I am watching the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on CNBC.
For the most part I like the ideas coming out of this group. I really like some of the things Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are saying. We need less government regulation, we need to cut Federal Government spending and reduce its size.
It seems to me that they, in particular, are not just spouting talking points but are actually using knowledge and experience they have to answer the questions. Cain has some good ideas but seems to be holding tight to sound bites rather than answering the question. I don't really know about any of the accusations brought about him but I hope, for his sake, that they are unfounded.
Perry also seems like he has some good ideas but he is just reciting answers, not answering (does that make sense?). Santorum bugs me a little. He shares much of the same ideologies as the other candidates but he takes every opportunity to distance himself and toot his own horn.
It bugs me when candidates dance around questions or ignore them completely. It also bugs me that some of the questions the moderators ask are about short term fixes for problems that have no short term fixes like medical care, student loans and economic turn-around. For the most part, the big changes that need to happen are going to hurt a while. Just as the rose needs to be pruned, many of the issues facing our country need to be broken down and need to bleed a little before they can heal.
Sometimes Presidential candidates are funny and I like that but much of the time when they try to be funny it falls flat and they look dumb.
OK. Cain is starting to bug me. It may be very true that his 999 plan to grow the economy is step one to many of the changes that need to happen but when they ask a question, instead of just re-iterating his sound bite he needs to take the opportunity to go into some detail or explain how his 999 plan applies to that question.
One of the tweets at the bottom said "can't the candidates come up with a solution that does not involve tax cuts, spending cuts, and deregulation?" I laughed. What domestic economic problem is not connected to these?
November 09, 2011
October 28, 2011
Politics of Religion
I thought this was a very good article featured in USA TODAY. It basically talks about the common sense line between politics and religion. We don't need to drag all our religious convictions into every political event (especially to the exclusion of others)but then we don't need to treat religious and moral convictions as some sort of plague. I hope you enjoy.
---------------------------------------------
Column: 5 rules for faith and politics 2012
Watching the presidential candidates over the past several weeks has set our civic alarm bells ringing. Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. Admittedly, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. But we could use some constitutional rules of the road if America is to continue steering a path between theocracy on one side and hostility toward religion on the other.
Here are five guidelines for both politicians and religious leaders as we move forward into this election season.
1 It is never appropriate — explicitly or implicitly — to impose a religious test for public office. Nothing is more profoundly American than Article VI of our Constitution. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Though Article VI only prohibits government from creating such tests, the principle should apply to both candidates and religious organizations. As Republican President Teddy Roosevelt observed during a period of intense anti-Catholic bigotry: "To impose such a test by popular vote is as bad as to impose it by law. To vote either for or against a man because of his creed is to impose upon him a religious test and is a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution." Voters should evaluate candidates based on their policies, their values and their character but not on whether or how they choose to worship. Similarly, no candidates — or their supporters — should suggest that they deserve votes (or that their opponents do not) because of their religious beliefs or practices.
2 Religious leaders should refrain from using religious authority or threats to coerce the political decisions of American citizens or candidates. At their best, religious leaders serve as the moral goad or conscience of society. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. calling the nation to a higher and better way on civil rights. Yet there is an important distinction between being a prophet and a ruler. Religious leaders cross the line when they seek to coerce secular leaders or voters rather than convince them. Denying communion to candidates for their political views during a campaign is a case in point. Such public censure serves as a de facto endorsement of the opposing candidates. Even more disturbing is threatening to kick members out of their church if they vote wrong or the denial of communion to voters based upon how they vote. Democracy, and religious freedom, depend on voters being free to exercise their civic duty without fear of punishment or constraint.
3 Candidates should refrain from citing religion as the exclusive authority for their position on issues. Democracy requires the ability to test public policies in reasoned discourse in a free marketplace of ideas. If a candidate claims that his or her sole source of justification for a policy is God, how can that assertion be tested and debated? Religious motivation is to be expected and commended, but candidates and legislators must be able to offer a civic or secular purpose for any public policy they propose. The First Amendment demands as much, and the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly. If a candidate asserts a religious reason for a policy, questions about the role faith plays in shaping his or her decisions are fair game.
4 Politicians should try to be inclusive of all citizens when — in their public capacity — they choose to speak religiously. Lincoln spoke of "the almighty," Jefferson of "the creator" and Washington of "divine providence." Such attempts at speaking inclusively when speaking religiously are helpful — rather than divisive — to the body politic. Yes, nearly all religions have some exclusive aspect to non-believers or different believers, but public officials can speak so that their moral power and imagery unite rather than divide. This does not mean that references to Jesus are per se inappropriate. Take George Bush's famous response to a debate moderator's question about the most influential political philosopher in his life. When candidate Bush responded, "Christ, because he changed my heart," the critics howled. Yet the candidate's response was honest, appropriate and revealed something significant about his values and political views. In short, there was nothing out of bounds for our former president to cite Jesus as the most important influence on his politics. It was up to voters to decide whether candidate Bush lived up to such high ethical standards.
