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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do believe ‘the inmates run the asylum’

I am doing my best to ‘disengage’ from the more partisan elements of politics and try to be balanced in my ideas and concepts. This is a rather difficult proposition right now, as the partisans are filling the airwaves and websites with their opinions and vitriol. Sifting through the rhetoric is a much more daunting task. I don’t doubt the fact this is an election year is exacerbating the situation.

All of this anger and frustration tends to beg the question, why are so many Americans so focused on positions and ideas which are on the the extremes of the spectrum? When I think about this, I tend to believe this reflects our society’s general displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with our government. One of the books I have on my shelf is ‘How Democratic is the American Constitution?’ by Robert Dahl. Part of the book relates a survey conducted in eleven European democratic countries in 1990. They matched the answers to questions regarding satisfaction with their government to whether they voted for the ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ parties in the previous election. What the researchers found was in countries where the system was more ‘consensual’ (Holland was an example of this), the ‘losers’ were almost as satisfied with the government as the ‘winners’  (within 5%). Countries where the system was more ‘majoritarian’ (England’s government fits this), ‘winners’ were far more satisfied with the government than ‘losers’.

What does this tell me? Dahl’s book claims the U.S. system is a ‘hybrid’ (neither consensual nor majoritarian). This may be true from a political scientist’s point of view.  However, people in this country perceive there are political parties that ‘win’ and those that ‘lose’ and there are consequences of those elections.  Also, there has been (at least in perception, although it may not be reality) a continuing trend of political parties not wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ in order to enact legislation or policy. The goal (stated or otherwise) of the political parties today is to obtain and retain the majority.  With that as the goal, the situation quickly devolves into an ‘ends justify the means’ situation where people will say and do anything to achieve their goal. Power, not what is best for everyone, is now the goal. Our sensibilities (and sensitivities) are assaulted as the parties and their faithful ‘go for broke’ in an effort to obtain power. It is obvious to me that they believe in ‘the other golden rule’ (not ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, it’s ‘whoever has the gold [in this case power equals gold] makes the rules).

I am sure when the election’s over, there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, no matter who ‘wins’ (and I’m not sure an electoral victory really equals a ‘win’) complete with threats of moving to another country for asylum.  Somehow, I think we will survive no matter who is in office.  We will just get the government we justly deserve.

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.

I guess I am saying 'a pox on both their houses'

I know, I've been fairly silent on blogging on issues for a while. It's been difficult to try and balance all the necessary things that life seems to require, and find time to do things that I like, but aren't 'necessary'. That said, quite a bit has happened in the world since I last posted. Health care reform passed (whether we wanted it or not), the world continues to prove it's not a safe place, and those who are supposed to be doing 'the people's work' aren't. Yeah, I guess at this point I throw up my hands, say nasty words at both the major political parties (to include phrases like the title) and say in essence 'I don't trust a single thing you say.'

It's really difficult to try and stay calm and involved in the process, when there's daily evidence that this country has created a professional class of politicians whose sole purpose in life is to work at some level of government (by election or political appointment). It's rather irritating when those who are supposed to ensure the best interests of the country are served have absolutely no clue of the effects of their votes/decisions. Then they act surprised when something bad happens (and most sane people saw it coming well before the vote was taken).

And looking at political parties, all their interested in is their own well being or maintaining/gaining power. Not what will help the nation/state/city, or the people living there. And as far as rhetoric goes, it's devolved to the point of schoolyard fights/name calling, and that passes for intelligent discourse these days. Those who are running the parties seem to think it's better to teach everyone to hate/distrust those who don't believe in the same things they do, instead of how to articulate your perspective in hopes of persuading others to agree/join the cause.

At this point, my perspective on the future is rather grim. We seem to be at the point of splitting the country apart, but over what? It's not as if there's truly one defining issue that's polarizing people, just differences of opinion. So if both sides start truly fighting each other, do we have any idea as to what the result will be if either side wins? In the past, when there were issues to be discussed, people more or less understood what would happen if the other side won. Now? Doesn't matter who wins, we're going down the same road.

I guess the reason I chose the title is: from this point on, I am not going to believe what either political party says, and take care of myself. I would rather both political parties 'implode' and people start doing things on the basis of what's best rather than what will bring the most power to themselves. I know, this kind of sounds like a 'goodbye cruel world' type of post. But really, when you look around and see what's happening, the best thing may be to tell the professional politicians off and look to yourself and your family to take care of what needs to be taken care of.

Well, now I get to be really irritated

There are multiple reasons I guess to be irritated. Could be because of the highly visible breakdown of the political process to the point where it doesn't matter what the topic is, the bottom line is it isn't going to help the rest of us. But I guess I'm a selfish individual since what I'm really irritated about is because some knucklehead decided my van was something that he wanted to break into and steal. Fortunately the person didn't succeed, but he damaged the passenger door and the ignition to the point that repairs are necessary. I'd like to whack the person who did this upside the head just to let them know how much I don't appreciate my property being violated. But in the end vehicles, property, and everything else are just temporary things on this earth that will disappear sooner or later. Just one more thing I didn't need to happen. Can I just curl up in a ball now?

