and not scouring the news to search or research, but with some things you don't have to search very hard.