We're deep in the throes of an election cycle now, and it's all I can do to bite my tongue.
Yes, I'll admit it... I tend strongly toward liberal ideas. That doesn't mean I LIVE them. My life is actually lived very conservatively because I choose to align it as much as I can with the tenets of my LDS (Mormon) faith. However, I make a conscious effort to think in such a way that my beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others to have their own beliefs. That is, believe it or not, one of the basic tenets of my faith.
Here's how it plays out for me. I find abortion to be abhorrent. However, I know that many women find themselves in circumstances I cannot begin to imagine. So, even though I believe abortion to be wrong, I understand that is my personal belief, born of my personal faith. And it is a faith-based position that is NOT shared by everyone. Thus, I must leave procreation decisions up to the woman who is facing them. Only she knows her circumstances. Only she knows her position on abortion. Only she can make decisions for herself because SHE has agency over all her own choices (another of my faith's tenets). Because of this, I would never fight to overturn Roe v Wade.
So what in the world does this have to do with our current political climate? Too many of the Republican objectives are intended to directly interfere with the rights of others. They seem mean-spirited to me. The goal of overturning Roe v Wade or of preventing same-sex marriage is a matter of circumscribing someone else's life based on religious convictions that other person may not hold. What would those who rail against same-sex marriage have to say if they were faced with being required to wear a burqua? Outrage about their rights being infringed would ensue, and justly so. None of us should be forced to adhere to religious principles which we do not hold.
In the meantime, I will continue to live my life as closely as I can to LDS principles, but I won't be voting for Mr. Romney.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, July 13, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
For goodness sake!
A friend posted this image:
I don't know where it came from, so I have no way of providing "credit" to the one who deserves it. Those who responded to the post were of the general opinion that President Obama is the worst president ever and is literally destroying our nation. One of them went so far as to remark that she and her husband "cried when we saw this the first time." Well, I'm finding that attitude less and less acceptable and felt the need to respond to the image and the posts. Here's what I wrote:
And I cry because this is yet another image attempting to divide our nation. Yes, the Constitution is under attack, but many of those on both sides of the artificial ideological divide in that image have had their hands in the effort to tear it apart. The problems we face today did not spring fully formed from the presidency of Mr. Obama; they were born and have been nurtured over decades.
I vividly recall the Civil Rights conflicts of the 60s. That was a time when most of the nation believed it was wrong to extend Constitutional protections to others for no reason but the color of their skin and fought the president vehemently for insisting on equal rights. Later thoughtfulness prevailed, and we understood the Constitution is supposed to protect all citizens.
I recall the scandals of Nixon and Clinton and the less publicized scandals involving so many of those chosen to lead this nation. We survived all of them. President Obama is a human being and will and has made errors, but so has every other president who has ever held the office. There is no need to extoll President Obama beyond merit, but neither is there a need to vilify him unnecessarily.
Our nation faces so many difficult challenges. We need to work together to find long-term solutions for those problems.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
It's not so black and white
A FB friend posted a link to an article written by Ed Will. She found it "interesting" but made no comment on Will's statements. So, I thought about how I might engage Mr. Will if I were talking with him about his points, and figured my thoughts would go something like this:
According to Will (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150422574527734&set=a.98301942733.92939.541152733&type=1&theater):
“1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
My thought: No wealthy person is in danger of being legislated out of existence, but the poor often need protective legislation so they can survive. The wealthy receive many hidden and explicit benefits unavailable to the poor. If their gratitude for those benefits was passed along in the form of jobs, etc. there would be no need for protective legislation. As Henry Ford noted, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” He recognized the success of his business depended upon a population earning enough to be able to purchase his products (even if all his business ventures were not so noble).
“2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
My thought: This statement contains the assumption that only those who work give, and only those who do not work receive. I have worked beside migrant laborers who put me to shame with their industry. They would never be anything but poor regardless of how many hours of back-breaking work they were willing to do each day. And most of them were paid so poorly they qualified for government assistance. I’ve also worked beside those who had been given the best education, the best opportunities, and put in the least amount of effort to have lives of wealth beyond my imagination. It takes more than a single broad brush to paint a masterpiece.
“3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
My thought: This statement implies only the “haves” are being cheated. Michele Bachman expressed this idea more explicitly when she said, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” (http://blogs.wsj.com/
A much greater concern should be the many wasteful and immoral areas of spending by our governments, federal, state, and local, that are gifted to various regions and programs based not on need but on greed. I am an American, and I support our government, so I am willing to pay my fair share even when I do not believe the funds are being used properly. As long as I have a home and food and the amazingly comfortable life that I have, I would rather be found guilty of giving too much rather than too little.
“4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!”
