Ok, I guess Maybe I will both Read and Respond to a Link that the Soapster Left. It's sort of an Interesting Subject and the Article was Informative. I suppose that a lot of the People that are on the Web a lot already Know the Story of how the Statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map" is in actuality a Misquote, yet is this statement really that far Off, or are we just being Technical about Words again?
I Guess the Actual Quote was that "This Regime occupying Jerusalem must Vanish from the Page of Time". Don't You see? The meaning is really not as different as those who would like to Defend Ahmadinejad would like it to be. Just how is Vanishing from Time really so different then Vanishing from a Map? I guess that the Second Statement could Imply the Total Destruction of Israel, yet without the Proper Understanding of this English Phrase, and In Fact, in the Absence of Intense Emotional Reaction, it could mean nothing more than that Israel is no Longer Called Israel on the Map, so if we are going to be Technical about Words, let's do so with the "Misquote" as well.
The First Phrase, the One Actually Spoken by Ahmadinejad, could be Understood as Vanishing from the Pages of History. In Light of this, how is Disappearing from the Map, much Different than Disappearing or Vanishing from the Page of Time. In both of these Cases, both the Language and the Culture of both of these Phrases needs to be Understood and the Article did not get into that so much. Both Phrases, though, can be Taken either in a Mild or a more Emotional Way, depending on the Emotional State of the Listener.
In Light of what I have just said, it is interesting to note that the Actual Original Misquote, "Wiped off the Map", came from Iran itself, not it's enemies. Though the article did not present it this way, this Fact actually gives Credence to the Idea that this so called "Misquote" does, In Fact, Represent the actual real Sentiments of many Iranian People. If the "Misquote" did not Originate from the "War Hawks", then this takes away Credence from those who are Accusing them of Irrational Motives. Also, the Iranian People, from whom the "Misquote" Originated and who Understand their own Culture and Language Perfectly, did not seem to Consider this a Misquote.
Perhaps the Original Phrase was not a Reference to Genocide, yet that doesn't make it any less of a Statement that Threatens War, for how else is the Vanishing from a Map, or from "the Page of Time" supposed to be Accomplished, apart from War?
Don't the Jews have just as much Right to their Place on the Globe as anyone else? It just so Happens that the area of Earth that the Jews Possess is a rather Small Plot of Land.
The Hour Glass Display that was on the Posters around the Iranian President when he Delivered his Speech in Tehran at a Program Entitled, "The World Without Zionism", were quite offensive and most definitely Implied a Threat.
I don't feel that the Fact that Ahmadinejad was actually Quoting the Words of Ayatollah Khomenei, whether then making his Own Original Statement, is a Significant Detail to Mention, for he Quoted him to show Support and Agreement, as is evidenced by his Statement that "This Statement is Very Wise." Whether Ahmadinejad Originated the Idea, or just Agreed with it, is Inconsequential to whether or not he does, In Fact, Hold the Positions in Question.
Another Point that was Made in the Linked Article was that Khomenei and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Regime, not too all of Israel. Getting back to the Hour Glass Display again, though, this Display made a Statement about far more then just the Current "Regime" of Israel. In this Display is an Hour Glass with the Planet Earth at its top and Two Small Round Orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown Falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and Crashing to the Bottom, thus the Implied Removal of not Only Israel, but also the United States from the Earth.
Don't you see? In Order to Understand the Intents of People, we can not Base our Opinions on Only One Quote, or Misquote. Even if it can be Argued that the Actual Words of the Quote that has been Misquoted may not Mean what the Misquote Implies, yet the Hour Glass Display makes a rather Strong Statement that does Mean what the Misquote Implies.
Even if, however, the Regime is all that Ahmadinejad was Referring to, how does he Plan to Remove such a Regime without War? Also, I Fail to see what is so Evil about the Regime that now "Occupies Jerusalem". And, my Goodness, how does just Siting Examples of Regimes that have Collapsed, justify Causing the Collapse of another one? He makes absolutely no sense at all.
The Discussion of the Word "Earth", rather then "Map", is also an Insignificant Distinction. Since the Entire Earth has been Mapped, if a Country is no Longer on the Map, then they are no Longer on the Earth either, now are they? Arguing about Word Technicalities, though, does not Hold Up when evaluating all of the Facts. Getting back to the Hour Glass Illustration, for Example, the Earth is what Appeared in that Picture, not a Map, so the Second "Misquote", Containing the Word "Earth", is actually more Accurate, than the First.
The Next Thing that is discussed is the Reaction of a whole bunch of World Leaders, of which, at least 10 were mentioned throughout the course of the Article. Well, this reality gives Credence to the the Fact that there is enough evidence out there of a Threat to make an Impression on many World Leaders, not just One or Two and to Suggest that such a Reaction is Based on One "Misquoted" Statement and Nothing else is Ridiculous.
The Real Problem, however, is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given Multiple Opportunities to Deny that he said these Things, or that he Meant what he said in the Way in which it was Misquoted. Instead, he Avoids the Question. You could say that he Neither Confirms, nor Denies it, yet if the Idea of "Wiping Israel off the Face of the Earth" was at all Repulsive to him, he would have Denied saying such a Thing. In Truth, however, the Idea of Totally and Completely Destroying Israel does not Repulse him in the Slightest and that is just the Problem.
He might as well of just said out right that the so called "Misquote" is, In Fact, exactly what he meant. The Fact that the Insistence that this is a "Misquote" is coming from those who wish to Defend him and not from he, himself, is not at all an Unimportant Detail, for to Refuse to Deny something is really no Different than Admitting it or Agreeing that he meant exactly that which he Refuses to Deny.
When Ahmadindjad said that "the People with no Roots there are now Ruling the Land", this was a Lie, for the Jews have lots of Roots and History there in Israel and Jerusalem.
This Article just goes on and on, Complaining again about yet another Word Technicality, in that the Quote;
"As the Soviet Union Disappeared, the Zionist regime will also Vanish and Humanity will be Liberated."
is "Misquoted" as...
"The Zionist regime will be Wiped Out soon the same way the Soviet Union was and Humanity will achieve Freedom."
The Only Difference, though, between the First and Second Statement is that the First does not Explain how the Zionist regime will Vanish and the Second says that it will be Wiped Out, yet it would be Very Foolish and Careless to not see that the First Statement does, In Fact, Imply the Second. To Deny this is Foolish. I'm getting so Tired of these Word Technicality Arguments that are Meant to Down Play and Justify Obvious Negative Intentions.
Getting Back to the Hour Glass Picture, though, Containing the Earth, Israel, the US and an Hour Glass, this Picture says it all and Confirms the Motives that are Implied by what has been Called a "Misquote".
As to the Closing Argument in the Article, containing the Quote "History shows us that Oppressive and Cruel governments do not Survive.", I fail to see how Israel Falls into the Category of an "Oppressive and Cruel Government" that will Fall on it's Own without help from Iran. This Wishful thinking has absolutely no merit and this is the Part that is the Lie, but then again, I guess everyone can Read the Linked Article for themselves and Form their Own Opinions about it.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
MoreThoughts on Republican Primary Candidates/2012
As to the Election, I am now Leaning towards Newt Ginrich and in a Minute I will explain why.
I had Initially Started this Post on the Day of the South Carolina Primaries, January 21, and I didn't even Know the Results yet. We had just recently discovered that Santorum Won Iowa, not Romney, giving One Win to Santorum (Iowa) and One to Romney (New Hampsire). For the Remainder of this Post, when I say Update, I am Referring to the Date of this Post and when I say Earlier, I am Referring to January 21, when I First Wrote this Post.
Update: Now we Know that Gingrich has Won South Carolina and Romney has Won Florida. Santorum and Gingrich have both Won One State and Romeny has Won Two.
Earlier: My Opinion at the Time of the South Carolina Election was that Romney had been coming Across as a little Arrogant and to be Honest with you, I still get that Impression at Times. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and well, at the Time of the Carolina Election, he wouldn't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less then the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too, yet we do not Know what.
Update: Did we ever Find Out what Romney was so Embarrassed about? It seems to me that there was nothing all that Surprising about his Tax Reforms once he Finally did decide to Release them. I guess he is just Afraid that People will Judge him because he Makes so much Money.
Earlier: Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart. Romney Appears to have more Money.
In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.
Update: It Seems to me that there was a more Recent Debate in which Romney Defended himself a little better and did not come Across as quite so Heartless in Relation to Illegals. I Laughed when he said that the Issue is not "11 Million Grandmothers" and he Assured as that he is not Going to be Going Around Ripping Grandmothers out of their Homes.
Earlier: Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills.
I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that.
For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal, even though both of these Guys have been Criticized for ways in which they are not as Conservative as some would like them to be.
And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.
Michael Buckman has also said something about him During the Iowa Election Period that Unfortunately Stuck with me, for she Claims that he has a Spending Problem and I guess this is Based on him Voting a Few Times for them to Raise the Debt Ceiling. I Never did hear his Defense in Relation to this One.