5 Religious organizations have the constitutional freedom — and we would argue moral duty— to speak out on the great issues that confront our nation, but as tax-exempt entities they should never endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Partisan political activity by religious organizations amounts to an end run around campaign-finance laws by allowing tax-deductible contributions to subsidize political campaigns. It's not just that such endorsements violate federal tax and campaign laws; there is something deeply problematic from a religious perspective. Cloaking any candidate or political party in the divine mantle is certain to disappoint. Candidates are, after all, human. Identifying a candidate or political party with God compromises our moral standards, disillusions our members and diminishes our prophetic voice. Accordingly, candidates and their campaign staffs should respect the sacred space of churches and never seek to organize partisan support through houses of worship. While religious organizations should refrain from partisan political activity, clergy have every right to endorse or oppose candidates in their individual capacities. Many clergy — including one of us — have actually sought and served in public office, and most Congresses have had clergy who served honorably and effectively in one or both chambers.
There is a religious, as well as civic, principle at stake here. It is the third of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Most Americans think it's as simple as not saying the words "g-- d---," but they are wrong. The heart of the commandment is about using religion for personal gain.
Such as votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-23/religion-politics-faith-elections/50883610/1
---------------------------------------------
Column: 5 rules for faith and politics 2012
Watching the presidential candidates over the past several weeks has set our civic alarm bells ringing. Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. Admittedly, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God and government or of religion and politics. But we could use some constitutional rules of the road if America is to continue steering a path between theocracy on one side and hostility toward religion on the other.
Here are five guidelines for both politicians and religious leaders as we move forward into this election season.
1 It is never appropriate — explicitly or implicitly — to impose a religious test for public office. Nothing is more profoundly American than Article VI of our Constitution. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Though Article VI only prohibits government from creating such tests, the principle should apply to both candidates and religious organizations. As Republican President Teddy Roosevelt observed during a period of intense anti-Catholic bigotry: "To impose such a test by popular vote is as bad as to impose it by law. To vote either for or against a man because of his creed is to impose upon him a religious test and is a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution." Voters should evaluate candidates based on their policies, their values and their character but not on whether or how they choose to worship. Similarly, no candidates — or their supporters — should suggest that they deserve votes (or that their opponents do not) because of their religious beliefs or practices.
2 Religious leaders should refrain from using religious authority or threats to coerce the political decisions of American citizens or candidates. At their best, religious leaders serve as the moral goad or conscience of society. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. calling the nation to a higher and better way on civil rights. Yet there is an important distinction between being a prophet and a ruler. Religious leaders cross the line when they seek to coerce secular leaders or voters rather than convince them. Denying communion to candidates for their political views during a campaign is a case in point. Such public censure serves as a de facto endorsement of the opposing candidates. Even more disturbing is threatening to kick members out of their church if they vote wrong or the denial of communion to voters based upon how they vote. Democracy, and religious freedom, depend on voters being free to exercise their civic duty without fear of punishment or constraint.
3 Candidates should refrain from citing religion as the exclusive authority for their position on issues. Democracy requires the ability to test public policies in reasoned discourse in a free marketplace of ideas. If a candidate claims that his or her sole source of justification for a policy is God, how can that assertion be tested and debated? Religious motivation is to be expected and commended, but candidates and legislators must be able to offer a civic or secular purpose for any public policy they propose. The First Amendment demands as much, and the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly. If a candidate asserts a religious reason for a policy, questions about the role faith plays in shaping his or her decisions are fair game.
4 Politicians should try to be inclusive of all citizens when — in their public capacity — they choose to speak religiously. Lincoln spoke of "the almighty," Jefferson of "the creator" and Washington of "divine providence." Such attempts at speaking inclusively when speaking religiously are helpful — rather than divisive — to the body politic. Yes, nearly all religions have some exclusive aspect to non-believers or different believers, but public officials can speak so that their moral power and imagery unite rather than divide. This does not mean that references to Jesus are per se inappropriate. Take George Bush's famous response to a debate moderator's question about the most influential political philosopher in his life. When candidate Bush responded, "Christ, because he changed my heart," the critics howled. Yet the candidate's response was honest, appropriate and revealed something significant about his values and political views. In short, there was nothing out of bounds for our former president to cite Jesus as the most important influence on his politics. It was up to voters to decide whether candidate Bush lived up to such high ethical standards.
