Tag Archives: Public Policies

by

Saith Me… Myth or History – Which do you Study?

People keep talking about the ills of our government, about our liberties being at risk and about how bad the nation is now. But I really wonder how many of them have ever studied any history – real history, the kind that goes beyond even the freshman level American History course of most colleges. Before they spout off about the loss of rights, do they really do their very best to understand the basis upon which those rights were created or do they simply agree with the masses screaming foul?

I often wonder if the propaganda material of 1770s and 1780s is all the people of today know about and whether they understand that not all the Founding Fathers agreed on the propaganda. The one thing they did seem to agree upon was creating a Constitution that did not hem us in but rather grew with us, adapted as we adapted, and outlived the political rhetoric of any one generation.

Lastly, I wonder if the spouting masses of today have any real idea of how much compromise those Founding Fathers put into not just the Constitution, but into the governance which then had to follow in order to provide for the protections the Constitution promised. Or how many times it took the threat of war before they would step down from their soapboxes and agree to compromise.

Maybe it is our turn to set aside the soapbox and pick up a scholarly history book, one that challenges our notions rather than simply tells the mythical side of the story.

by

Saith Me… To Stand not Fight

It is a good and noble thing to stand up for that in which you believe. Sometimes you may even need to fight for your beliefs, but remember when we choose to fight, we are seeking to change the will of others. Changing someone else’s will is not simply changing their mind, but changing their desire to resist the result you propose.

The decision to fight, to try to change someone’s will, should not be decided upon lightly.  Even a fight of words can result in harm and injury.  Before you start a fight, make sure your fight is for something in which you are willing inflict injury to achieve.  Be sure the thing you are willing to injure others over has a great enough value that it will offset the damage you will cause.

We can stand on principles without resorting to a fight, but to do so we much have respect for the principles upon which others stand. In almost all cases, it will be better to stand than to fight.  It is a profound task to figure out the exceptions.

by

Saith Me and My Son… Fear

Fear is the easiest way to distract people from seeing issues clearly. It creates “something worse” and thereby allows bad to be perceived as good.

….

 

 

 

….

Is it a good thing when your kids start arguing with you as to whom the credit for pithy ponderings should go?

by

What history will teach us…

What history will teach us…

I recently saw a meme that defined treason as including giving aid to an enemy. It started me thinking about the debate over foreign aid and the role it plays in diplomacy. While I certainly agree that foreign aid must be scrupulously administered and should not be simply a default in the national budget, I disagree on the implication of who one might call our enemy*.

Interestingly, during the years between WWI and WWII the United States, while not enemies with Great Britain, saw Great Britain as being the greatest potential for threat to US security and prosperity**, second only was the rising threat of Japan. These threat assessments were based on the notion that with Germany having been weakened after WWI, a naval, and thereby commercial threat was only really viable by Great Britain and Japan.

Yet, when France fell and Great Britain became bombarded, President Roosevelt devised a scheme to aid Great Britain despite US isolationist rhetoric and congressional policy. So does that mean Roosevelt committed treason by helping a potential threat? Or does it simply mean that an unstable region, a region lacking a balance of power poses a greater threat to US security and prosperity than the potential threat of any one nation?

History teaches us that diplomacy and national policy is not as clear as political talking heads would like us to believe.  I really don’t think history will record much of the opinion of the talking heads, rather history will view the intent, implementation, and result of policy. Then history will most likely teach us we were fools to listen to the talking heads in the first place.

 

 

* enemy is defined as a hostile nation or state. The presence of hostile factions does not make the state an enemy.  Just as the US cannot universally control the ideas and actions of its citizens, the US cannot expect another nation to do that we cannot or will not do ourselves.

** National Security and Prosperity Interests was the terminology used prior to the Cold War when the language changed to National Security Interests.

by

Saith Me… The Hardened Heart

When the hearts of the many are hardened and are accepting of hate, it is then there will be woe among mankind and iniquity will prevail.
– Pioneer Lady

 

Gandhi described anger and intolerance as being the enemies of correct understanding, but they are also the enemies of reason.  They spread misunderstanding.