And Ron Paul, well I'm afraid that both he and Santorum are Unelectable in the General Election. Ron Paul, though, has the Added Problem of being a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.
Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.
Update: My Opinions have not Really Changed much after Watching the Debates Leading up to the Primary in Florida. I Wish that I had heard the Speeches that were given on that Night. I Missed them this Time. Oh well.
I had Initially Started this Post on the Day of the South Carolina Primaries, January 21, and I didn't even Know the Results yet. We had just recently discovered that Santorum Won Iowa, not Romney, giving One Win to Santorum (Iowa) and One to Romney (New Hampsire). For the Remainder of this Post, when I say Update, I am Referring to the Date of this Post and when I say Earlier, I am Referring to January 21, when I First Wrote this Post.
Update: Now we Know that Gingrich has Won South Carolina and Romney has Won Florida. Santorum and Gingrich have both Won One State and Romeny has Won Two.
Earlier: My Opinion at the Time of the South Carolina Election was that Romney had been coming Across as a little Arrogant and to be Honest with you, I still get that Impression at Times. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and well, at the Time of the Carolina Election, he wouldn't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less then the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too, yet we do not Know what.
Update: Did we ever Find Out what Romney was so Embarrassed about? It seems to me that there was nothing all that Surprising about his Tax Reforms once he Finally did decide to Release them. I guess he is just Afraid that People will Judge him because he Makes so much Money.
Earlier: Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart. Romney Appears to have more Money.
In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.
Update: It Seems to me that there was a more Recent Debate in which Romney Defended himself a little better and did not come Across as quite so Heartless in Relation to Illegals. I Laughed when he said that the Issue is not "11 Million Grandmothers" and he Assured as that he is not Going to be Going Around Ripping Grandmothers out of their Homes.
Earlier: Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills.
I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that.
For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal, even though both of these Guys have been Criticized for ways in which they are not as Conservative as some would like them to be.
And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.
Michael Buckman has also said something about him During the Iowa Election Period that Unfortunately Stuck with me, for she Claims that he has a Spending Problem and I guess this is Based on him Voting a Few Times for them to Raise the Debt Ceiling. I Never did hear his Defense in Relation to this One.
And Ron Paul, well I'm afraid that both he and Santorum are Unelectable in the General Election. Ron Paul, though, has the Added Problem of being a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.
Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.
Update: My Opinions have not Really Changed much after Watching the Debates Leading up to the Primary in Florida. I Wish that I had heard the Speeches that were given on that Night. I Missed them this Time. Oh well.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Thoughts on Republican Primary Candidates, 2012
As to the Election, I am now Leaning towards Newt Gingrich and in a Minute I'm going to be Explaining why.
For those who Find this Page at a Later Date, I'd just like to say that this was written on the day of the South Carolina Primaries, but we won't know the results of that until tonight. We've just Recently been Told that Santorum is the One who Won Iowa, not Romney. What was Once a Romney Win by Only 8 Votes, later became a Santorum Win by 34 Votes. So here's the Story, so far... Santorum Won Iowa, Romney Won New Hampshire and the Out Come of South Carolina Appears to be either Romney or Gingrich.
In my Opinion, Romney has been coming Across as a little Arrogant Lately. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and he won't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less than the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too and yet we do not Know what.
Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart than Romney. What Romney Appears to have is Money.
In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years or more and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.
Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills. I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that and I Believe him that his Ex-Wife's Accusation against him is False.
For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal. I Guess that's because of his Tendency to Change his Mind about Things.
And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.
And Ron Paul, well he is Unelectable too, as well as a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.
Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.
For those who Find this Page at a Later Date, I'd just like to say that this was written on the day of the South Carolina Primaries, but we won't know the results of that until tonight. We've just Recently been Told that Santorum is the One who Won Iowa, not Romney. What was Once a Romney Win by Only 8 Votes, later became a Santorum Win by 34 Votes. So here's the Story, so far... Santorum Won Iowa, Romney Won New Hampshire and the Out Come of South Carolina Appears to be either Romney or Gingrich.
In my Opinion, Romney has been coming Across as a little Arrogant Lately. He's just a little too Confident that he is going to Win and he won't Release his Tax Reforms. Ron Paul may be a little Embarrassed because he makes less than the others, yet Romney is Embarrassed about something too and yet we do not Know what.
Both Santorum and Gingrich Appear to have more Heart than Romney. What Romney Appears to have is Money.
In Actuality, Gingrich's willingness to be a little Softer on Illegals that have been here 25 Years or more and have Roots in the Community makes sense and Romney's Approach does come across as a little Heartless.
Ok. So Newt has had some Marital Problems and has even had Affairs as a Result. He has Married his "Mistress", so it wasn't just a Casual Thing done just for Thrills. I Know it's hard for a lot of Hard Core Christians to Understand, but you know what? Sometimes these Things just Happen. I can Forgive him for that and I Believe him that his Ex-Wife's Accusation against him is False.
For some Reason, they Keep Referring to Newt as "the other Conservative Option" and to Romney as the One who is more Liberal. I Guess that's because of his Tendency to Change his Mind about Things.
And what about Rick Santorum? Well, though I Agree with his Strong Pro-life Stand, it may be too Strong for most of the Liberals, a lot of the Independents and perhaps even some of the Conservatives. I'm Afraid that might make him Unelectable.
And Ron Paul, well he is Unelectable too, as well as a little on the Radical Side on some of his Positions.
Yeh. I Think I'm going to go with Newt. For now that's my Decision.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The Romney/Ron Paul Delima
I'm just about Getting Ready to give in to this Ron Paul Mania. It's not Because I Entirely Trust him to Run this Country. I Think that his Cuts to Government Programs may be too Deep, too soon, and I don't Trust his Foreign Policy. Though it does sort of Appear that his Cuts are Focused more on the Military and Aid to Foreign Countries, than on things such a Social Security and Medicare. That's actually good. Romney and Santorum may Actually Cut these Things.
The Reason why I might even Vote for Paul is because I would never Want Romney to Win by as Large of a Margin as he Might. The Idea of him Winning the Electoral College Votes by a Land Slide does not at all Appeal to me. Come on, you Guys in these Other States. Vote Against him. Will ya'? I'd Actually Like something that is In-between Ron Paul and some of the other Republicans, yet such a Critter does not Appear to Exist.
The Reason why I might even Vote for Paul is because I would never Want Romney to Win by as Large of a Margin as he Might. The Idea of him Winning the Electoral College Votes by a Land Slide does not at all Appeal to me. Come on, you Guys in these Other States. Vote Against him. Will ya'? I'd Actually Like something that is In-between Ron Paul and some of the other Republicans, yet such a Critter does not Appear to Exist.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Religious Views, World Views & Environmental Issues
I guess in time, I will need to get back to the Subject I was Previously Focused on, which is Libertarianism, yet since I have such a diverse Audience, something New has come up in the Mean Time.
Since our Spiritual Beliefs have an Effect on how we View our World, this can not help but to have an Effect on our Politics. Many Environmentalists are overly Zealous in their Cause Primarily because they have a Very Different View of the Relationship between God, Man and Nature then Christians do.
First, I will Explain the Christian View on God, Man and Nature and then I will be Explaining the Political Implications. Please Bear with me as I Explain a Religious Idea, for I will not be Explaining why this Idea is also a Political One until the End. For now, let me just say that we all have World Views and that the Christians are not the Only Ones who have such World Views.
Here is the Christian View on how God Feels about His Own Creation...
"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'" (Genesis 1:26, KJV)
According to the Bible, the Main Difference between Animals and Man is in the Fact that unlike the Animals, Man is Made in God's Image and this is the Reason why man has been Given dominion over the rest of God's Creation. There are some who have Reacted Negatively to this Verse because they Feel that it Gives us License to Ravish and Abuse the Earth, yet I do not at all believe that this was God's Intent.
In the Comment section of another Blog, I recently said this...
"Certainly Man is expected to Treat God's Creation with at least some level of Respect and not Ravish her until she is Totally Barren and Empty of her ability to Sustain Life. Such a Level of Disrespect should not even be given to that which we have been Given Dominion Over. Certainly we should be Better Stewards of that which God has Entrusted to us."
The Very Fact that Man has the Power to be so Destructive in Relation to Nature is Evidence of the Dominion that he has been Given, yet just because we are the Ones who have the Dominion does not Mean that we have the Right to Ravish and Trample on that which has been Entrusted to our care.
Here is another Verse that Shows that God does indeed Value His Creation...
"26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27) Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28) And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; 29) And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30) Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31) Therefore take no thought, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or, 'What shall we drink?' or, 'Wherewithal shall we be clothed?' 32) (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:26-33, KJV)
And also...
"29) Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29, KJV)
If God did not Value His Creation, He would not take so much Care to Nourish her and "Cloth" her, yet...
"30) But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31) Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:30-31, KJV)
So we are Clearly the Favored of God's Creation and are most Precious to God. Here are a few more Verses...
"35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35, KJV)
This Exact Statement is also Repeated in Mark 13:31 & Luke 21:33. Also see II Peter 3:10, which Adds more Detail.
Which Leads us to the Next Thought...
"18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Corinthians 4:18, KJV)
To Keep this in Balance, I must add that somehow there are those who have Gotten the Impression that Christians require that we "Renounce this natural world". The Word "Renounce", though, is a Little too Strong, for this Implies Abandoning and Refusing to Acknowledge. Even God does not do that. Instead He "Feeds" and "Cloths" His Creation. We are just not Supposed to Value it above other Things that are Spiritual in Nature. It is more of a Priority thing, than a "Renoucing" thing.
On the Other Hand, if we Value Nature so much, so as to View it as God and thus, Worship it, then we end up Renouncing God Instead.
The Last Couple of Verses that I want to share may come across as Confrontive to those who love Nature, yet do not Acknowledge the Creator, yet without these Last Verses, the Discussion of the Biblical View on the Issue is not Complete.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork." (Psalm 19:1, KJV)
"19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, KJV)
And...
"25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25, KJV)
The First two of these verses talks about how there is Evidence of God in His Creation and the Second describes the Worship of the Creation as is Viewed in Christianity as a Form of Idolatry, just as the Bible also says...
"3) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3, KJV)
Ok, now for the Political; Like Usual, it all comes down to Balance. Protecting the Environment is Important, but not at the Expense of the Livelihood of Man. Plants and Animals are Important, but not more Important than Man.
By now, you may be saying that we should Keep our "Religious Views" out of Politics, yet in this case it is not Possible to entirely Remove our "World View" from our Political Views. Either you Believe that Man and Nature are Totally Equal, or you do not. There are no other Options, and to Believe that Man is not Created in God's Image and is nothing other then another Animal is no less a Spiritual Opinion, than to believe that Man is Created in God's Image.
There is an Inequality in this Country based on the Fact that Atheism is not Viewed as a Religious Idea, yet how can the Belief that there is no God not be a Belief about the Nature of God? So you see, Atheism is a Religious Opinion as well because it is an Opinion about God. Quite Apart from that, though, there are Religions that Teach the Belief that Animals are equal to People because of the Reincarnation Cycle, thus Making this a Religious Idea.
No matter how you turn this Issue, the Underlying Factor that Drives our Environmental Politics is Religious in Nature and to Deny this Only Confuses the Issue.
As you can see, the Christian View of the Relationship Between Man and Nature is quite Different than the View held by Buddists and Hindus, yet again we need to Understand this is Accordance to Balance, for it is not Correct to Assume that Christians do not Value Nature, cause we do and we are Required of God to be good Stewards of that which He has Entrusted to us.
Consider this, for Example, if a Dog Owner Trusts someone to care for their Dog, can the one who has been given the Responsibility for the Dog Neglect to take care of the dog? No One Argues against the Idea that People are the "Pack Leaders" and not the Dogs, yet if you Neglect to meet the Needs of that which you are in Charge of, you are Behaving Irresponsibly.
Things need to be kept in Balance, though, for Nature does not Rule over Man, and therefore, what Man Needs in order to Exist, should not be Disregarded when Making Environmental Decisions. This is Why Economy and Jobs is just as Important as the Environment and Why things must be kept in Balance when making these Decisions.
Interestingly, the Comment Section has Taken Off more in the Direction of a Validity of Scripture Discussion, rather then a Discussion about Environmental Issues.
Since our Spiritual Beliefs have an Effect on how we View our World, this can not help but to have an Effect on our Politics. Many Environmentalists are overly Zealous in their Cause Primarily because they have a Very Different View of the Relationship between God, Man and Nature then Christians do.
First, I will Explain the Christian View on God, Man and Nature and then I will be Explaining the Political Implications. Please Bear with me as I Explain a Religious Idea, for I will not be Explaining why this Idea is also a Political One until the End. For now, let me just say that we all have World Views and that the Christians are not the Only Ones who have such World Views.
Here is the Christian View on how God Feels about His Own Creation...
"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'" (Genesis 1:26, KJV)
According to the Bible, the Main Difference between Animals and Man is in the Fact that unlike the Animals, Man is Made in God's Image and this is the Reason why man has been Given dominion over the rest of God's Creation. There are some who have Reacted Negatively to this Verse because they Feel that it Gives us License to Ravish and Abuse the Earth, yet I do not at all believe that this was God's Intent.
In the Comment section of another Blog, I recently said this...
"Certainly Man is expected to Treat God's Creation with at least some level of Respect and not Ravish her until she is Totally Barren and Empty of her ability to Sustain Life. Such a Level of Disrespect should not even be given to that which we have been Given Dominion Over. Certainly we should be Better Stewards of that which God has Entrusted to us."
The Very Fact that Man has the Power to be so Destructive in Relation to Nature is Evidence of the Dominion that he has been Given, yet just because we are the Ones who have the Dominion does not Mean that we have the Right to Ravish and Trample on that which has been Entrusted to our care.
Here is another Verse that Shows that God does indeed Value His Creation...
"26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27) Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28) And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; 29) And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30) Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31) Therefore take no thought, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or, 'What shall we drink?' or, 'Wherewithal shall we be clothed?' 32) (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:26-33, KJV)
And also...
"29) Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29, KJV)
If God did not Value His Creation, He would not take so much Care to Nourish her and "Cloth" her, yet...
"30) But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31) Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:30-31, KJV)
So we are Clearly the Favored of God's Creation and are most Precious to God. Here are a few more Verses...
"35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35, KJV)
This Exact Statement is also Repeated in Mark 13:31 & Luke 21:33. Also see II Peter 3:10, which Adds more Detail.
Which Leads us to the Next Thought...
"18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Corinthians 4:18, KJV)
To Keep this in Balance, I must add that somehow there are those who have Gotten the Impression that Christians require that we "Renounce this natural world". The Word "Renounce", though, is a Little too Strong, for this Implies Abandoning and Refusing to Acknowledge. Even God does not do that. Instead He "Feeds" and "Cloths" His Creation. We are just not Supposed to Value it above other Things that are Spiritual in Nature. It is more of a Priority thing, than a "Renoucing" thing.
On the Other Hand, if we Value Nature so much, so as to View it as God and thus, Worship it, then we end up Renouncing God Instead.
The Last Couple of Verses that I want to share may come across as Confrontive to those who love Nature, yet do not Acknowledge the Creator, yet without these Last Verses, the Discussion of the Biblical View on the Issue is not Complete.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork." (Psalm 19:1, KJV)
"19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, KJV)
And...
"25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25, KJV)
The First two of these verses talks about how there is Evidence of God in His Creation and the Second describes the Worship of the Creation as is Viewed in Christianity as a Form of Idolatry, just as the Bible also says...
"3) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20:3, KJV)
Ok, now for the Political; Like Usual, it all comes down to Balance. Protecting the Environment is Important, but not at the Expense of the Livelihood of Man. Plants and Animals are Important, but not more Important than Man.
By now, you may be saying that we should Keep our "Religious Views" out of Politics, yet in this case it is not Possible to entirely Remove our "World View" from our Political Views. Either you Believe that Man and Nature are Totally Equal, or you do not. There are no other Options, and to Believe that Man is not Created in God's Image and is nothing other then another Animal is no less a Spiritual Opinion, than to believe that Man is Created in God's Image.
There is an Inequality in this Country based on the Fact that Atheism is not Viewed as a Religious Idea, yet how can the Belief that there is no God not be a Belief about the Nature of God? So you see, Atheism is a Religious Opinion as well because it is an Opinion about God. Quite Apart from that, though, there are Religions that Teach the Belief that Animals are equal to People because of the Reincarnation Cycle, thus Making this a Religious Idea.
No matter how you turn this Issue, the Underlying Factor that Drives our Environmental Politics is Religious in Nature and to Deny this Only Confuses the Issue.
As you can see, the Christian View of the Relationship Between Man and Nature is quite Different than the View held by Buddists and Hindus, yet again we need to Understand this is Accordance to Balance, for it is not Correct to Assume that Christians do not Value Nature, cause we do and we are Required of God to be good Stewards of that which He has Entrusted to us.
Consider this, for Example, if a Dog Owner Trusts someone to care for their Dog, can the one who has been given the Responsibility for the Dog Neglect to take care of the dog? No One Argues against the Idea that People are the "Pack Leaders" and not the Dogs, yet if you Neglect to meet the Needs of that which you are in Charge of, you are Behaving Irresponsibly.
Things need to be kept in Balance, though, for Nature does not Rule over Man, and therefore, what Man Needs in order to Exist, should not be Disregarded when Making Environmental Decisions. This is Why Economy and Jobs is just as Important as the Environment and Why things must be kept in Balance when making these Decisions.
