Tag Archives: Public Policies

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

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

Frustration Boils Over

Living in a world where good news is hard to find can lead to a feeling of frustration. At some level, most rational humans recognize that tough times are part of life.  In our personal lives we overcome our frustration by looking for the positive amongst the negative, you know the rose in spite of the thorns.  We smile at puddle jumping kids, fuzzy kittens and babies. We take heart that our frustrations are temporary, knowing fully well that the negative will make the positive seem all the sweeter when it comes.

War, recession and disease can adversely affect the levels of individual frustration spurring the growth of collective frustration.  Collective frustration can then lead to action.  The American Revolution is a case of collective frustration turned to action.  Where collective frustration differs slightly from individual frustration is in the constant build up due to media coverage.

In a household, it does not benefit the members to harp on what cannot be changed or changed quickly.  A wise family soon learns to downplay the negative and highlight the positive.  Sadly this wisdom is not present in the collective populous, at least not today. While many would like to blame the media for the escalating the levels of public frustration, the truth is they are a creature that must be fed by others.  Corporations, lobbyists and yes, politicians feed the media beast.  In some cases the media is fat on the information being fed to them by those with an agenda, and in other cases they have become scavengers searching for tasty morsels dropped unintentionally by those in the limelight.  The public becomes the hungry chicks awaiting the food and keeping the demand high.  Regardless of how the media obtains their food, their information is the result of the attitudes and desires of those seeking fame, fortune or power.

With each negative story, the collective frustration grows.  Soon with pitchforks in hand, a mob forms looking to take action.  In 2008, frustration due to war and recession led many to vote for a change, but opposition to the voice of change was great.  Whether due to political affiliation, ideology, or chance of birth, rather than being a symbol of hope, the president became a symbol of division.  Even within his own party, unity was not achieved and hope diminished.  This led to a rally of frustration in 2010. Sadly, hope was not the objective of this rally, and more frustration was the result.

Now as we approach a new presidential election, frustration is boiling over as can be seen in the Chick-fil-a controversy.  Boycotting or supporting Chick-fil-a allows the frustrated populous a way to expend their frustration, and as long as the pitchforks are left at home, no lasting harm will be done.  Some will argue this point saying there will be an economic impact on the franchise, but it is just as likely to be a positive one as to be a negative one. When the rallies are over, maybe those mobilizing to protest or support Chick-fil-a will feel better, feel a sense of action and accomplishment when the day is done.  Hopefully this will allow them to feel they have been part of a positive movement. Maybe they will again be able to find the beautiful rose and not just the painful thorns. The pot of public frustration might then return to a simmer rather than a boil.

by

Who is the Boogieman?

While many may feel big government is the boogieman threatening to take away our freedoms, I worry that big business is the greater threat. Their money makes for a loud voice, and when they decide to buy speech, little seems to stop them.  Unlike a government which is bound by borders, they are international citizens purchasing and often dictating policies throughout the world.  They speak to an international crowd.  Their voices drown out reason.  Their products seduce us in to acceptance or denial.  They become our masters.

Okay, I really don’t think capitalistic doom awaits us around the corner, but it cannot be denied how corporate influence is at the heart of many of the economic ills plaguing us today.  It makes me wonder, how many of the attacks on the US government, or other national governments, are being paid for by corporations who love deflecting attention from their own role in our economic woes?

Accountability should be shared, but in a world where speech can be purchased by the highest bidder, it is far easier to buy out the market, to sell a pretty package, or promise a miraculous future rather than to acknowledge responsibility for risky mistakes and ventures.

While governments must try to care for their people, corporations are not bound by the same constraints.  It is easy to find examples of harmful or wasteful products being sold to the masses.  The boogieman is artful in his disguise and sells an enticing product, but beneath all the glamour, sparkle, and loud noise, the big business is focused only on one thing – profit.  People become expendable resources on a spreadsheet of greed.