5 Religious organizations have the constitutional freedom — and we would argue moral duty— to speak out on the great issues that confront our nation, but as tax-exempt entities they should never endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Partisan political activity by religious organizations amounts to an end run around campaign-finance laws by allowing tax-deductible contributions to subsidize political campaigns. It's not just that such endorsements violate federal tax and campaign laws; there is something deeply problematic from a religious perspective. Cloaking any candidate or political party in the divine mantle is certain to disappoint. Candidates are, after all, human. Identifying a candidate or political party with God compromises our moral standards, disillusions our members and diminishes our prophetic voice. Accordingly, candidates and their campaign staffs should respect the sacred space of churches and never seek to organize partisan support through houses of worship. While religious organizations should refrain from partisan political activity, clergy have every right to endorse or oppose candidates in their individual capacities. Many clergy — including one of us — have actually sought and served in public office, and most Congresses have had clergy who served honorably and effectively in one or both chambers.
There is a religious, as well as civic, principle at stake here. It is the third of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Most Americans think it's as simple as not saying the words "g-- d---," but they are wrong. The heart of the commandment is about using religion for personal gain.
Such as votes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-23/religion-politics-faith-elections/50883610/1
October 24, 2011
Double Take
"President Obama says his new jobs bill will create over 1.9 million jobs -- and up to 50 of them will be right here in America." --comedian Jay Leno
"Politicians say they create jobs, but they really don't. Or rather, they rarely create productive jobs. Government has no money of its own. All it does is take resources from one group and give them to another. The pharaohs might have claimed they created work when they ordered that pyramids be built, but think how much richer (and freer) the Egyptians would have been if they'd been allowed to pursue their own interests." -John Stossel
"If I Don't Have This Done In Three Years, Then There's Going To Be A One-Term Proposition." -Pres. Barack Obama
So, recently I have become aware of President Obama pushing for a new bill or plan to create more jobs. . . now I'm no political expert but didn't we just spend a few billion dollars not to long ago that was going to stem the tide of unemployment and create thousands of jobs? Who was pushing that? How much did it cost? It didn't work, apparently, and now he wants We the People to support him in spending more of our money to create the jobs he couldn't create (which, as the Executive branch of the government he can't technically do anyway) with billions of dollars?
"Politicians say they create jobs, but they really don't. Or rather, they rarely create productive jobs. Government has no money of its own. All it does is take resources from one group and give them to another. The pharaohs might have claimed they created work when they ordered that pyramids be built, but think how much richer (and freer) the Egyptians would have been if they'd been allowed to pursue their own interests." -John Stossel
"If I Don't Have This Done In Three Years, Then There's Going To Be A One-Term Proposition." -Pres. Barack Obama
So, recently I have become aware of President Obama pushing for a new bill or plan to create more jobs. . . now I'm no political expert but didn't we just spend a few billion dollars not to long ago that was going to stem the tide of unemployment and create thousands of jobs? Who was pushing that? How much did it cost? It didn't work, apparently, and now he wants We the People to support him in spending more of our money to create the jobs he couldn't create (which, as the Executive branch of the government he can't technically do anyway) with billions of dollars?
June 10, 2011
Political Dismay
I was thinking today about all the recent controversy in the political arena. It seems to me that Candidates are dismissed in 3 ways by the media. The first is that, if they are moral, they are too religious and will be a fanatic or governed by their beliefs rather than . . .I'm not sure what they want politicians to govern by other than moral beliefs. The second way politicians are dismissed is that if they are not moral, the media dredges the very worst of their past or exaggerates a mistake and shows what a horrible person the politician is. The third way is that they express the view that the politician does not have enough experience and hence is not worth a thought.
Between all these we have no one to lead us. Much of the time the immoral or corrupt ones really are which is very sad but we have no one to look up to, no one to trust.
Who will lead us?
Between all these we have no one to lead us. Much of the time the immoral or corrupt ones really are which is very sad but we have no one to look up to, no one to trust.
Who will lead us?
February 28, 2011
Wisconsin Unions
This was written by a family friend who is a union member in Wisconsin. It is worth a read and a minute of contemplation.
-----------
It might seem as though citizens are rising up against the government in Wisconsin where unions are fighting for their lives. They say the whole middle class is under siege. The truth is, union membership in this country is just under 12% of the work force. There are 7.6 million union workers in the public sector, including City, State and Federal workers, and 7.1 million in the private sector, so they hardly represent the whole middle class. In fact, we the tax payers pay for public sector workers' salaries and benefits, and the bulk of their union dues go to the DNC to get pro-union democrats elected. The most controversial part of the bill in Wisconsin would be to remove the unions' right to negotiate on those pensions and health care, and while they would be allowed to continue negotiation on wages, the bill would end the automatic deduction of union dues from pay and enforce the annual election of union officials. This would mean a whole lot less tax payer money going to the democrats to pay for political campaigns. Unions contributed nearly half a billion dollars to put democrats in office in 2008. $87 million went to the Obama campaign alone. As a vested union member, that pisses me off.