Interestingly, the Comment Section has Taken Off more in the Direction of a Validity of Scripture Discussion, rather then a Discussion about Environmental Issues.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All
Sometimes the Only Way to Move a Discussion to a New Post is to Move the Last Few Comments in a Thread, so here is the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at all discussion from a Previous Comment Thread. Please Continue the Conversation here. I'll be Submitting my Own Thoughts in the Comment Area Soon.
- Lista said...
- On a more Positive Note, Voting for Third Party Candidates is Better than not Voting at all cause at Least you are Making some Kind of a Political Statement with your Vote.
- soapster said...
- And I never said that you said that I did endorse or sanction Obama. As to your second point, I do all I can so the adage doesn't apply to me. I won't be guilted into bearing culpability for the immoral actions of political leaders that I didn't vote for.
- soapster said...
- Not voting makes a political statement as well, Lista. I've done it countless times.
- Lista said...
- "Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama. To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable." I did not even "Imply, Infer or Suggest" that you Endorsed or Sanctioned" anything, Soap. The Political Statement of not Voting is More Vague, since there are some who do so Out of Apathy and there is no Way to Separate Your Political Statement from theirs.
- dmarks said...
- Yeah, the statement of not voting ends up meaning "whatever happens, I am fine with the result".
- soapster said...
- Let that be your interpretation, dmarks. By opting for the lesser of two evils, you are still sanctioning evil. Would you rather die by firing squad or would you rather die of starvation? Rationalize it however you wish. I myself desire to live and if death be imminent then let it come to pass. But I will not sanction it.
- Lista said...
- Well, I Tend to Agree with Dmarks. What you said, Soap, is sort of a Black and White Form of Thinking. In this case, Black and White, Meaning Only Two Options or It's either One Way or the Other, It's either Evil or it is not. How About if we Discard the Word Evil and say that it is a lot of what you do not like, or a little Less of what you do not Like? To Say that it is Either Evil or it is not, is to Deny the Reality that One Undesirable can be Considerably Worse than Another Undesirable. Calling that which is Undesirable Evil, though, is Making it into an Issue of Morality, when in Reality Some of it is just an Issue of Preference. She Smiles. Boy, that might be a Can of Worms and we are Close to 50 Comments on this Comment Thread. Hopefully, I'll have the Time to do another Post Over the Weekend so that this Discussion can Continue on a New Comment Thread.
- Lista said...
- Perhaps where we are Disagreeing, Soap, is in Relation to the Idea that a Vote Motivated by Compromise is a Form of Endorsing and Sanctioning. I Do not Think that it is.
- dmarks said...
- Soap, it is not interpretation. If you sit out an election, you are giving the choices entirely to others.
- soapster said...
- And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others. I know black and white makes you squirm in your seat, Lista, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own. If one candidate is promising Liver and Onions and the other Tofu, while Tofu might be preferable to me over Liver and Onions, I want spaghetti and I'll work towards getting spaghetti. If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't want. Why would I sanction it with a vote of approval??? It's moronic.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics
This is the Second Half of Summary of an Earlier Long Comment Thread. The First Half was about Relationship Analogies and Two Parties Walking to the Middle of a Bridge. This is Summarized in the next Post Down. The Second Half of that Comment Thread, which is Summarized Below, is more About Politics, as well as the Definitions of Words.
In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did. My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional. I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant. In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion. Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.
From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.
It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.
From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)
From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.
"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent." (Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)
Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best. I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)
Soapster's Statements were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...
In the 24th Comment (April 12, 10:47 AM), I Encouraged People to Return the Discussion to Politics and they did. My April 12, 4:31 PM Comment was Sort of Transitional. I Explained how the Relationship Between Republicans and Democrats is not Unlike a Marriage and that is why the Earlier Compromise Analogies are not Irrelevant. In Both Marriage and also Politics, we Need to Compromise, Listen to Each Other and Show Compassion. Yelling and Screaming and Calling Each Other Names does not Resolve the Conflicts.
From this Point, we Talked about Concepts such as Extremes, Rewards and Bribes, Negotiation and Compromise, Voting Third Party, not Voting at All, Etc.
It's too Hard to Summarize all of this, so I'm just Going to Repeat a Few Definitions.
From BB-Idaho;
Business Psychology States:
"a compromise situation is created when each party to the conflict gives up something and there is no winner or loser. If one party concedes ground on a particular issue, one would expect the other to yield something of equivalent value. This style is reflected in intermediate amounts of assertiveness and cooperativeness." (BB-Idaho, April 9, 4:02 PM)
Compromise is a noun:
"a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."
Negotiate is a verb:
"'To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement' -so that a compromise may (or may not be) the result of the process of negotiating."
Bribe is another verb:
"Something given or taken with an intention to influence the conduct or judgment of the person receiving it." (BB-Idaho, April 13, 3:59 PM)
From the Soapster;
"When you negotiate you gain something of greater value without sacrificing your fundamental premise.
"When you compromise, you gain nothing of greater value while conceding your fundamental premise to your opponent." (Soapster, April 13, 11:20 AM)
Now From Me;
I Think I Like BB's First Definition of Compromise Best. I Only Added to it in One of my Comments that the Words "Equivalent Value" should be Changed to "Perceived Equivalent Value", since so much of what Needs to be Compromised is Subjective. (Lista, April 13, 10:17 AM)
Soapster's Statements were more of a Description than a Definition and in my Next Couple of Comments that Followed his, I said...
- Huh? Interesting. I Wonder where you Got that Definition. Another Way of Saying the Same Thing is that we Should Never Compromise Our Fundamental Premise, but we Can Compromise Other Things that do not Hinder Our Fundamental Premise. The Only Difference Between what I said and what you said, Soap, is the Definition of the Word Compromise.
- Actually, Soap, Your Second Sentence Sounds more Like a Sell Out, than a Compromise. That is Walking all the Way Across the Bridge, when your Opponent is not Even Willing to Come 1/4 of the Way Across the Bridge and I have Stated Very Plainly that there is Absolutely no Valid Reason for Doing that.
More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Relationship Analogies
Well, the Previous Comment Thread is Getting Long, so it is Time to Post Again. Even trying to Summarize what is on the Previous Comment Thread has Led Up to a Rather Long Post, so I've Decided to Split it in Half.
If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy. Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM). lol.
Various Different Analogies were Presented. Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM). The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake. Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same. What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.
Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM). If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.
BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).
I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.
Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.
If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy. Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM). lol.
Various Different Analogies were Presented. Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM). The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake. Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same. What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.
Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM). If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.
BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).
I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.
Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Compromise vs. Gridlock
I was Recently Reading One of my Very Old Posts from May 4, 2009. It is a Post that was Written in a Way that was a Little Confused and I Ended Up Adding a Comment to it that was more Clear. Feel Free to Read the Old Post, Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction, yet what I Really Want you to Read Now is what my Current Thoughts are about what I should have Wrote, for here I am Two Years Later, Finally Clarifying. Here is the Comment that I Added beneath that Post Late Last Night...
"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
"Yes, that Happened in 2009.
"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
"It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said."
I Look Forward to Your Comments.
"You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a 'Hodge-Podge of Ideas', just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
"I was Struggling when I Wrote this, because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
"Yes, that Happened in 2009.
"Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
"It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
"I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"'As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.'
"Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
"Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
"There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said."
I Look Forward to Your Comments.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
False Assumptions/Racism/Socialism/Health Care/Etc.
Well, when I Wrote the Below Post, I wasn't Expecting the Type of Comments that I Received, though I Mentioned the Accusation of Racism as One of the Main False Assumptions in Relation to Other's Motives, the Subject that Emerged was that which Liberals Think are False Assumptions about Obama being a Socialist, as well as Socialized Medicine. I Allowed it because I Figured that the Subject of False Assumptions could Actually be quite Broad.
As a Quick Review of the Previous Post, Aside from Issues of Racism, I also Talked about how People Assume they Know the Motives of those who have Decided to No Longer Participate in a Conversation.
When Talking about Accusations of Racism, I Discussed the Mosque. I Guess I Could Add Something that someone Said on Malcolm's Blog, which is that I Guess there was a Mosque that was Destroyed when the World Trade Center was Destroyed, yet as I Understand it, it was much Smaller than what they are Planning to Build Now in Order to Replace it.
I Guess Things can Get Very Confused at Times and it is no Longer Clear who is the Most Assuming the Motives of the Other. Are the Liberals Assuming the Motive of Racism or are those Opposing the Mosque Assuming the Motives of those who want to Build the Mosque? My Guess is that Both of these Things are Occurring. Politics are so Emotional and No One Seems to Give Anyone the Benefit of a Doubt for anything.
I Also Discussed Amnesty and Illegal Immigration and Reasons for Certain Positions other than that of Racism. And I Discussed Voting Against Obama.
Another Problem with Accusations of Racism is that Some People will Use this as a Means of Preventing all Criticism and Challenge, because any Accusation at all will be Taken as an Act of Racism, yet People Criticize and Challenge other People all that Time and this has nothing to do with Race.
