Societies are not static, they are like pendulums and can swing too far in either direction.

This site is committed to the free exchange of ideas in a civil manner. Leave your flies out of the room. The purpose here is to explore ideas that can lead to solutions that benefit all, if not most, rather than some at the expense of others.

Don’t complain if you’re not willing to make the sacrifice of time to, at least, read about what concerns you. If you abdicate your involvement---you get out what you put in.

To my father---as tough as an authoritarian as he was, he planted the seeds for this work. Did he know what he was doing?

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The No Flies Zone is Not about Politics ….

But it was painful to listen to this New Hampshire group of Republicans offering themselves as alternatives in our next election. It should be about solving human rights issues which affect all as opposed to political issues which serve a few.  Yet each of them openly trampled human rights.  We apologize here for what might appear to be a politically motivated site; but the primary focus is human rights.  If one party’s platform favors policies that views groups of society as a cause of conflict, then the conversation gravitates towards those discriminating policies, hence, the political group advancing that position. 

This was the first “debate” between Republicans to determine who would run in the next election if there isn’t some stealth candidate in the wings with dissimilar beliefs.  I really don’t like having to single out a group as being undesirable, but if there is one, this is it.  Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Paul, Romney; is there an original thinker here not guided by polls or dogma?  Is there an opposing stealth candidate who doesn’t believe the same ideology or simply one just wearing different clothes?  The collective ideas of these seven are dwarfed by great thinkers.

This is the best we have to offer as an alternative to a president caught between wanting to do what’s best for the country but compromised because his opposing faction offers the worst of extremes for solutions and his own party acts like deer in the electoral headlights?  Can we blame everything on him?  Perhaps he’s not perfect.  But if the interest of the country comes first, shouldn’t we all be pulling together?  Instead, the opposing faction has become more idealistic and conservative, thereby rendering any compromise being further off center lest the president be accused of doing nothing by not compromising.  Instead, this faction wants to “take the country back”.  Back to what; the days when women weren’t allowed to have credit cards; the days when people with different colored skin were considered problems; the days when homosexuals were ashamed to state their preferences; the days of Elmer Gantry?  So in a way, although any compromise being a failure in the eyes of the unyielding, uncompromising extremes is viewed as a failed policy; it’s all he can do under the circumstances.  Maybe he’s just a natural counterbalance to the extremes.  What would happen if he wasn’t president and one of the likes of these seven dwarfs were?

Nobody answered the questions posed to them because they all wanted to inject their self serving, hot button, sound bites of “freedom”, “cut the debt”, “liberty”, “return to 1776”.  Will the electorate fall for these cloaked sirens of colonialist racism and discrimination?  Will the electorate permit these extreme voices preying on fear to continue being the starting position for compromising?

Nobody proposed original ideas except complain and blame the president---how surprising. 

It was the same old “having faith and reason” makes better decisions, and their claim that was what our founding fathers wanted.  Never mind that Jefferson and others specifically warned against it.  It was more a proclamation of their desire to continue some cosmic war crusade.

It was the same old chant for cut taxes because that creates jobs.  Never mind that supply side economics has, empirically, with no job creation, been proven wrong once again with the Bush tax cuts of 2001. We’ve been on that ride before.  Never mind that corporations are awash in cash; despite the same tax rates in the past 25 years, are in a business climate of uncertainty due to lack of demand created by joblessness.

It was the same old, “cut the deficit, because we don’t want to saddle our kids with all that debt” (never mind how we got into that position since 2000 with tax cuts, surplus giveaways, borrowing for two wars); and any increase since was out of necessity to prop up municipalities from failing, prevent the banking system from collapsing, tax cuts to placate the opposition to merely pass a survival stimulus plan just to tread water.

Michelle Bachmann loves Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman among similar others---supply siders that got us into deep debt under Reagan, and Bush II.  Herman Cain, if he’d stop using Putney Swope, kindergarten metaphors, wants to cut the capital gains tax to zero.  He really doesn’t have a clue.

Some want to drill drill drill and blame the president for high gas prices.  Never mind that we’re not the only consumers on this earth and we just have to get in line.  Not to mention some of our oil is supplied by countries whose stability sometimes hinges on not knowing who their leaders are going to be tomorrow.  Never mind that we should be seeking alternative energy sources because when you need a proprietary item, you pay for the privilege.  But let’s just keep drilling, paying higher prices at the pump, indulging dictators, and polluting our air like we have no other alternatives.  Let’s just ignore the problem.

But what strikes me as the most glossed over understanding, is that each of the candidates, in the policies they advance, are either unknowingly or intentionally ignoring, the violation of human rights.  Any time a particular group of people are discriminated against from enjoying their natural rights, it’s a violation of those rights. 

Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and relegating the fate of homosexual behavior to be guided by the bible violates human rights.  Talk about regressive thinking.  They would pass a constitutional amendment assuring that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Never mind that states have been taking matters into their own hands.  And from what I understand, the bible doesn’t reference marriage solely between a man and a woman, anyway. Haven’t they heard that the American Psychiatric Assoc, among others, has determined that homosexual behavior is not a choice and is as normal as heterosexual behavior?  So to be guided by 2500 year old scriptures sounds like something from the Planet of the Apes, if you ask me.

Islamaphobia was well represented when it was offered that believers in Islam should be questioned before being given a government job and Sharia law should never become the law of our land.  Like, we’re going to get a constitutional amendment changing our constitution favoring Sharia Law?  Like, Christians and Jews don’t commit murder or acts of terrorism?  Like, certain factions can’t disagree with our government’s policies? This is discrimination when being singled out—or a violation of human rights, when not permitted to believe in what you want.

Twisting words is not difficult when demagoging is the order of the day to sway and influence voters.  Fear and labeling, believing in deities rather than solving problems, is their specialty.

All I know is I didn’t hear any constructive suggestions on how to solve our job issues other than the old tax cut solves all routine.  I didn’t hear how our infrastructure should be repaired or maintained or updated to accommodate future growth which would create jobs. I didn’t hear how we should get on a campaign to reeducate our workforce because global competition, which was ---not their fault, puts them out of work.  Shouldn’t we help them get jobs instead of just blaming them for not being able to pay their mortgages because business could no longer compete and they got laid off?  I don’t think they think of the future.  Why should they?  They sounded like they wanted to return to the past because all they offered was faith from the past; economic policies from the past; and social policies from the past.  How does that work in a world that faces issues related to population growth of the future, climate changes coming in the future, economic issues needing to be confronted in the future, and pending social changes in the rest of the world enabled by advances in telecommunications?

Was there a forward thinking candidate that didn’t have their guidelines molded in the past?  I’d love to have an alternative to our president.  I’m not happy that we’re mired in jobless creation; I’m not happy that certain compromises were made and that we’re stuck with a, still expensive, poor plan for healthcare, or we’re still waiting for a recovery.   But surely there has to be some common ground among candidates from two sides that overlap to solve our problems?  How can it be either one way or another as only being the best solution?  But I do understand that poor compromises come from poor starting positions.  So I look at who will fend off the uncompromising, unyielding ideologues that ignore human rights in a futuristic world?

It’s painful that we even have to have this conversation.  But it’s up to the voters to determine who gets a say and what’s said is an important enough contribution to be heard; otherwise, at least let the adults figure it out; not the pseudoscience, fantasy crowd that tramples on human rights.
                        No Flies !            

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment