Tag Archives: Elections

by

Win or Lose: It really is how you play the game!

In a politically heated world, it is easy to forget that it is not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

When we focus too much on a goal of winning, we may falter in our understanding of what we perceive we are up against.  It becomes too easy to for us to let emotion sway our reason, sway our perception of truth.  In the end whether we win or whether we lose, we still must be able to move forward.

When we become polarized in our ideas of right and wrong, ferocious in our belief that the other side is not only the opponent, but desires the destruction of all we hold dear; when this happens we run the risk of our own ruin. For no matter the outcome of the election, the world will no longer meet the standards we have set, no politician will ever make us happy, and no law will satisfy our thirst for a sense of perfection. Politicians will promise, platforms will declare, but in the end disappointment will be our companion if we do not learn that the political apparatus cannot supply a sense of wellbeing. Only we can supply that feeling, that sense of prosperity, that sense of safety.

When we vote in an election, especially when the election is close, we must focus on the value of the process and not simply on the outcome we desire. This will ensure that win or lose, we will feel good about ourselves, our efforts, and our opponents, once the game is over.

by

My Two Cents – Politically

My ability to affiliate with a political party has always been constrained.  My grandfather, who served two term as a county commissioner when I was young, was a Democrat in a predominately Republican area.  He was a farmer, and while he was staunchly Democrat at the local level, he never voted Democrat for president.  He said, “They always mess up the agriculture policy.”

Well I am not a farmer, and I have struggled, until recently with the idea of being politically affiliated.  I don’t struggle any longer because I have embraced being an Independent. Some may say that I can’t make up my mind, but that is not the case.  I am a moderate who like to choose each election who I think is the best candidate.

So 2012 – I have tried to keep an open mind and evaluate the candidates based on their wisdom, advisors and when possible, their policies.  I believe that if the “new guy” can’t improve upon the “old guy” in office, then leave the “old guy” in  to finish his job.  (Luckily we do have term limits on the office of the president).

So while, many things have bothered me about Mitt Romney over the election cycle, none have disqualified him until the convention this week.  The sum of his faults tipped the scales during his convention speech, specifically when his Cold War rhetoric resonated as he spoke of foreign policy, and when he projected the idea that only ‘for-profit’ business experience was of value.

So here is my two cents worth for the record.

I am beginning to really think all Romney knows is money and money friends. None of his political and certainly none of his Foreign Policy decisions seem to be coming from a well thought out position. He seems to be cutting and pasting pieces of past presidential ideas and creating a Frankenstein. Now if he is so good at making money, why doesn’t he A) tell us how he plans to create 12 million jobs, and B) higher some younger, more modern advisers. (Also, why didn’t he make more jobs with all his money, while in the private sector?)

He projects the idea that only expensive old guys are worth the investment and as advisors. This seems to be completely ill conceived when it is the ideas of the old that keep us in this economic state. The economics of the 50’s and even the 80’s can’t possibly work for the world today. Have they all forgotten that A) the baby boomers all had kids, exponentially increasing our population, B) the baby boomers are not retiring fast enough to open at least some of the jobs needed to decrease the unemployment, C) that the world has changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and D) the economies of the past were bolstered by military buildup. On that note, the military buildup created jobs, and during the Cold War we were a major exporter of military tech/machine. While the Cyber Technology growth helped offset the decrease in military sales, it could not replace all the jobs.

No one argues that the economy is in a less than happy state, but just as I don’t think Cold Warriors should be deciding Foreign Policy, I don’t think that “old” thinkers should be steering the nation’s economic or legal courses.

Oh, and I seriously question his judgment when he surrounds himself with press advisers who can’t keep their mouths clean and respectful, especially in public.  Especially since I am rather familiar with the standards of his faith.

Wisdom is for advising, but youth is for innovation. Romney seems stuck in the old – not wisdom, just old.