I'm Really Surprised that so Little was Said About Racism in the Comment Section of the Below Post. Please do Feel Free do Do so here, yet if you Prefer, I am also Opened to Continuing the Discussion about Socialism and Health Care or about anything else that you Feel the Opposing Side has Made False Assumptions about.
As a Quick Review of the Previous Post, Aside from Issues of Racism, I also Talked about how People Assume they Know the Motives of those who have Decided to No Longer Participate in a Conversation.
When Talking about Accusations of Racism, I Discussed the Mosque. I Guess I Could Add Something that someone Said on Malcolm's Blog, which is that I Guess there was a Mosque that was Destroyed when the World Trade Center was Destroyed, yet as I Understand it, it was much Smaller than what they are Planning to Build Now in Order to Replace it.
I Guess Things can Get Very Confused at Times and it is no Longer Clear who is the Most Assuming the Motives of the Other. Are the Liberals Assuming the Motive of Racism or are those Opposing the Mosque Assuming the Motives of those who want to Build the Mosque? My Guess is that Both of these Things are Occurring. Politics are so Emotional and No One Seems to Give Anyone the Benefit of a Doubt for anything.
I Also Discussed Amnesty and Illegal Immigration and Reasons for Certain Positions other than that of Racism. And I Discussed Voting Against Obama.
Another Problem with Accusations of Racism is that Some People will Use this as a Means of Preventing all Criticism and Challenge, because any Accusation at all will be Taken as an Act of Racism, yet People Criticize and Challenge other People all that Time and this has nothing to do with Race.
I'm Really Surprised that so Little was Said About Racism in the Comment Section of the Below Post. Please do Feel Free do Do so here, yet if you Prefer, I am also Opened to Continuing the Discussion about Socialism and Health Care or about anything else that you Feel the Opposing Side has Made False Assumptions about.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Assuming Motives, False Assumptions & Racism
You know, it's Funny. When I Write Posts like the One Below this One, what I am Really Waiting for and Maybe even Fishing for is for Someone Else to Inspire me to Write Something in the Way in which they Comment on what I've Said and it just so Happens that the First to Respond to me was Malcolm and the Subject that he has Inspired is that of Racism, as well as the False Accusations of Racism.
I have just been Responding to One of His Posts, Heroes and Villains, and Feeling sort of Tired while doing so. If you Like, you can go there and Read the Post, as well as my Response to it. Before Getting into the Subject of Racism, I'd Like to Talk about something else that Relates to the Judging of People's Motives.
In the Next Post Down from this One, I was just Explaining to Malcolm how I haven't Figured Out a System yet for Deciding what to Read and what not to and When I Get too Caught Up in Responding on Other Blogs, I Neglect my Own Blog. This Problem has Lead to the Problem of Deciding whether or not there are People I should Ignore, as well as also Wondering how I should go about Doing so.
The Problem is that People have a Tendency to Assume the Motives of those who Ignore them and Think that it is because we have nothing more to say and have Run Out of Good Arguments, yet the Reality is that People can Only do so much and Some People who Appear Unwilling to Learn anything from any of the Arguments that are Presented are not Worthy of the Time that it Takes in Order to Continue to Argue with them. This is One Assumption that I Absolutely Hate, especially when I Feel Over Whelmed and Have no Choice but to Ignore.
Also, the Stress that Causes my Feeling of Being Over Whelmed is Usually Caused by More than One Source and for any One of those Sources to Assume that they are the Primary Cause of my Discomfort and Incorrectly Assumed Lack of Things to Say would again be Assuming my Motives Incorrectly.
False Assumptions is also the Main Problem with the Accusation of Racism. It Assumes Motive and such can not be Proved. About the Only Accusation that is Legitimate is that of Name Calling, yet even that must be Proved. If there are some who say that such Happened and Others that Deny it, then it is Simply One Person's Word Against Another.
There are Possible Motives for Objecting to the Mosque at Ground Zero, for Example, other than Racism. The Primary Complaint is the Location, not the Building of the Mosque. To Assume Racism is to Assume Motive and it is not Possible to Know that to be the Motive.
There are also other Possible Motives for Objecting to Amnesty and Illegal, rather than Legal, Immigration. Mostly the Reason for this is that Offering all these Programs to Illegals is Bankrupting Certain States and also Our Country. This is Actually Part of the Health Care Problem as well, yet no One Wants to Look at that Side of the Issue. Wouldn't it be Better to just Make Legal Immigration Easier?
You can't call these things Racism, for such is just Side Stepping the Valid Reasons Offered for these Positions.
I shouldn't have to Mention this one, but Assuming that all those who Voted Against Obama did so because of Racism is Equally Invalid. Come On!! Do you Honestly Believe that there is no Other Reason than that for Voting against a Very Strongly Left Leaning Democrat? Give me a Break!!
Though my Focus was Race in this Post, the Comments Took Off in the Direction of False Assumptions Relating to Obama being a Socialist, the Economy & Health Care. My Next Post is Meant to be a Continuation of this Post and any Further Discussion about Either Racism or False Assumptions of any Kind.
I have just been Responding to One of His Posts, Heroes and Villains, and Feeling sort of Tired while doing so. If you Like, you can go there and Read the Post, as well as my Response to it. Before Getting into the Subject of Racism, I'd Like to Talk about something else that Relates to the Judging of People's Motives.
In the Next Post Down from this One, I was just Explaining to Malcolm how I haven't Figured Out a System yet for Deciding what to Read and what not to and When I Get too Caught Up in Responding on Other Blogs, I Neglect my Own Blog. This Problem has Lead to the Problem of Deciding whether or not there are People I should Ignore, as well as also Wondering how I should go about Doing so.
The Problem is that People have a Tendency to Assume the Motives of those who Ignore them and Think that it is because we have nothing more to say and have Run Out of Good Arguments, yet the Reality is that People can Only do so much and Some People who Appear Unwilling to Learn anything from any of the Arguments that are Presented are not Worthy of the Time that it Takes in Order to Continue to Argue with them. This is One Assumption that I Absolutely Hate, especially when I Feel Over Whelmed and Have no Choice but to Ignore.
Also, the Stress that Causes my Feeling of Being Over Whelmed is Usually Caused by More than One Source and for any One of those Sources to Assume that they are the Primary Cause of my Discomfort and Incorrectly Assumed Lack of Things to Say would again be Assuming my Motives Incorrectly.
False Assumptions is also the Main Problem with the Accusation of Racism. It Assumes Motive and such can not be Proved. About the Only Accusation that is Legitimate is that of Name Calling, yet even that must be Proved. If there are some who say that such Happened and Others that Deny it, then it is Simply One Person's Word Against Another.
There are Possible Motives for Objecting to the Mosque at Ground Zero, for Example, other than Racism. The Primary Complaint is the Location, not the Building of the Mosque. To Assume Racism is to Assume Motive and it is not Possible to Know that to be the Motive.
There are also other Possible Motives for Objecting to Amnesty and Illegal, rather than Legal, Immigration. Mostly the Reason for this is that Offering all these Programs to Illegals is Bankrupting Certain States and also Our Country. This is Actually Part of the Health Care Problem as well, yet no One Wants to Look at that Side of the Issue. Wouldn't it be Better to just Make Legal Immigration Easier?
You can't call these things Racism, for such is just Side Stepping the Valid Reasons Offered for these Positions.
I shouldn't have to Mention this one, but Assuming that all those who Voted Against Obama did so because of Racism is Equally Invalid. Come On!! Do you Honestly Believe that there is no Other Reason than that for Voting against a Very Strongly Left Leaning Democrat? Give me a Break!!
Though my Focus was Race in this Post, the Comments Took Off in the Direction of False Assumptions Relating to Obama being a Socialist, the Economy & Health Care. My Next Post is Meant to be a Continuation of this Post and any Further Discussion about Either Racism or False Assumptions of any Kind.
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Unmotivated Electorate/Voters/Basic Economics
While I was reading through the Comments again beneath the Previous Post, Reaching the Uneducated and Uninformed Electorate, I was reminded of something that I started to write as part of one of my Comments, but never Submitted and realized that I do indeed have something already written that I could make into a Post. Before I Post that, though, I thought I might just repeat a few of the nuggets that I did write in the Comment Section of my Previous Post.
"Sometimes one's 'Civic Duty' is more to Study the Issues, than it is just to Drive to the Polls and/or Make an Appearance."
Shouldn't there be "more of a Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to 'Get Out and Vote'"
There was some suggestion of "a Political Library, in which a person can get Literature and Videos relating to any Issue or anything Political that has ever been Broadcasted on TV and/or a training center helping people who are not that good with Computers find the information that they are looking for on the Internet?" and I guess such resources do in fact exist, yet what I could add to this idea now is that perhaps there should be "more of a Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to ''Get Out and Vote."