These ponderings I share have been meandering through my brain for a while, but an article concerning Olympic marketing brought them to the forefront today. While much attention is directed at “draconian” governmental control, the underlying boogieman is the corporate sponsors who do not want even grandma to stitch the Olympic rings on a sweater, or junior to wear a competitor’s t-shirt.

Maybe this is why corporations are considered people by so many wealthy leaders.  If the corporations are not people, then governments no longer can say they serve the people.

So who is the boogieman, and who is stirring up the pitchfork wielding crowd? I will let you decide, for now I must return to playing with my techie toys, and eating my yummy junk food all while I get ready to watch the Olympics this weekend.

by

A Gun Owner on the Subject of Guns

It is said all the time here in the US that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  In light of the latest horrible episode depicting the horror wrought by one human on another, the saying should be changed.

“Guns may not kill people, but people carrying guns kill people.”
More people carrying guns will only lead to more dead, not less.  

People legally carrying guns into schools, parks, and theaters will not deter the senseless, horrific killings of innocents.  By all means, if you chose to own guns, do so, but do so at home, or on the gun range. Do so after receiving training. Do so with the knowledge that only nutcases talk about killing others.  Spouting off that you are prepared to kill another, even in self-defense, does not make you sound brave. It makes you sound foolish.

Many men and women train to protect the nation and its citizens with deadly force if needed, but I doubt they brag about the actual idea of killing another human being.  It is one thing to own a gun in honor of your Freedom to do so, it is completely different to own a gun with the intent to kill someone.  If you doubt this, ask a cop or a soldier.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lost their lives or their loved ones this week.  My heart aches for your sorrow.

by

Saith the Daughter … War

Women tend to make advancements in equality after every war, probably due to the decrease in the male population.  So therefore, war must be an evil female plot to get ahead. – A Theory to Ponder in the Future, saith the daughter.

by

Why Do We Go to War?

A friend of mine posed a question as to when war is justified on her Facebook wall.  The discussion that followed became focused on why those who have experienced the horror of war would ever justify the value of another war.  This is my take…

Human beings tend to enjoy being in groups.  Like with cows, the majority will stay with or nearby the herd.  Some will go rogue, wander away from the heard and chart a separate course, but most will stick to the herd.  Herd mentality dominates our social, political and economic lives.  A family unit is a herd, a political party is a herd, and school is certainly herd like.

Where human nature deviates from the cow nature is in the ability to reason.  Pecking order behavior, i.e. strong vs. weak and experienced vs. youthful, will still impact the human herd, but the human herd will reason or justify their actions and choices.

When confronted with enough data, evidence, propaganda or rhetoric, the human herd will justify a course of action.  They will justify a course of action in order to remain in the herd.  If they remain unconvinced that the course is justified, they may seek to separate from the herd, but will look for another herd to join.  The theory that there is safety in a crowd certainly applies to ideological fears of danger as well as physical fears of danger.

War is simply one of many courses mankind justifies. In contrast to peace, war is much easier to propagandize.  Fiery speeches, enflamed rhetoric, and poignant sound bites are easy to develop when fear and danger is in the mix.  The key to a successful herd is in maintaining a feeling of security in the group.  Threaten the group and it will rally together in defense.

So why do people who have experienced war agree to additional war?  Simply put, even the horrors of war cannot negate the justification of protecting the herd.  Although there are some who will develop such a strong sense of revulsion to conflict that they will suppress any feelings of self-preservation in order to avoid further conflict, they are rare and seldom include mothers.

A final point, no two people ever experience war with the same perception.  Even those participating in the same horror, experience the horror differently. This makes me think, strangely, of childbirth.  Why would anyone who nearly died in the delivery room ever seek another pregnancy?  The justifications of the blessings override the worry of fear, pain, and possibly death.  In the case of war, if the end result can be portrayed as being of greater value than the known casualties associated with war, then the herd can be persuaded to follow a course of war.