Category Archives: Political Notions
Common Sense ???
Put aside political affiliation and hear the truth of where political polarization is taking us.
“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail,” she said.
“As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern, and I believe there are unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate. I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America.”
Senator Olympia Snowe February 2012
There Must Be a Better Way
I am deeply saddened that during a time when our youth are being bombarded by so many ill winds, good organizations with a desire to help our youth are under attack. Sadly too often the attacks come from politically driven individuals who have done little to inform themselves before slandering the organizations.
This, I believe, is the case in the recent attacks on the Girl Scouts of America. In my blog Entitlement is a Symptom, I discuss the benefits of having a community of loving adults aiding in the development of our youth. I believe that this is a role in which organizations like Girl Scouts can play a beneficial part.
To read one account of some “scary” activity or association should not make us publicly condemn the whole. Nor should we read an account of something “disagreeable” happening in a worldwide organization with similar name, and assume it applies to our local group. While everyone has a right to develop their own opinions, it is irresponsible to do a small bit of research, and then publicly criticize and condemn the whole.
When a public leader or politician lashes out at a group like Girl Scouts, the consequences can be far reaching. In just a few unkind or under-informed words, long term damage can occur. How sad is it then, when the effects trickle down and a young person in need no longer has available resources to help mold their futures in positive ways.
We are not a nation of “one size fits all” and this especially applies to ideological beliefs. We do not have to agree with every belief or principle of our neighbor. Our neighbor should not be labeled as someone evil just because they don’t vote the same way we do. There is enough real evil in the world without creating the perception of more.
The desire to slander an individual or a group based on our own precepts does not make us good people. Politicians need to remember that while calling names and slinging ideological mud might temporarily rally supporters, it does not make them likable. Worse yet, they are acting and sounding like lunatics and giving credibility to hatemongering. So in the end, their politically driven tirade results in a negative effect on the youth who need the resources provided by Girl Scouts and similar organizations, as well as in the encouragement of the radical ideology of hate.
There must be a better way.
Note: I considered adding links to articles detailing the nature of these attacks, but there were just too many of them. If you would like to read them, search “Girl Scouts Under Fire” and you will find many from which to choose.
Saith Me… Freedom or Free Stuff
Do not believe that cheap things do not cost someone a great deal. Or that the great bargain does not have hidden costs.
Most importantly, be careful not to trade freedom for seemingly free stuff. The price of freedom is too great to barter away on trinkets and temporary pleasures.
Political Spew – Who cleans it Up?
It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when there is so much information available so few politicians take the time to seek a balanced understanding of the issues they choose to use as sound bites, before they spew them. In the past when news took days to travel the nation, a politician could arguably spew crap and not have a wide spread stink fest. There was time to retract, dispute and rebut before the masses became aware of the crap and absorbed it as truth.
In a time when it takes minutes, if not seconds for news to travel, it is important for politicians to do more homework, have their staff do more homework, and be more informed before they speak. In a good debate you always know your opposition’s standpoint. You never go in with only half the argument. If you really want to win, you really have to be prepared.
When a politician spews crap, who is responsible to clean up the crap? When the sound bites and election is over, who will instruct the masses that the political rhetoric is just that – rhetoric and not reality?
In the good old days of politics, the candidates bashed each other, spewed misinformation, spun webs of confusion, and appeared to really dislike each other. In some cases they may truly have been adversaries, but in most cases once the campaigning was finished, they returned to respectful associates, if not friends.
This was how politics worked. Once the newspaper was thrown into the trash, and the world moved on, the masses went back to worrying about their own worlds and forgot most of the spew of the election. This is not the case now. When a candidate spews crap, it sticks around. Others add to it, littering the internet and cable channels with more crap. The piles become so large that they remain long after the election is over.
Over time and with more experience, the candidates become better educated on specific issues and often change to a more moderate stand, thereby becoming flip-floppers. It is then up to them to clean up, not just their previous spew, but all the crap heaped on top of it. Sadly the more they work to clean up the mess, the more they are painted as wishy-washy. So they often just let the crap stand, leaving us all to wither in the stink.
Attack the Test or Change the Culture
I read an article claiming presidential candidate Rick Santorum does not believe that health insurance should cover amniocentesis because the results often lead to abortion.
Yes amniocentesis has led to abortions, but it has also given parents an opportunity to prepare for children with special needs months before the child comes home from the hospital.
I have been blessed to know a couple mothers who truly valued this time to prepare. In one case, the mother was able to research her baby’s condition, prepare her home and family, sell her car and buy a minivan, and most especially prepare herself for the complications that might take her baby’s life.
She was encouraged to have an abortion many times during her pregnancy; her decision against abortion was questioned and often condemned by those in association with her. However, she stood firm. Her child was given a very slim chance of making it to full term and she prepared herself. Once he made it to term, he was given a very slim chance of survival and again she prepared herself. The well prepared mother took each day as a blessing and cherished every moment. She rallied her family around her and continued to educate herself and her family on what might come next. After nearly three years of being told her child might not survive, she invited all her supporters to her son’s second birthday party. He was a joy to watch, a blessing to all. He still is.
