Now obviously by it's title I intend to be a little inflammatory; yet, I do not feel that I am completely off base. I will presume that rational people will agree that the President is a figure head in reality and that a Presidency’s image is the President but the Presidency is will most likely the 50 closest people to the President calling the shots. For a biblical reference the President is Aaron and the other 50 people are Moses.
You see when we voted for the President this time around we voted for a mouth piece with little thought those that will be appointed to receive revelation in their respective spheres. I am not going to say that Pres. Obama is not smart enough to appointment qualified people, I am just saying that we as a nation did not recognize or view this principle as important, which is should have been. Anyway that is water under the bridge.
Yes, Pres. Obama’s is appointing many of Pres. Clinton’s top advisors and aides, who will in reality give the same advice they gave before, which is why I feel that “C” in Obama’s “Change” really stands for “Clinton”. I think some of this is smart. The people he is appointing do have experience and can get the “job” done, but stupid Republicans are jumping all over this negatively. Listen, I would rather have proven credentials in turmoil like this, enough said. But, I would like to see some fresh ideas in Washington and restoration of former policy.
(Changing gears a little)
I think Pres. Obama was able to spin a concept so well as it is boarder line deceptive. But in that deception he was able insight correct behavior, but not consequence. Essentially, Pres. Obama’s rhetorical ‘means’ have justified my ‘end’. My ‘end’ is that I want people to get involved with the political process. It’s about time the people started to hold elected officials accountable. It’s not the politicians’ fault it’s the people. For too long the term “Washington” has been aligned with lies, deception, mistrust and the like…great then do something about it. The people have finally done something about it. But they could have also brought the same change with Pres. McCain or a Pres. Huckabee (idiot) or a Pres. Romney, etc… So when Pres. Obama says he’s change and change is coming to Washington, all I can say is no $hit you’re not Pres. Bush there is only one Pres. Bush, thanks for the heads up. My point is that “change” happens every time there is a different person elected. Heck there was change between each of Clinton and Bush’s presidency’s.
The bottom line is this; we are going to get a semi Clinton presidency with the appointments that will bring little fundamental change. The only “change” that will be had, is depending upon where you are on the spectrum of conservative to liberal, democrat to republican the new government (house, senate, & Presidency) will cater to your needs. That is not the deceptive change people were led to believe in! In this Presidency they will encourage action with out consequence (i.e. through bailing out everyone). This Presidency will most typically frustrate growth by support of stupidity and NOT holding people accountable. Is there a difference between a President who caters to the oil companies that employee 1,000’s or the President who caters to the car manufacture’s who employee 1000’s. It all depends on where you are. But there is a much easier argument to make for the many ancillary benefits for supporting the math and sciences field of oil & gas over the assembly line “benefits”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i am still looking up the word ancillary, I'll get back to you on that one.
ok found it!! love Dr dictionary..First off anybody that work for in the Clinton years for the most part worked a as JR staff member, The media like to never mention the particulars of anything.
I agree that unless Obama creates a more centralized Govet depending on wher you are Far right or far left it will determine how you feel you are represented. One can hope for a more middle of the road center type governmemt.
I dont believe that too far to the liberal or to the conservitive side of things will do anyhting but create a wider split then we already have.
The Liberal way of thinking does have merit as well as the conservative side. The major problem that they both polorize each other and the ideals become stagnant. i have always urged anyone that will listen to contact your Representative and Senator to let them know whats on your mind.
It will serve the contry well to get involved in local scene to fet your core values across a broader demagraphic..
But wht do i know i'm just a Grandpa
man i wish i cold find spell check when blogging. either that or i should have showed for class that day......
Name one benefit of Liberal thinking or ideology?
For example, the Detroit automakers want money because nobody is buying their crappy made cars. So, should I be able to start a crappy restaurant and have the government buy all of my food? Of course not! When elevators were first invented and for quite some time after there were nearly 100,000 elevator operators. I would think that all could agree that we put people to "better work" then operating an elevator. Much in the same way that we can use the displaced human capital for the automakers to produce something better.
i am not arguing About the Big 3, they have been poorly managed and the concept of Chapter 11 looms large. The down side to that is the rippling effect from a poorly managed Company.
The statment that i said was there are great ideas on both sides. To say show me one benifit of liberalism thinking. i could argue that it not me that has to look but the conservative who needs to open there mind. As well as the liberal who should if they are a true liberal would already have an open mind to see the other side.
I still believe that a more Centered approch to Governemnt while not tending to the specifec needs of the left or right, will tend to the masses
(None of this is directed to you personally so don't take offense)
You're not really allowed to argue "...because I said so..." or "open your mind". My mind is open, it is the responsibility of the one promoting an idea to have the foundation, merit, & tact to present such. I have yet to hear a liberal policy that promoted what our founding fathers established. Unfortunately, when people establish standards, those who fall short of such and those who don't belive aruge that standards bearers are close minded. To say that one is close minded is name calling and when one's arguments results to name calling and not substance that should be evident to observers that the argument really never had substance or merit.
(Now to you)
What is a centered government? Is that 2 parties working together or is that one party? The US model is not designed to be centrists. It is designed w/ checks and balances (although not currently) to insure that one party or a (centrists) idealogy is not enacted.
Dont confuse centrist with what I believe a government should be.