So this is my two cents, I appreciate the courage Romney has shown in his decision to run for office.  I value his desire to serve, but if he wins, I anticipate more war and less peace.  For while the economy is struggling, and innovation is required, he does not seem to understand that we cannot return to the 80’s where strong rhetoric was backed by huge military development, constant fear, and little sense of security.  The world is filled with conflict, but the policies of the Cold War do not work for the world we live in today.  He should ask President G.W. Bush about this, because right or wrong, his administration proved war had changed, and the ability to bolster our economy through war has changed as well. We cannot go back and Romney does not seem to know how to go forward.

by

Cold War Syndrome & Cold War Hero Syndrome

Is it possible that the Baby Boomer generation all suffer from a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? That their youth filled with bomb shelters and threats of communist infiltration has left them traumatized. Do they suffer from Cold War Syndrome – the fear that we are in grave peril whenever we do not have an enemy inciting strong militaristic talk from our own leaders.

This syndrome includes the strong desire to stockpile weapons, have a National Offense Policy rather than a National Defense Policy, and the belief that anyone who disagrees with us is ideologically evil. Symptoms include, bullying our friends and threatening any who votes against our National Interests. Happiness and a sense of security is only achieved when the world tells us we are the best, most beloved, and bows at our feet.

The 80’s generation is often exempt from this syndrome because of the mentality that war equals total destruction, and our own leaders are just as dangerous as those of our enemy. However, there are a few who were overly influenced by movies like Red Dawn and have subsequently developed an off shoot of the syndrome called Cold War Hero Syndrome.  This syndrome is similar to its parent syndrome, but deviates by placing a stronger belief on the idea that huge, home-based stockpiles of weapons will save the day.

It is highly possible that there is a genetic factor in the developing of Cold War Syndrome and Cold War Hero Syndrome. Evidence, while not conclusive, indicates that the syndrome is more prevalent in family units and therefore maybe passed from one generation to the next.

Fortunately these syndromes do have a cure.  Education, Community Service, Cultural Diversity, International Travel, and Loving Thy Neighbor as Thyself all reduce, if not eliminate, the fear that perpetuates these syndromes.  Humility and a desire to work with rather than dominate others, also helps.

by

Is the Cold War Really Over?

I remember how excited everyone was when the Cold War ended. Today, I researched about how hard it has been to leave the policies of the Cold War behind for a certain group of politicians. Bush was a big one to use Cold War rhetoric and policies. His advisers were entrenched in the Cold War. They saw phantoms at every turn, but missed the phantoms with a strategy.

Tonight I heard more of that same Cold War rhetoric, even directed at an old enemy, simply because I wasn’t smart enough to turn off the tv. The enemies have changed slightly but it seems we still need to have an enemy to feel good about ourselves. Still think we must define our power and our strength by the suppression of others.

Ironic how we don’t want to be the world’s police force, but at the same time we want to tell the world what they can and cannot do. All in the name of our national interests.

Today, I read an interesting article about how we have been at war since 1776. Do we know how to get along? Do we know how to be free without constant war? Must we play the international bully to feel good about who we are? Must we fear the world in order to feel protected? Does national defense always have to include international conflict? Is there no other way to lead, participate, or show strength?

What is wrong with being part of an international community? What is wrong with working together?  Yes, there will be war, will be bad people committing atrocious acts against humanity, but must we become so afraid that we justify Machiavellian preemptive strikes? Justify being the international bully?  How did we get this way, and how do we get off this path?

Will the Cold War ever be over if we continue to live in a perpetual state of fear and distrust?  Because the Cold War was not man against man, or even nation against nation – it was ideology against ideology, and we still can’t seem to understand that not everyone has to be like us in order to be a good neighbor. We can disagree and still work together dealing with real threats and not perceived ones.

The days of bolstering our economy through military buildup are over. New solutions must be found, and they won’t be found chasing phantoms. Whenever we chase phantoms, we lose. Phantoms will use our fears against us, and there is no weapon that will stop them.  Like the natural disaster, phantoms and their evil can reach us through even the best protections. Waging a Cold War of containment or annihilation will not stop the phantoms, but will cause us to run ourselves into the ground.

by

Pitch-fork Wielding Assimilated Riots

Before joining a revolution, make sure you know the intent and the cause.

There is a difference between a revolution and a pitch-fork wielding, assimilated riot.  One is based on seeking a better world through freedoms and diversity of thought.  One is based on holding back freedoms and diversity; restricting thought.