If insurance companies do not pay for this procedure, women are much less likely to undergo it. As with any procedure, it should be the woman’s choice. Comprehensive insurance should be comprehensive. It should leave the decision of which procedure is needed up to the doctor and the patient, not up to bureaucrats and accountants.
The discussion of abortions being linked to amniocenteses should not be centered on whether the procedure is covered; it should be centered on changing the medical community’s feelings that they should encourage abortion when the chances of “normal” life are slim for the child. This is what needs to change.
Abortion may be legal and may be in some cases be in the woman’s “best” medical interest, but to encourage it for the goal of limiting possible emotional suffering or struggle later on, should not be the outcome of amniocentesis. Amniocentesis is a test and while warring against it is easier than changing attitudes, it is not the solution but the cop-out.
Tit for Tat
During the recent congressional hearing on the issue of the whether President Obama had violated the first amendment by requireing Catholic hospitals to cover services such as birth control, Rep. Darrell Issa was reported by ABC News to have “pointed out that Democrats barred Republican witnesses when they were in the majority.”* This was his argument for why the panel was so one sided.
Well kudos to him for lowering the bar to kindergarten level politics. It is no wonder the public has such a low opinion of the Congress.
*Quoted from the ABC article Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception by Tom Shine
Is it Justified?
I have just read of the new law waiting to be signed by the governor of Virginia. It would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an transvaginal ultrasound. The first article I read was an outraged editorial opposing the law, but what upset me was the rhetoric of the proponents for this law. It reminded me of other times civil liberties have been violated by the government. I searched and found to my dismay that versions of this law were being considered in other states as well.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you stand on, I ask you to consider whether this rhetoric, and the intent behind the proposed Virginia law, is not an abhorrent violation of moral decency and civil liberty?
It appears that the intent of the forced transvaginal ultrasound is to ensure that a woman seeking an abortion fully understands what she has chosen to do. This seems reasonable on the surface, but as with any controversial issue, the debate around this policy has become embroiled with little reason and volumes of appalling opinion.
So I would like to pose three comparisons; and please bear in mind I am not trying to make light of any of these issues.
Okay so let’s assume you believe abortion is murder. A legalized murder, kind of like suicide is for all intents self-murder and is not illegal, mainly because you can’t prosecute the deceased for their own death. (I would hope you would not prosecute anyone for attempted murder if they failed to succeed with their suicide.) So you can’t stop the woman from seeking a legal murder, but you feel you must impress upon her that she is killing a living being. So you force her to recognize the beating heart by “penetrating” her body against her will. This violation is justified because you are trying to prevent a murder.
Next let say you would like to go on a hunger strike, maybe even to oppose abortion. So you set out to starve yourself until abortion is abolished. 
Others would try to talk you out of it, but to no avail. So the state steps in and force feeds you through a tube, preventing you from murdering yourself. This is justified because the state is preventing a murder, a self-murder, but still a murder.
Finally let say you are a terrorist and you are planning to murder many people because they teach principles that are abhorrent to your moral beliefs. You are captured but your partners are not. So the government steps in and tortures you so you will divulge information which might put to an end your murderous plans. This torture is justified because it might save many lives. The government recognizes that you really don’t fully understand the magnitude of your actions, that your moral beliefs are misguided and you are obviously incapable of fully understanding what you have chosen to do.
It is not my intent to weigh in on the abortion debate, again it is the rhetoric that upsets me. Have we learned nothing from our past? Is there not a better way to save lives or are Machiavellian ideas to always be the justification for the disregard of civil liberty?
Do You Like What Your School is Doing?
Eleven years ago, I felt the strong impression I needed to homeschool my two children. While the concept of homeschooling was not a new one for me, it was one I was sure I would not pursue for many valid reasons. However, I am not one to lightly disregard a deep, penetrating impression and so I began to reevaluate my conclusions.
Unlike many of the people deciding to homeschool at the time, I did not make the decision based on religious concerns, or concerns about the many “ills” a child might face in public school. No, I simply took a closer look at my pre-school enrolled son and realized that he was already getting frustratingly bored with the limitations of group learning.
Never have I doubted the rightness of my decision, although it has been a tough road to travel. The blessings have been boundless and the joy amidst the struggle, immense.
A sense of relief has now been added to my list of homeschooling emotions. For while, I did not make my decision based on the policies of public schools, I find myself immensely relieved that I homeschool after reading a few news articles concerning the public school world.
I decided to write this post and put this list together after my daughter came and asked me to check on a story about school lunches she heard on the radio this morning. I also Google searched for stories about absentee punishments, but in this case the stories that popped up were terribly sad and from other countries. On that topic, I do know of one Colorado school which has a policy in place whereby the student’s grade will be demoted each time the student misses class more than the allowed absent days. Furthermore, excused absences which are only accepted when signed by a doctor, also count against the total.
When did we, as parents, sign over our rights and accountability for our children to the school?
Do children have the same legal rights as adults or are their rights lessened just as their punishments for crimes are?
Does the government owe our youth an education if the taxpayers are paying for it?
Saith Me… Disassociation
The real separation of church and state appears when clergy (any denomination) entangle themselves into the political debate. The masses get nervous and disassociate themselves from the debate.
While we may agree with what the clergyman says, we really don’t like clergy influencing our laws or leaders, mainly since we didn’t elect them.
Pithy Ponderings 