A true Democracy will listen to all that wish to comment.And Govern accordingly to the people wishes. Unfourtunalty that is vacated in our sysytem. Our representives to Congress our more interested in the a paid lobbyist then the people they are chosen to represent.
our Goverment is suppose to For the people and by the People.That idea is long gone from our founding Fathers, yes it still in print and the idea is still spoken but hardly acted upon.
This is why I would prefer to see my Government more Centered in its approach. Myself being a Demo does not mean that I vote strickly on party lines doing that I loose my own idenitiy and certain values that I personally prefer to see inatalled.
Much like my Republican counterparts to escape the party line and vote for their own personal principles. I would concede that all are not like me and I an fine with that. But I will not concede that only one party has all the answers.
To just go with the flow of either party would suggest to me that the person hasn't thought for themselves
the civil rights movement and the end of segregation...women equality...social security...the new deal...healthcare for the poor and elderly...national parks...humane working conditions...Head Start...food stamp program...cleaner air and water...foreign aid/relief/food for developing nations...seat belts...safer clothing and toys from china...Pell Grants and other college loans...are some things brought about by liberal thinking or ideology.
james that is point exactly! the civil rights movement and the end of segregation...women equality these ideologies I would not classify as liberal in that they are supported by the constitution...however, social security has quite possible destroyed the tradition family support structure more than anything else as well as the increase in government which was directly against what our founding fathers wanted. Moreover, it was never managed correctly nor implemented with the longer term effects. This liberal idea was a quick fix which again is what liberal idealogy prides its self on....quick fix now because I have “feelings” and we’ll deal with the rest later. The new deal massive increase in government...healthcare for the poor and elderly...national parks (conservative not liberal)...humane working conditions...Head Start (terrible government intervention...food stamp program terrible government intervention...cleaner air and water I guess we can thank the EPA along with our energy crisis for their lack of conservatism and growth...foreign aid/relief/food for developing nations (that is not a liberal ideology)...seat belts and why should the government have the right to dictate that?...safer clothing and toys from china (again not a liberal ideology) ...Pell Grants and other college loans could be run more effective through a market system...are some things brought about by liberal thinking or ideology. James I understand our difference but with all honesty I don’t think it makes for a convincing argument to say that “liberalism” creates everything deemed good and conservatism is the angel of death. I think our disconnect is on when and where liberalism/progressive and conservative principles meet. So how is good is Head Start working these days? How is the health care that is being provided? How is it paying $4 a gal. for gas? How is it to have one city run the greatest country on earth? Great liberal ideas. That is not the America that was planned in Philadelphia. individual freedom (liberal), states rights (conservatism), these were the building blocks of America.
so liberal equals bad, conservative equals good? government, bad? free market, good? that's what fox news tells me...
In regards to "social security has quite possible destroyed the tradition family support structure more than anything else as well as the increase in government which was directly against what our founding fathers wanted"
i don't think that any of us can really say "what our founding fathers wanted." History tells us the creation of our constitution and government was a great compromise of contrasting, differing ideas founded on common principles. conservative thinking did not bring us our constitution and freedom. neither did liberal thinking. but both of them recognized and compromised and came to consensus after intense and divisive debate. i think you would find very real differences between your professed beliefs and thomas jefferson's (one of the founding fathers). that doesn't mean that either of you are wrong, just that both of your ideas must be heard. in our country as your dad was saying we are a mix of both ideologies. to say all liberal ideas are bad seems a bit parochial and myopic.
you are free to think that the government should not mandate seat belts, but if government didn't mandate it car makers wouldn't have ever put them in the cars in the first place. you can argue that people's individual desire for safety would have forced the option, but it was government that explained to people that seat belts were safe, not the corporations.
liberal vs. conservative in my mind is not state rights versus individual rights. it is community good versus individual good. gun control. school vouchers. healthcare. conservative lobbyists will tell you that you have an INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun, to go to whatever school you want, and why should YOU pay for another persons healthcare--they should pay for themselves! these are convincing arguments...
Liberals will argue that your gun is statistically more likely to shoot a neighborhood kid than to protect you from some criminal. they will argue that schools should be supported by communities and built up not abandoned because "I" want something better. what about all the other kids who don't have the option? And any convincing liberal will tell you that YOUR health DIRECTLY affects MY health and that is exactly why we should support each other. as long as we breathe the same air my health affects yours.
as far as seat belts go, i would much rather not have to pay increased hospital bills for uninsured unrestrained auto accident victims because government made them use their seat belt.
"To increase abiding satisfaction for the mass of our people, and for all people, someone must sacrifice something of his own happiness. This is only a duty to those who recognize it as a duty..." W.E.B Du Bois
This is liberal ideology.
If you make everyone the same and give everyone the same playing field where does growth come from? Every communal society throughout history has been destroyed, partly because the communal bond is one of necessity and not one of choice. I would agree (i.e. I have covenanted) to live in a communal society with those who have the same vision as myself.
Would you really want to help pay for the health care of desiring drug dealers, prostitutes, child abusers, spouse abusers, etc... I won't do that because it is not in my nor the community best interest to support such. To make an omelette's you have to crack a few eggs. It is simply against law to place a celestial law in a terrestrial world. There is a "time and a season".
Post a Comment