In other words, perhaps we need more Advertisements relating to these Resource Centers, instead of these Silly, Not Informative, Political Blurbs that are trying instead to get us to vote this way or that. Perhaps the Push should not be, "Get Out and Vote.", but "Get Out and Study!", for it is your "Civic Duty" to Study, just as much as it is your "Civic Duty" to Vote.
Ok. Here's what I wrote earlier and have not Posted until now...
I have a tendency to apply the basic principles of Economics to things other than Money and it is not as if this wasn't also done in my Economics Class. For example, waiting in line for a Sale only brings the Price Down in relation to Money. The Inconvenience of the Crowds and the Lines, however, is a "Cost" that is now added in place of the Financial Cost that has been removed.
If the Cost is Too High, the product doesn't sell, yet the other side of that is that if the Cost is Too Low, the Demand goes up so high as to create a Cost of a different kind.
Another Non-Money related Economic Principle is that just as if the Price is Too High, Fewer people buy the product, so also if a Job is Harder than the Potential Monetary Benefit, than there will be Fewer People doing the Job, thus the Effort involved has an affect on the Numbers of People doing the Job, which in turn has an affect on the "Availability of the Product"
Inconvenience and Effort, therefore, become part of the Economic System. The problem comes when we start Judging rather than trying to do something that might actually fix the problem. That is by making both Voting and Studying Easier.
Just consider, for example, what if someone decided to Judge those who are "Unmotivated" or Not Willing to buy his product and was more concerned about the supposed Guilt than in the need to Lower his Price. Would he sell more product with this attitude? I'm thinking no.
So also, if we continue to be more concerned about the Guilt of those who are "Unmotivated" or "Too Lazy to Learn", than with trying to make learning easier, will this result in increased numbers of Educated and Informed Voters? I'm thinking no.
Also, just as the Amount of Effort involved has an Affect on the Numbers of People doing a Job and also the "Availability of a Product", so also the Amount of Effort involved will have and Affect on the Availability of and the Numbers of Educated and Informed Voters.
This is Basic Economics and yet unfortunately, the tendency of people is to Prefer Judging to working on ways to improve on situations.
Aside from the Basic Economics relating to Price and Demand and Effort and Availability, another factor to be considered in relation to motivating the Worker, Consumer, or in this case, the Voter is Advertisement. In relation to this, I think I will just repeat what I said earlier in that...
"Shouldn't there be 'more Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to 'Get Out and Vote'?"
And also...
"Perhaps we need more Advertisements relating to these Resource Centers, instead of these Silly, Not Informative, Political Blurbs that are trying instead to get us to vote this way or that."
In relation to this, I think that we have our focus all wrong.
"Sometimes one's 'Civic Duty' is more to Study the Issues, than it is just to Drive to the Polls and/or Make an Appearance."
Shouldn't there be "more of a Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to 'Get Out and Vote'"
There was some suggestion of "a Political Library, in which a person can get Literature and Videos relating to any Issue or anything Political that has ever been Broadcasted on TV and/or a training center helping people who are not that good with Computers find the information that they are looking for on the Internet?" and I guess such resources do in fact exist, yet what I could add to this idea now is that perhaps there should be "more of a Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to ''Get Out and Vote."
In other words, perhaps we need more Advertisements relating to these Resource Centers, instead of these Silly, Not Informative, Political Blurbs that are trying instead to get us to vote this way or that. Perhaps the Push should not be, "Get Out and Vote.", but "Get Out and Study!", for it is your "Civic Duty" to Study, just as much as it is your "Civic Duty" to Vote.
Ok. Here's what I wrote earlier and have not Posted until now...
I have a tendency to apply the basic principles of Economics to things other than Money and it is not as if this wasn't also done in my Economics Class. For example, waiting in line for a Sale only brings the Price Down in relation to Money. The Inconvenience of the Crowds and the Lines, however, is a "Cost" that is now added in place of the Financial Cost that has been removed.
If the Cost is Too High, the product doesn't sell, yet the other side of that is that if the Cost is Too Low, the Demand goes up so high as to create a Cost of a different kind.
Another Non-Money related Economic Principle is that just as if the Price is Too High, Fewer people buy the product, so also if a Job is Harder than the Potential Monetary Benefit, than there will be Fewer People doing the Job, thus the Effort involved has an affect on the Numbers of People doing the Job, which in turn has an affect on the "Availability of the Product"
Inconvenience and Effort, therefore, become part of the Economic System. The problem comes when we start Judging rather than trying to do something that might actually fix the problem. That is by making both Voting and Studying Easier.
Just consider, for example, what if someone decided to Judge those who are "Unmotivated" or Not Willing to buy his product and was more concerned about the supposed Guilt than in the need to Lower his Price. Would he sell more product with this attitude? I'm thinking no.
So also, if we continue to be more concerned about the Guilt of those who are "Unmotivated" or "Too Lazy to Learn", than with trying to make learning easier, will this result in increased numbers of Educated and Informed Voters? I'm thinking no.
Also, just as the Amount of Effort involved has an Affect on the Numbers of People doing a Job and also the "Availability of a Product", so also the Amount of Effort involved will have and Affect on the Availability of and the Numbers of Educated and Informed Voters.
This is Basic Economics and yet unfortunately, the tendency of people is to Prefer Judging to working on ways to improve on situations.
Aside from the Basic Economics relating to Price and Demand and Effort and Availability, another factor to be considered in relation to motivating the Worker, Consumer, or in this case, the Voter is Advertisement. In relation to this, I think I will just repeat what I said earlier in that...
"Shouldn't there be 'more Push to Get People to Study...than just a Push to 'Get Out and Vote'?"
And also...
"Perhaps we need more Advertisements relating to these Resource Centers, instead of these Silly, Not Informative, Political Blurbs that are trying instead to get us to vote this way or that."
In relation to this, I think that we have our focus all wrong.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Reaching the Uneducated/Uninformed Electorate/Voters
Just as I said in my Last Post, "Extremism vs.Moderation, An Introduction", there were two Subjects suggested in the Comment Section of the Post before that; "Reaching the Uneducated" and "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". My Last Post is similar to the Gridlock verses Compromise Subject, yet there is still more for me to write relating to that one. In this Post, we will be discussing Reaching the Uneducated and Uninformed. I added the word "Uninformed" because sometimes even the "Educated" are not as Informed as they should be.
Aside from the thoughts that were expressed on this subject in the Comment Thread of the "Just How Small Should a Government Be?" Post, I was also thinking of some of the initial limits that I noticed in my own Education, most of which I've corrected. I was Educated in Southern California during a time in which this State was lagging behind other States in the quality of their Education.
First of all, I graduated from High School with a valid Diploma without even being required to take a Government Class. I wasn't required to take an Economy Class either. Economics was a Subject primarily taken by those interested in Business, yet when you think about it, how can anyone Vote Intelligently without understanding the Basics about Economy?
If only those who run Businesses understand much, if anything, about the Economy, no wonder People Vote the way they do. Even though I was raised by Republicans, I was a Democrat until I later took an Economy Class at a Junior College and realized that up until that point, I had not really understood the Republican Point of View. Remember, though, I was never required to take this class. I only did it because I realized that it really was something that all American Voters should Understand.
In Relation to the Government Class, believe it or not, I could have skipped this in College as well, for just as in High School, we were offered a choice between History and Government, yet I realized the importance of understanding Government and decided that I better take this Class, yet the point I'm trying to make here is how many others may not have made this Choice, because as Unbelievable as this sounds, it was not required. This reality brings a very important question to my mind. Just how many people are there out there who have Graduated from High School and possibly even College and have never taken a Government Class? And then there are those who don't follow the News and/or don't Understand a lot of what they see and hear when they do.
Can you believe it?! And yet many of those who Live and Breath Politics assume that everyone who's listening to them talk Understands what they are saying. How often do we talk over a lot of people's heads without even realizing it?
So far, I have only talked about those who actually are "Educated" and yet in a lot of ways, not "Educated", but what about those who are not "Educated" at all? What about High School and College Drop outs, or those who finished High School, but never went to College, or what about Illegal Immigrants who were granted Amnesty and yet were never required to learn much about our Culture and/or don't even speak English? If this wasn't so, than why are ballots printed in Spanish?
Aside from the fact that we really do need to try and explain things simply whenever possible, I have even thought of a rather Radical Idea that could possibly get me into trouble, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Most everyone has a Drivers Licence, yet this is viewed as a Privilege, rather than a Right. In order to get a Drivers Licence and earn this Privilege, people have to take a Test. Even though this is a Privilege and not a Right, the Test is simple enough that most everyone can pass it.
There have been times in which I wish that Voting could also be the same way.
One of the reasons why Driving is a Privilege and not a Right is because it can be Dangerous if the Driver does not know what he or she is doing, yet isn't Voting and making Political Decisions without knowing what one is doing Dangerous as well?
Yeh, I know. What I'm suggesting will never happen, but you can't blame a girl for trying. Forgive me, but what I just said makes a lot of really good sense to me.
Anyway, since so much of the Electorate is not quite as "Educated" as they should be, we do need to remember to take the time to talk in simple terms whenever possible.