Are we beginning to see a change in our political parties?

One of the things I've been paying a little bit of attention to recently is what seems to be an inordinately large focus on a small number of races this year. Not only is it an off-year election, but it's also one year since the Democrats basically won both Congress and the White House. There seem to be two main themes that are starting to play out: one is that after almost a year, people are starting to be dissatisfied with those currently in charge. The second thing, which is seeming to be focused in the congressional election in New York, is that the movement begun with the 'tea parties' is starting to potentially begin to change at least the Republican party.

The New York election is a unique situation, in that there were two candidates (one has since dropped out) running which could very plausibly be called Republicans. However, the views of the two candidates are very different. One, Dede Scozzafava (I apologize in advance for spelling), is a candidate who appears to be very comfortable with expanding government, and how much influence that government has in our lives. The other, Doug Hoffman, is more of a small government, non-intrusive, candidate. The Republican party in New York chose Scozzafava as their candidate, with the national party sticking behind her as well. Hoffman is running under the Conservative Party, and initially, bloggers and other 'ground level movement' types were the only ones willing to endorse Hoffman. The tide has turned dramatically, with Hoffman now almost tied (or some polls show him ahead) with the Democrat, and Scozzafava almost always being shown in third place. Also, other prominent members of the Republican party are coming out in support of Hoffman. Since I originally started working on this post, Scozzafava has dropped out.

All things being equal, this might be an interesting race, but not mean much in the overall scheme of things. However, to borrow a Star Trek quote 'things are not equal'. Many bloggers, to include Red State, have been pointing to this race as 'a hill to die on'. Meaning this is a fight in which principles need to win out over compromise and expediency. It is also being pointed to as a situation where the 'base' is attempting to send a message to the national party, and this is where I am starting to wonder if there is a change coming. Looking back in political history, the Republican Party has been in a struggle, if you will, for over 40 years, between the liberal and conservative wings of the party. Influence in the party has swung back and forth during that time, depending on who you think of as 'liberal' or 'conservative' in the Republican party. There seems to be a real possibility of the Republican party becoming known as the 'conservative party'. With the 'republican' dropping out, this is significant in that there is no 'republican' (brand name) in the race, and it is truly a liberal versus a conservative.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The wonderful thing known as 'conventional wisdom' says that if people in one particular political party attempt to make the party 'pure', more often than not that party ends up losing, both members and elections. However, with the country becoming more and more polarized (and both sides I believe are at fault), it does not seem to be out of the realm of possibility for there to be a realignment of at least the Republican party, to where it is truly a conservative party. The Democratic party seems to be continuing its' movement as a liberal party, and so the end will be polarization. And those who don't fit into those will be 'stuck in the middle' with who? Most likely the dissatisfied and disaffected.

Let me off, I'm done

I think the world can just keep going on without me. There have been so many times when I just get either so frustrated with the world or how it works (or doesn't) and how people seem to think the best thing to do is to think the worst of others it seems like I'm on one of those fair rides and you feel like you're ready to deal with something else.

I guess the best way to put things so you can understand is this: Whenever I read something and I have a less than charitable thought about motives or the like, I immediately stop myself by saying 'I shouldn't be so cynical.' The problem is, so often nowadays it seems like my cynical thoughts are right in line with what the people are actually doing. All you have to do is look at any debate going on today. Whether it's health care, recent deaths of well known people in government and politics, indiscretions of politics, you look at what's being said, have a cynical thought, and it comes to pass.

In health care, we've seen how people are using town halls and other forums to 'make the other side look bad'. Is that really necessary? Can't anyone have a discussion or disagreement simply on the merits of their own position? Or does no one have their own position anymore? Looking at recent deaths, the death this week of Senator Ted Kennedy caused many people to immediately predict Congressional Democrats would use the occasion to drum up an emotional appeal to pass health care (I say health insurance) reform. It didn't take 24 hours for those who were originally called 'crass' and 'cynical' to be proven correct. One shouldn't be surprised. Wasn't the funeral of Julius Caesar used to further political ambitions?

Anyway, I'm done with the world right now proving to be the worst instead of the best. So, please stop the merry go round, I want to get off.

Sorry about the venting. I guess I just needed to get it aired out.

Is North Korea the defiant child of the world?

North Korea's actions this past week have been thoroughly examined and opined in other places, so I'm not going to go into great depth other than to give a quick recap. They have shot at least (by my count) five missiles of different types, conducted a nuclear test (not definitively confirmed), and threated to back out of the armistice that has been in place since 1953. What has been the general response towards North Korea in all this? 'Come back to the negotiating table'. My response to that suggestion is: or what? There's no reason for North Korea to negotiate right now. There are no consequences for their actions. At this point they can pretty much do what they want and the most they're going to get is hand-wringing. The best illustration I can use as comparison is parents see this with children. Children at one time or another will deliberately disobey the parent as a test. They are trying to see what they can get away with, and for how long. They're also testing the parent: are the rules and boundaries you told me the actual rules? I've seen it multiple times, and the way to shut it down is to look the child in the eye and say 'you sure you want to do that? Okay, but there will be severe consequences', and name them. After that, if the child continues, you follow through. You let the child know they're crossing a line they don't want to cross.