Democrats outspent republicans in the 2008 presidential race, and yet we’re still being told that the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and that republicans are greedy racists. If we look at liberals and conservatives metaphorically, liberals would be the children and conservatives the adults. The issue in 2011 is fiscal responsibility, and public workers are going to have to grow up and face reality that their exceptional pensions and benefits are out of line with what the rest of America is getting, and they’re financially breaking State and Local governments. Collective bargaining in the private sector has steadily lost power and influence as employers have held out for more reasonable employee contributions to retirement and medical benefits. With unemployment at well over 9%, workers have less leverage and strikes garner little sympathy from the general public. The idea that union contracts guarantee “weekends, 40 hour work weeks and protection against child labor” is inane. Although unions were instrumental in getting laws passed to provide these and other rights to workers, they are State and Federal labor laws separate from collective bargaining contracts. They’ve become “social norms” and pertain to all workers, whether they’re union or not.
Interesting that in Wisconsin teachers walked shoulder to shoulder with socialists and communists. There were communist party members handing out literature at the demonstrations. Teachers ought to feel a bit hijacked by groups that are using them to further their own agenda. Come on people, what the hell are you doing? You’re Americans, remember? You’re free. Why are you allowing yourselves to be used this way? How much of a Gumby have you allowed yourselves to become? Teachers, you’ve allowed your unions to run amok, gradually draining the public coffers. Your passive, and sometimes aggressive acceptance of union demands on your behalf has very likely put at risk your chance for collective bargaining in the future. And it certainly hasn’t helped your public image.
Education is a hot button issue and teachers are taking the heat, to some degree unfairly, for low test scores and a general state of mediocrity in schools. It seems unwise for them to do anything but focus on quality education for our kids, but their unions have one goal and one goal only, and that is to collect revenue from union members and use it to finance politicians who will keep the unions in power. It’s just another left wing minority power grab. The difference this time is that they have a close ally in the White House.
-----------
It might seem as though citizens are rising up against the government in Wisconsin where unions are fighting for their lives. They say the whole middle class is under siege. The truth is, union membership in this country is just under 12% of the work force. There are 7.6 million union workers in the public sector, including City, State and Federal workers, and 7.1 million in the private sector, so they hardly represent the whole middle class. In fact, we the tax payers pay for public sector workers' salaries and benefits, and the bulk of their union dues go to the DNC to get pro-union democrats elected. The most controversial part of the bill in Wisconsin would be to remove the unions' right to negotiate on those pensions and health care, and while they would be allowed to continue negotiation on wages, the bill would end the automatic deduction of union dues from pay and enforce the annual election of union officials. This would mean a whole lot less tax payer money going to the democrats to pay for political campaigns. Unions contributed nearly half a billion dollars to put democrats in office in 2008. $87 million went to the Obama campaign alone. As a vested union member, that pisses me off.
Democrats outspent republicans in the 2008 presidential race, and yet we’re still being told that the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and that republicans are greedy racists. If we look at liberals and conservatives metaphorically, liberals would be the children and conservatives the adults. The issue in 2011 is fiscal responsibility, and public workers are going to have to grow up and face reality that their exceptional pensions and benefits are out of line with what the rest of America is getting, and they’re financially breaking State and Local governments. Collective bargaining in the private sector has steadily lost power and influence as employers have held out for more reasonable employee contributions to retirement and medical benefits. With unemployment at well over 9%, workers have less leverage and strikes garner little sympathy from the general public. The idea that union contracts guarantee “weekends, 40 hour work weeks and protection against child labor” is inane. Although unions were instrumental in getting laws passed to provide these and other rights to workers, they are State and Federal labor laws separate from collective bargaining contracts. They’ve become “social norms” and pertain to all workers, whether they’re union or not.
Interesting that in Wisconsin teachers walked shoulder to shoulder with socialists and communists. There were communist party members handing out literature at the demonstrations. Teachers ought to feel a bit hijacked by groups that are using them to further their own agenda. Come on people, what the hell are you doing? You’re Americans, remember? You’re free. Why are you allowing yourselves to be used this way? How much of a Gumby have you allowed yourselves to become? Teachers, you’ve allowed your unions to run amok, gradually draining the public coffers. Your passive, and sometimes aggressive acceptance of union demands on your behalf has very likely put at risk your chance for collective bargaining in the future. And it certainly hasn’t helped your public image.
Education is a hot button issue and teachers are taking the heat, to some degree unfairly, for low test scores and a general state of mediocrity in schools. It seems unwise for them to do anything but focus on quality education for our kids, but their unions have one goal and one goal only, and that is to collect revenue from union members and use it to finance politicians who will keep the unions in power. It’s just another left wing minority power grab. The difference this time is that they have a close ally in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)