My thought: This statement makes little sense. Our nation is not about “multiplying wealth.” It is, however, based on a concept of fairness that extends even to the realm of opportunity. Those who have been blessed to receive a great deal should be willing to share accordingly; their blessings do not always come because of their hard work any more than a really hard working person is always assured of achieving monetary success.
“5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
My thought: This is an unfair characterization that half our nation worked hard to earn its wealth and the other half is lazy and sucking the lifeblood of those who have earned what they have. The truth is there are some taking advantage of the system to get government handouts, but the wealthy are as likely as the poor to be in that category. The difference is we call handouts to the poor “welfare” but handouts to the rich “subsidies.”
About 8% of the population received ANY sort of welfare assistance, but only 1.7% received more than 50% of its income from welfare. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
btw, in my opinion there is NO person who can possibly be worth the average $31,232 per DAY 299 CEOs of S&P 500 companies get. And, if one limits their work week to 5 days, that average jumps to $43,846 per DAY. (http://www.aflcio.org/
I am deeply disturbed by the course of our nation. We seem to be marching headlong into behaviors and attitudes I find inconsistent with the life I want to live. It's harder and harder to focus on compassion and service when the national focus seems to be more on individual materialism and power consolidation, and I see that as a problem of all political groups. We are less and less willing to see the world from the other person's point of view, and that makes us less and less willing to compromise (not on principles but on actions and directions).
According to Will (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150422574527734&set=a.98301942733.92939.541152733&type=1&theater):
“1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
My thought: No wealthy person is in danger of being legislated out of existence, but the poor often need protective legislation so they can survive. The wealthy receive many hidden and explicit benefits unavailable to the poor. If their gratitude for those benefits was passed along in the form of jobs, etc. there would be no need for protective legislation. As Henry Ford noted, “There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” He recognized the success of his business depended upon a population earning enough to be able to purchase his products (even if all his business ventures were not so noble).
“2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
My thought: This statement contains the assumption that only those who work give, and only those who do not work receive. I have worked beside migrant laborers who put me to shame with their industry. They would never be anything but poor regardless of how many hours of back-breaking work they were willing to do each day. And most of them were paid so poorly they qualified for government assistance. I’ve also worked beside those who had been given the best education, the best opportunities, and put in the least amount of effort to have lives of wealth beyond my imagination. It takes more than a single broad brush to paint a masterpiece.
“3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
My thought: This statement implies only the “haves” are being cheated. Michele Bachman expressed this idea more explicitly when she said, “Part of the problem is today, only 53% pay any federal income tax at all; 47% pay nothing.” (http://blogs.wsj.com/
A much greater concern should be the many wasteful and immoral areas of spending by our governments, federal, state, and local, that are gifted to various regions and programs based not on need but on greed. I am an American, and I support our government, so I am willing to pay my fair share even when I do not believe the funds are being used properly. As long as I have a home and food and the amazingly comfortable life that I have, I would rather be found guilty of giving too much rather than too little.
“4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!”
My thought: This statement makes little sense. Our nation is not about “multiplying wealth.” It is, however, based on a concept of fairness that extends even to the realm of opportunity. Those who have been blessed to receive a great deal should be willing to share accordingly; their blessings do not always come because of their hard work any more than a really hard working person is always assured of achieving monetary success.
“5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
My thought: This is an unfair characterization that half our nation worked hard to earn its wealth and the other half is lazy and sucking the lifeblood of those who have earned what they have. The truth is there are some taking advantage of the system to get government handouts, but the wealthy are as likely as the poor to be in that category. The difference is we call handouts to the poor “welfare” but handouts to the rich “subsidies.”
About 8% of the population received ANY sort of welfare assistance, but only 1.7% received more than 50% of its income from welfare. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/
btw, in my opinion there is NO person who can possibly be worth the average $31,232 per DAY 299 CEOs of S&P 500 companies get. And, if one limits their work week to 5 days, that average jumps to $43,846 per DAY. (http://www.aflcio.org/
I am deeply disturbed by the course of our nation. We seem to be marching headlong into behaviors and attitudes I find inconsistent with the life I want to live. It's harder and harder to focus on compassion and service when the national focus seems to be more on individual materialism and power consolidation, and I see that as a problem of all political groups. We are less and less willing to see the world from the other person's point of view, and that makes us less and less willing to compromise (not on principles but on actions and directions).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Testing a hypothesis
A hypothesis doesn't have to be huge. Here's a light-hearted theory that may have interesting implications for political mavens. It's from Mother Jones, one of my favorite online reads. http://motherjones.com/riff/2010/07/elections-garden-good-and-evil
Pay close attention to the description of development of the hypothesis and the test that was created to test it. Finally, there's a cogent description of the findings and their potential use.
Pay close attention to the description of development of the hypothesis and the test that was created to test it. Finally, there's a cogent description of the findings and their potential use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)