In this case, for North Korea, the consequences cannot be economic sanctions, or similar threat which really won't hurt. Using those methods is essentially telling North Korea 'we really don't mean what we say. But we'd appreciate it if you did what we told you.' There will be no respect from North Korea, and they'll eventually turn into the bully. Making noise and threats whenever they want to get their way. If I were in charge for a day (I know it'll never happen but just let me pretend, okay?), the method I would use with North Korea would probably be something on the lines of 'you want to try to fire a nuclear missile at the US or Japan? Okay, but it will be the last thing you do as a county.' Is that the most diplomatic method? No, I know it isn't. But sometimes diplomacy doesn't work, and you answer a threat with a threat. See who backs down. We've done it before with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will we ever do it again? I don't see the current government doing something like that.

Supreme Court Debate?

Well, we finally have a nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter. With the President's choice of Sonya Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, there have been many different reactions and comments made. One aspect of the whole circus/dog and pony show (whatever you want to call it), has caught my attention is what people have said about whether or not we can even question the nominee. These comments range from 'you really can't object to her, because she's a woman and she's hispanic and if you do your a racist sexist pig' to 'she's an activist judge who uses race so we need to question her judicial qualities'. My own personal view on the nomination is: from what I've seen, heard and read, I'm not impressed. While many people praise her personal qualities and the fact she was previously confirmed to serve on the circuit court, to me those are only secondary to the discussion. What little I've seen and read of her legal mind and opinions leaves me with the impression she's not suited to serve on our nation's highest court. She may well be confirmed, and end up on the bench. If that's the case, I don't think the court will be better for it.

People who use the argument that objecting to her is the equivalent of racism are basically shutting down discussion and dissent. It used to be people could discuss the merits of a person without accusations of racism, bigotry, and partisanship being brought up. These days, we apparently don't have the mental acumen to be able to perform this task. In this case, the charges were brought up before the discussion even began. One local talk radio host jokingly referred to her at least once as 'the appointed one of the anointed one'. I wonder how many people seriously think that way?

This is a serious issue. If she is to take a seat on the Supreme Court, her gender and ethnicity have no bearing. How she approaches things judicially, her legal opinions, and indeed her opinions on being a judge do have bearing. I think everyone needs to keep this in mind. Resorting to accusations shows shallowness of intellect and could even indicate an attempt to cover something up. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'I think they doth protest too much'.

Some people seem to believe this will be the court fight that is the reverse of the Robert Bork nomination in 1987, when how people are chosen for the Supreme Court will change again. If that's the case, then in my opinion, it will quickly come to the point when no one will want to be nominated for any federal court because the process isn't worth the trouble.

economics and automobiles

This week (and today as well) we see the impending the bankruptcy of General Motors. It brings the country's focus back to the automakers and (in my opinion more importantly) how both GM and Chrysler are currently and for the foreseeable future subject to the dictates of the government. I mean this as even moreso than in the past (emission standards, safety standards, etc.), where the government will be telling these companies what kind of cars to make and maybe even how many. This is not a situation we as a country want to see. This shows the difference between the market economy of the past and the communist (government-run) economy we (by all indications) are moving towards. If anyone thinks this cannot happen hasn't been paying attention. Any automobile made today for driving in the United States needs to meet safety, emission, and fuel efficiency standards. We are being regulated more and more each day.

There may already be some indications of our government exerting its influence on the automakers. One is currently being looked at by a blogger on Redstate (just one of multiple blogs I read), as to whether or not certain Chrysler dealers were 'closed' based on which party they supported by monetary donations. Of course denials abound from Chrysler and the government that this never took place, however, when you look at which dealerships were closed, how well they were doing, and add in their political contributions, the 'appearance of impropriety' begins to show. Now if the implication is true, it's not just government influence on an industry, it's punishment for your political beliefs, and a 'back door' way to shut down opposition without directly attacking the first amendment. This should increase our vigilance, if we care about protecting our way of life.

The other indication comes in the form of oil and gas prices. We're in a down economy (recession or maybe the beginnings of depression depending on your point of view), and yet oil and gas prices are going up. You could argue it's a sign the economy's improving, but at this point nothing else indicates that. If you believe in conspiracies, you could argue the government is raising the oil and gas prices on purpose to drive people out of their current cars. What would they get? Why the 'new' fuel efficient and 'green' cars that will be made by the post-bankruptcy GM. That's if you believe in conspiracies.

I will continue to watch what goes on with interest. The automobile industry will, in this case, be a leading indicator of the future of our economy, government, and society. Admittedly, I will be watching with a certain degree of apprehension. If what we've seen so far is any indication, we can only look forward to more and more of a communist-style economy run by the government.