Make sure your desire to protest, march and fight is based on a clear understanding of the objective, intent and goal.  That you are not simply an assimilated, crowd following, pitch-fork wielding puppet of someone else’s plan to hold back diversity out of fearful ignorance.

Agency is the freedom to choose.  It is unwise to choose assimilation over knowledge, and choice of thought. It is unwise to give your freedom up so that you may fit in with the crowd.  For you never know when the mob will turn on you, and the riot will be in your backyard.

 

see also: Why Do We Go to War?, To Be Informed or To Be Educated,

 

 

 

 

by

Polling Questions

Is refusing to answer a poll question equated to the intent to abstain from voting, or is it seen as simply not believing anyone has a right to know how you vote?

How accurate are phone call polls when many people simply hang up? If only those entrenched in their party take the time to answer, are we actually polling the entire voting populace?

The undecided may not be the only ones not answering the questions.

by

Saith Me… Understanding Your Opponent

Understanding your opponent is vital, misunderstanding your opponent is detrimental to success. Information inaccurately sourced or evaluated can lead to great struggle and strife; can lead to confusion and defeat. Avoid quick assessment or popular belief, dig deeper and be prepared to admire your opponent even as you prepare to defeat them.

 

by

To Be Informed or To Be Educated

The citizens of the United States are distracted by political campaign information. They are embroiled in heated debate over healthcare. They argue about getting rid of the immigrants who long to support our economic and social system when they should be concentrating focus on the dangerous criminals who are the real threat. Therefore, they are missing the warning signs of other problems on the horizon.  One such international problem can be found just across the southern border as Mexicans go to their polls.

It is doubtful the President or the experienced members of congress are distracted from the international problems. Looking outside of the US, one sees that the US is not the only nation struggling with a poor economy, immigration issues, international crime and terrorism. What kind of a future does the US face, if a majority the ‘experienced’ leaders in DC are replaced by a whole new crew of 1st timers? Especially if the only agenda they bring with them is on the US economy, and on the US healthcare, and on the US borders.

The origins of US immigration policies are found in the early 1900’s during the time when isolationism was still being valued as good US policy. Isolationist policies, however, did not prove effective in the early 1900’s, they simply made the US late-comers for two wars for which joining was unavoidable.  In 1942 the internment policy of rounding up anyone “suspicious” was beyond contemptible, but it was policy.  Fear and a tremendous feeling of suffering dictated US domestic and foreign policies in the first half of the 20th century.

However at the same time the US was closing its borders, there was a social push to help its poor and downtrodden citizens.  Labor laws, workers unions, Social Security and legislation similar to the National School Lunch Act, all played a role in post war successes.  Due to economic policies during WWII, employer based health insurance became widely offered as well.   It was determined that prosperity was much easier to achieve if the nation was healthy rather than unhealthy. There was a need for the government to act, and the power of big government began to replace the power of big business.

Now a hundred years later, immigration and health care issues are at the center of US politics again.  Citizens are beginning to fear “others” and focusing on national issues while avoiding international issues.

Progress has been made but fear, misinformation, and “money” backed political theater will not keep the progress moving forward.  Talk of the “good ol’ days” is just talk.  If you are blessed to know survivors of those days, ask them about epidemics, outhouses, food shortages and social inequality.  It is a human trait to reminisce of the ol’ days. Selective memory is common, some prefer focusing on the good and some on the bad.  The citizens of the United States need to evaluate the good and the bad, the effective and the ineffective.

It is sad that with easy access to so much information, so many are misinformed.  A random comment posted concerning an editorial on the Supreme Court Healthcare ruling claimed, “We are becoming like the USSR.”  Many would like to blame this misinformed opinion on a failing educational system, but that would be unfair.  That would be like saying Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC are to blame for all the ignorance in society. To quote a common saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, on that same reasoning, “cable news doesn’t make ignorance, people choose ignorance”.

Ignorance is conquered when an individual seeks information, evaluates the information by comparing it to other information, and then forms an opinion. This is how an individual becomes educated.  This how parents should be teaching their children. This is what voters should be doing before casting a vote.  This is what politicians should encourage.

While some journalists still prescribe to providing information rather than opinion, it is not up to them to educate us.  It is up to the individual to become educated and not simply informed.