People will disagree on principles, or on the details of an issue, but that is not the same as standing on misinformation, calling it truth, and asserting all others are wrong in their beliefs.  Correct understanding therefor is not just the ability to understand, but the ability to understand the opposition and the ability to reason rather than simply rationalize.

 

 

 

by

Pondering National Prosperity and Security

I woke up this morning with an odd thought…

Are national educational issues, national health issues, national economic issues, and national security issues all intertwined?

Can we have one without the others?

A thing to ponder…

 

Trivia – prior to NSC 68, “National Prosperity and Security” was the vocabulary of politicians and not “National Security.”

by

We Need a Hero

I went to bed last night thinking how sad it is the way people go about fitting in with a crowd, often putting down others to do so.  Popularity is a mighty strong enticement for our youth.  We try to teach them to ‘be themselves’ and not copy the behavior of others.

As adults, do we follow the same advice?  In our attempts to gain the favor of one group, do we feel we must offend someone else?

As youth, our influence on others is often limited, either by locale or by relative anonymity, but our adult influence is often greater than we realize.

It is probably safe to say that we all slip-up time to time by putting down others in order to fit in with a crowd, but do we take the time to rectify our actions?  When we get caught, do we apologize? Do we do the very thing we ask our children to do?  Or do we feel we are justified in our speech or actions more than our children are?

During an election, much will be said that will irritate others.  Much will be said for the shear campaign value of it.  This is, and has been, part of our political culture, but is there a line we cross when we move from putting down our opponent and instead put down our opponent’s followers, the very people we want to represent?

While Mitt Romney is the latest to be called out for this, by no means is he the first to attempt gaining favor of a smaller group of citizens by insulting a larger group. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am going to conclude that if one of his children or grandchildren acted in a similar manner, he would require them to make amends.  This is probably the greatest reason for my sadness today.  For as a fellow Christian, especially as a fellow Mormon, and certainly as a fellow citizen, I recognize most of us make mistakes such as Romney’s, and most of us struggle to make amends.

The expectation of doing what is right should be an equal expectation placed on all of us, but sometimes I wonder if it is of greater importance for those with a greater audience to hold a higher standard of themselves than they might expect of others.  Making mistakes is part of human nature, but amending one’s mistakes is somewhat divine. It shows greater character and a greater humility.  It should not be seen as a weakness, while often it is labeled as such by detractors.  But these same detractors are the ones who would require we gain their favor by insulting and offending in the first place.

So I went to bed last night feeling sad, but this morning I woke up with a song running through my head, a song that says, “I need a hero!”  Maybe instead of counting the number of mistakes a person makes in their life, we should spend more time evaluating their reaction once they have made a mistake. For a hero is not a perfect person, but is rather a humble person willing to serve others and who attempts to make amends for their mistakes. For while they may often seem to fall short of our standards, they should never fall short of their standards without making amends.

Other YouTube versions of Holding Out For A Hero:

Shrek Version

Tribute for Peace (this one chokes me up, but it is a must see)

If anyone can find a link to the Paramount VHS promo, the romantic one not the violent one, could you please share it with me.  

by

Saith Me… To My Face

If you want to insult me, call me names, or disparage me in any way, do so to my face, please.

And if you are a politician, you, more than anyone, should understand if it can only be shared with “some” of the people and not “all” of the people, then you should not share it at all. Especially when you are asking to represent ALL of the people and not just some of them.

This of course does not mean you can’t have closed door meetings or share your opinions with your advisers and staff. Because WE THE PEOPLE do not need to know everything you think or do, but if you plan to share it with some of us, share it with all of us, because that is the respectful way to do business.

by

Meet the Mooch

I have just found out that I am a mooch on the American Dream.

Worse yet, I am a mooch many times over: a military wife living off of a government pay check and receiving government healthcare, a stay-at-home mom not paying taxes, and a recipient of government assisted education. (But at least I don’t mooch off of the public school system with my kids, right?)

And here, I thought that by supporting my husband, and raising my kids to be productive members of society, I was part of the American Dream. But maybe I was just a dreaming.

Maybe I was wrong all along in not realizing the only American Dream that matters is how large your bank account is when you die?

Or maybe the other guys have it all wrong…