Aside from the thoughts that were expressed on this subject in the Comment Thread of the "Just How Small Should a Government Be?" Post, I was also thinking of some of the initial limits that I noticed in my own Education, most of which I've corrected. I was Educated in Southern California during a time in which this State was lagging behind other States in the quality of their Education.
First of all, I graduated from High School with a valid Diploma without even being required to take a Government Class. I wasn't required to take an Economy Class either. Economics was a Subject primarily taken by those interested in Business, yet when you think about it, how can anyone Vote Intelligently without understanding the Basics about Economy?
If only those who run Businesses understand much, if anything, about the Economy, no wonder People Vote the way they do. Even though I was raised by Republicans, I was a Democrat until I later took an Economy Class at a Junior College and realized that up until that point, I had not really understood the Republican Point of View. Remember, though, I was never required to take this class. I only did it because I realized that it really was something that all American Voters should Understand.
In Relation to the Government Class, believe it or not, I could have skipped this in College as well, for just as in High School, we were offered a choice between History and Government, yet I realized the importance of understanding Government and decided that I better take this Class, yet the point I'm trying to make here is how many others may not have made this Choice, because as Unbelievable as this sounds, it was not required. This reality brings a very important question to my mind. Just how many people are there out there who have Graduated from High School and possibly even College and have never taken a Government Class? And then there are those who don't follow the News and/or don't Understand a lot of what they see and hear when they do.
Can you believe it?! And yet many of those who Live and Breath Politics assume that everyone who's listening to them talk Understands what they are saying. How often do we talk over a lot of people's heads without even realizing it?
So far, I have only talked about those who actually are "Educated" and yet in a lot of ways, not "Educated", but what about those who are not "Educated" at all? What about High School and College Drop outs, or those who finished High School, but never went to College, or what about Illegal Immigrants who were granted Amnesty and yet were never required to learn much about our Culture and/or don't even speak English? If this wasn't so, than why are ballots printed in Spanish?
Aside from the fact that we really do need to try and explain things simply whenever possible, I have even thought of a rather Radical Idea that could possibly get me into trouble, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Most everyone has a Drivers Licence, yet this is viewed as a Privilege, rather than a Right. In order to get a Drivers Licence and earn this Privilege, people have to take a Test. Even though this is a Privilege and not a Right, the Test is simple enough that most everyone can pass it.
There have been times in which I wish that Voting could also be the same way.
One of the reasons why Driving is a Privilege and not a Right is because it can be Dangerous if the Driver does not know what he or she is doing, yet isn't Voting and making Political Decisions without knowing what one is doing Dangerous as well?
Yeh, I know. What I'm suggesting will never happen, but you can't blame a girl for trying. Forgive me, but what I just said makes a lot of really good sense to me.
Anyway, since so much of the Electorate is not quite as "Educated" as they should be, we do need to remember to take the time to talk in simple terms whenever possible.
Extremism vs. Moderation, An Introduction
There were two Possible Subjects suggested in the Comment Section of the Previous Post, "Just How Small Should a Government Be?". "Reaching the Uneducated" and "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". At least those were the Titles I was Considering. Also, as I was reading these Comments, I came across several other things that I could Expand upon as well.
Actually, the "Reaching the Uneducated" Subject is the one that most freely flowed when I sat down to write it out, but I sort of promised Soapboxgod that I would start with the second one, or at least one that had something to do with "Compromise".
I think I'm still working on formulating my ideas on the Subject of "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". The whole idea of "Extremism verses Moderation"/"Remaining Firm verses Compromise" is not Cristal Clear in my mind yet mostly because it reflects a shift in my thinking. Believe it or not, my thoughts have been moving more and more in the direction of things that I used to consider Extreme. I actually sort of surprised myself when I was talking to Repsac3 on one of his Post (Is it Just Me...) about the Tea Parties, Statism and Federalism, or put another way "the Sovereignty of the States" and also about People who are currently upset with both Political Parties.
I'm not going to say a whole lot more about it in this Post except to refer you to the Link I just placed in the above Paragraph. You can comment on it either here or over there. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Actually, the "Reaching the Uneducated" Subject is the one that most freely flowed when I sat down to write it out, but I sort of promised Soapboxgod that I would start with the second one, or at least one that had something to do with "Compromise".
I think I'm still working on formulating my ideas on the Subject of "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". The whole idea of "Extremism verses Moderation"/"Remaining Firm verses Compromise" is not Cristal Clear in my mind yet mostly because it reflects a shift in my thinking. Believe it or not, my thoughts have been moving more and more in the direction of things that I used to consider Extreme. I actually sort of surprised myself when I was talking to Repsac3 on one of his Post (Is it Just Me...) about the Tea Parties, Statism and Federalism, or put another way "the Sovereignty of the States" and also about People who are currently upset with both Political Parties.
I'm not going to say a whole lot more about it in this Post except to refer you to the Link I just placed in the above Paragraph. You can comment on it either here or over there. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Just How Small Should a Government Be?
As I was reading and responding to another of Griper's Posts; "Taxes, Blessed are the Poor.", there were so many issues that came up relating to Taxes that I couldn't say it all in the Comment Section of that Post.
I got thinking about another whole Tax issue when I was reading a Comment by BB-Idaho that was submitted to the Linked Post on 4/19/09, at 2:38 PM. In this Comment, I found it interesting that the Flat Tax Rate that he was suggesting contained an 11% Tax Rate, which isn't much different from the 10% that is spoken of in the Bible. I wonder if everyone really did give 10% of their Income to the Church, if the Church could do a lot of the things that the Government is currently doing.
Another interesting thing to note about Taxes is that when Taxes go up, often Donations to Churches and Charities go down and when Taxes are down, Donation go up.
The idea that the Churches and Private Charities should be taking care of people, rather than the Government is an interesting one that is held by some Republican Christians. The problem is that not all Republicans think this way. Many Republicans just want the freedom to keep their money and let the Poor fend for themselves. They forget that some of the Poor are actually Handicapped or Disabled. Aside from the Physically Challenged and the Mentally Challenged, some people are also Emotionally Challenged in ways that hinder their ability to function in our Society. Due to the basic Selfishness of people in general, if the Government wasn't supporting the needs of those who genuinely do need the assistance, would there be enough money Donated to Churches and Private Charities to take care of these needs?
One thing that has concerned me quite a bit in relation to this is that the Severely Challenged are better able to get Governmental Assistance than those whose Physical, Mental and/or Emotional Limits are more Minor, yet even Minor Limits and Handicaps can prevent someone from succeeding in a Capitalist Society. Remember, we are not talking about Laziness here. We are talking about actual real Conditioned or Genetic Limits.
Below the Post that I Linked to above, we had a really interesting discussion about the Flat Tax verses the Progressive Tax System, as well as the Fair Tax System that has been suggested by Mike Huckabee. In the Post that you are reading now, I am addressing the idea of expanding the role of Churches and Private Charities to meet more of the needs in our Society.
Before we carry this idea too far, let's consider the fact that the Government also provides Fire Protection and Law Enforcement, so we obviously do need some Government. Another problem that comes to my mind is whether or not the Church could really handle the burden when people really do genuinely need on going help due to a very real Handicap that prevents them from working not only temporarily, but indefinitely. Isn't the task of caring for such people a rather large burden to place on a Church?
I guess the question that I am really asking to some of you Republicans is how far exactly do you want this "Small Government" idea to go? Where should we draw the line between the Reasonable and the Extreme? Just how much of the needs of Society should be handled by the Government and how much of it should be handled by Private Churches and Charities? I'm not sure that I know the answer to these questions, but I eagerly await your Responses.
I got thinking about another whole Tax issue when I was reading a Comment by BB-Idaho that was submitted to the Linked Post on 4/19/09, at 2:38 PM. In this Comment, I found it interesting that the Flat Tax Rate that he was suggesting contained an 11% Tax Rate, which isn't much different from the 10% that is spoken of in the Bible. I wonder if everyone really did give 10% of their Income to the Church, if the Church could do a lot of the things that the Government is currently doing.
Another interesting thing to note about Taxes is that when Taxes go up, often Donations to Churches and Charities go down and when Taxes are down, Donation go up.
The idea that the Churches and Private Charities should be taking care of people, rather than the Government is an interesting one that is held by some Republican Christians. The problem is that not all Republicans think this way. Many Republicans just want the freedom to keep their money and let the Poor fend for themselves. They forget that some of the Poor are actually Handicapped or Disabled. Aside from the Physically Challenged and the Mentally Challenged, some people are also Emotionally Challenged in ways that hinder their ability to function in our Society. Due to the basic Selfishness of people in general, if the Government wasn't supporting the needs of those who genuinely do need the assistance, would there be enough money Donated to Churches and Private Charities to take care of these needs?
One thing that has concerned me quite a bit in relation to this is that the Severely Challenged are better able to get Governmental Assistance than those whose Physical, Mental and/or Emotional Limits are more Minor, yet even Minor Limits and Handicaps can prevent someone from succeeding in a Capitalist Society. Remember, we are not talking about Laziness here. We are talking about actual real Conditioned or Genetic Limits.
Below the Post that I Linked to above, we had a really interesting discussion about the Flat Tax verses the Progressive Tax System, as well as the Fair Tax System that has been suggested by Mike Huckabee. In the Post that you are reading now, I am addressing the idea of expanding the role of Churches and Private Charities to meet more of the needs in our Society.
Before we carry this idea too far, let's consider the fact that the Government also provides Fire Protection and Law Enforcement, so we obviously do need some Government. Another problem that comes to my mind is whether or not the Church could really handle the burden when people really do genuinely need on going help due to a very real Handicap that prevents them from working not only temporarily, but indefinitely. Isn't the task of caring for such people a rather large burden to place on a Church?
I guess the question that I am really asking to some of you Republicans is how far exactly do you want this "Small Government" idea to go? Where should we draw the line between the Reasonable and the Extreme? Just how much of the needs of Society should be handled by the Government and how much of it should be handled by Private Churches and Charities? I'm not sure that I know the answer to these questions, but I eagerly await your Responses.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Preaching to the Choir
As I was responding to someone's Comment on a Blog just now, I realized something. Earlier in the discussion, I had commented that while talking about this particular subject with this person, I felt as if I was preaching to the Choir. Of course, I'm sure, no doubt, that the person I was talking too probably felt the same way about me. In the last Comment that I left, however, a light bulb went off in my head and I finally understood something about what he was trying to say to me.
There are many Possible Reasons why Communication between people can fail. One Possible Reason for Failed Communication that always comes to my mind is that one or both of the Communicators are too caught up in an Extreme Position and are not willing to Compromise and find some Middle Ground. This is only one of the Reasons, though, Communication can fail.
When ever there is disagreement in a Conversation, it can always be debated who exactly is the Preacher and who exactly is the Unreceptive Choir, yet sometimes I see these things in a totally different light. Could it be instead that the Individuals in the discussion are simply not understanding one another? When ever we feel as if we are Preaching to the Choir, there are at least two possible explanations: no, actually maybe three. One is that I'm right and the other person is Unreceptive. Another is that the other person is right and I am the one being Unreceptive. The third possibility is that we are not in disagreement to the extent that we think and the problem is that we have not adequately explained our position.
Also in the last Comment that I left on this Blog, I made the statement. "Here's where you and I have trouble communicating. We are both too General and we don't understand each other until we become more Specific."
Here is the Post that the Conversation that I'm describing is on. The Post is about Socialism, yet the discussion eventually lead into a very common subject between Griper and I; Compromise between the Extremes. You can read the entire discussion if you like, but I think that the point at which it really got interesting was in my Comment on 4/4/09, at 6:14 PM. If you start from this point, you will only have to read 12 Comments, instead of 65. At least those were the numbers when I wrote this Post.
There are many Possible Reasons why Communication between people can fail. One Possible Reason for Failed Communication that always comes to my mind is that one or both of the Communicators are too caught up in an Extreme Position and are not willing to Compromise and find some Middle Ground. This is only one of the Reasons, though, Communication can fail.
When ever there is disagreement in a Conversation, it can always be debated who exactly is the Preacher and who exactly is the Unreceptive Choir, yet sometimes I see these things in a totally different light. Could it be instead that the Individuals in the discussion are simply not understanding one another? When ever we feel as if we are Preaching to the Choir, there are at least two possible explanations: no, actually maybe three. One is that I'm right and the other person is Unreceptive. Another is that the other person is right and I am the one being Unreceptive. The third possibility is that we are not in disagreement to the extent that we think and the problem is that we have not adequately explained our position.
Also in the last Comment that I left on this Blog, I made the statement. "Here's where you and I have trouble communicating. We are both too General and we don't understand each other until we become more Specific."
Here is the Post that the Conversation that I'm describing is on. The Post is about Socialism, yet the discussion eventually lead into a very common subject between Griper and I; Compromise between the Extremes. You can read the entire discussion if you like, but I think that the point at which it really got interesting was in my Comment on 4/4/09, at 6:14 PM. If you start from this point, you will only have to read 12 Comments, instead of 65. At least those were the numbers when I wrote this Post.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Judge Not, That ye' Be Not Judged
I just wrote something on Griper's blog that sounded like it could be another post. I thought I might repeat it here for those of you who visit me that may or may not also visit Griper. I wrote it in response to a Christmas Poem Griper posted by George R Sims. I guess it's called "Christmas Day in the Workhouse". Griper entitled his post "Christmas of Long Ago". It is a poem about the Hypocrisy of doing good deeds for the wrong reasons, while not having any real love in one's heart.
Many people have decided not to go to church because they have seen Hypocrisy there. In response to this, I've heard it said "Just because the mouse is in the cookie jar, this does not make him a cookie.", so also "Just because someone goes to church, this does not make him a true Christian."
Since I tend to interpret a lot of things on Blogs Politically, I felt moved to add that Just because someone is a Republican, this does not mean that he necessarily cares about the poor.; or put another way, Just because someone is a Republican, this doesn't mean that he's a rich snob that does not care about the poor.
But then again, perhaps this same thing could be said about the Democrats as well. Just because someone is a Democrat, this does not mean that he necessarily cares about the poor., nor does it mean that he doesn't care and is controlling or lazy.
Griper seemed to think that I was changing the subject from Christmas to Politics, yet what is true in every day life is also true in Politics. Christmas is about love for our fellow man and this includes love for those who have different opinions than ourselves within Politics.
We are to love without Hypocrisy. This means doing it for the right reasons and it also means not judging those around us. There are several verses that come to mind in relation to this. I have listed some of them below...
"1) Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2) For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2, NIV
"21) You, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23) You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?" Romans 2:21-23, NIV
"3) So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" Romans 3:3, NIV
"41) Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42) How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite; first take the plank out of your eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42, NIV
Getting back to the Political side of this, some Democrats care more about either control or the desire to be taken care of and some Republicans are guilty, just as they have been accused, of caring only for the well being of the rich and not the poor. We need to be careful, though, that we do not Stereo Type each other. Some Republicans do care and others do not and the same exact thing can be said about the Democrats.
It does no good to deny the Hypocrisy and Selfishness that can exist on both sides. We all need to ask God continually to search our hearts and purify us of all wrong motives.
It does no good to Stereo Type. It does no good to behave in ways that justify these Stereo Types. It does no good to judge and point fingers. It does no good to scream and vent our anger. It does no good to refuse to compromise on anything at all.
This comment is aimed at who ever is listening. Republicans; Democrats; I'm talking to both of you! Would you please both just knock it off!!
Fortunately, there are good and sincere people in both parties and these are the ones who need to work together for the good of the whole country and all of mankind.
Many people have decided not to go to church because they have seen Hypocrisy there. In response to this, I've heard it said "Just because the mouse is in the cookie jar, this does not make him a cookie.", so also "Just because someone goes to church, this does not make him a true Christian."
Since I tend to interpret a lot of things on Blogs Politically, I felt moved to add that Just because someone is a Republican, this does not mean that he necessarily cares about the poor.; or put another way, Just because someone is a Republican, this doesn't mean that he's a rich snob that does not care about the poor.
But then again, perhaps this same thing could be said about the Democrats as well. Just because someone is a Democrat, this does not mean that he necessarily cares about the poor., nor does it mean that he doesn't care and is controlling or lazy.
Griper seemed to think that I was changing the subject from Christmas to Politics, yet what is true in every day life is also true in Politics. Christmas is about love for our fellow man and this includes love for those who have different opinions than ourselves within Politics.
We are to love without Hypocrisy. This means doing it for the right reasons and it also means not judging those around us. There are several verses that come to mind in relation to this. I have listed some of them below...
"1) Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2) For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2, NIV
"21) You, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23) You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?" Romans 2:21-23, NIV
"3) So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" Romans 3:3, NIV
"41) Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42) How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite; first take the plank out of your eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42, NIV
Getting back to the Political side of this, some Democrats care more about either control or the desire to be taken care of and some Republicans are guilty, just as they have been accused, of caring only for the well being of the rich and not the poor. We need to be careful, though, that we do not Stereo Type each other. Some Republicans do care and others do not and the same exact thing can be said about the Democrats.
It does no good to deny the Hypocrisy and Selfishness that can exist on both sides. We all need to ask God continually to search our hearts and purify us of all wrong motives.
It does no good to Stereo Type. It does no good to behave in ways that justify these Stereo Types. It does no good to judge and point fingers. It does no good to scream and vent our anger. It does no good to refuse to compromise on anything at all.
This comment is aimed at who ever is listening. Republicans; Democrats; I'm talking to both of you! Would you please both just knock it off!!
Fortunately, there are good and sincere people in both parties and these are the ones who need to work together for the good of the whole country and all of mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)