Someone does a drawing of President Obama and a person sneers: "He come from monkeys." (To be fair, I understand that this person has apologized).
A "friend" on Facebook appears on Chat with me; when I request that this user sign and share a petition, the response I get is an angry: "He hates (the beneficiaries of said petition)! He is our enemy! He is a sociopath!"
Months ago, I scrolled through my homepage and saw another post about the US President. In the comments section, a user posted "It is time to hand him his pink slip and say it's time to retire."
As I was scrolling though my Facebook homepage one day, I saw a photo collage of many politicians with the inscription like "Terrorists," among the many photos is one of President Obama, at the far right.
A "pastor," preaching his "pro-life" sermon one day, denounces President Obama and leads his congregation in a "prayer" for the President to die.
It is not uncommon for us to see "funnies" in various media outlets, where President Obama is depicted with Devil's horns or pictured in strange poses or with "evil" expressions.
In one user's Facebook profile pic, President Obama appears standing and over his head is the inscription "I lie."
Republicans and politics shows supporting Republicans, compare President Obama to Hitler or even call him by that name.
One prominent, popular politician declares that President Obama "consorts with terrorists and wants to usher in a socialist government."
A high-profile politician calls President Obama "the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
Regularly, when I log into Facebook and check my homepage for updates, I come upon posts with the transparent aim: to trash the current US President.
"Impeach Obama" and "Defeat Obama" causes, petitions and pages continually spring up throughout the social networks.
"Liar," "Imposter," "Unpatriotic," "Traitor," "Socialist," and other derogatory nouns are constantly tossed around, on all media outlets, and are meant to trash the President.
One national cable TV network, over these past several years, has functioned with one purpose, as judging by their actions: to destroy the President and those who agree with him.
On and around patriotic holidays, like Memorial day and Veteran's Day especially, on my Facebook homepage, I see posts with photos of veterans with the inscrpition "Some Gave All," and photos of President Obama with the inscription, "Some Gave Nothing."
One prominent Republican likens President Obama to a criminal convicted of manslaughter who "has abandoned the ship."
When President Obama sings a portion of a popular song on TV, another politician calls him the "Entertainer-In-Chief" and states that he is "bad for singing."
A certain Governor, right on TV, angrily shakes her fist in the face of the US President.
A certain Congressman orders President Obama: "Get the ---- out of the US!"
On Facebook, there is an application called "Nobama."
A certain State Senator "prays" for the death of the US President.
These numerous, disturbing examples point to a now ingrained habit in our culture that has taken on a life of its own. This trend is dishonoring the President.
I don't know if this is because of who the current President happens to be but I have a suspicion that this has something to do with all the hate leveled at him. I don't know if this because of unconscious racism toward the first Black President in US history and jealousy of his success. I don't recall that former Presidents, including former President George W. Bush, have been the butt of such hate, contempt and crass disrespect. Yes, many of us have referred to former President Jimmy Carter as "the peanut man," and to former President Bill Clinton as "slick Willie." However, even during the months of the exposure of former President Bill Clinton's scandalous relationship with then White House intern Monica Lewinski and his actions following, and throughout his impeachment trial, I don't recall that he was ever subjected to the level of smearing that President Obama has been.
Why is this dishonoring of the President so widespread and so socially accepted, even among people of faith? I think that it is because many people have grown up not knowing any better, having had it ingrained in them that dishonoring the Government and trashing those in power is "cool." And then there is the influence of the "TEA Party" movement and a prominent cable news network plus Republican enemies of the President who use all kinds of media outlets and spending $$$ to trash him. I think much of it is because ours has become a culture of general disrespect and younger people are not likely to remember a time when manners and respect were the norm. For it is true: Manners, politeness and respect in general, have been declining for many years. When I was growing up, it was drilled into the younger generation, "Respect your elders" and when we did or said anything to challenge authority, it was not accepted. "Talking back" was a grave offense (granted there are major drawbacks to this which I point out in my blogs about autism and social stigma about "taboo" issues).
Several decades ago, we would never have gotten by with telling an authority figure, "Wait," when told to do something. Delayed obedience equalled disobedience. But today is very different and disprespect has become so ingrained that diishonoring the person who holds the highest office in the free world, is socially acceptable and even commended! We have lost the ability to separate a person from his or her office and to honor the holder of such offices despite dislike of them or disagreement with them and their policies.
It is safe to say that President Obama will go down as the most dishonored and vilified President in US history. Currently, we have entered into the campaign season where he is seeking a second term and as we all know, this campaign will only get nastier until it is all over. Public sentiment against him continues. There are numerous individuals, groups, causes and petitions that are committed to President Obama's defeat. On Facebook, I continue to see posts that are hostile to President Obama and propaganda photos and articles and supposed quotes where the President's words are taken out of context or incorrectly quoted. Yesterday, scrolling through my Facebook homepage, I saw one such post that showed a photo of former President George Washington and underneath his photo was the inscription was "I cannot tell a lie." Next to his photo was a photo of President Obama; under his photo was the inscription, "I cannot tell the truth." More and more users are posting material declaring, "I will vote President Obama out of a job in November 2012!" Even after the President had produced his birth certificate and explained the circumstances surrounding his birth, many still doubt the validity of his US citizenship and declare his "ineligibilty" to even run for the office of the US President.
I am aware that, among many "real life" people of my aquaintance and among many in my own social networks, many oppose the President. In my social networks and among those who have expressed their political vies, few have shown support for President Obama. And by support I don't mean liking him or agreeing with his political views or his policy decisions. By support, I mean honoring him because he holds the highest (and arguably most difficult) office in the free world, expressing this honor and giving him the benefit of the doubt even when we may not like what he does. I have wanted to post, "What would YOU do if you were in his place?" Myself, I don't agree with all of President Obama's decisions or views, just as I did not agree with all of former President Bush's decisions or his views.
As a person of faith, I'm fully aware that many question the genuineness of President Obama's Christian faith, though he has stated that he has a relationship with God through Jesus His Son and that his faith guides what he does in his personal and professional life. I will not discuss the reasons people give for why they doubt his faith; these would fill whole books. But I believe that judging the quality of his faith (or anyone's) is nor right and is just as wrong as the reasons their profession of faith is being questioned. This lapse is worst among those who call themselves "conservative Christiona" or "the religious right." Whatever we think of President Obama's views on the "hot-button" issues of gay/lesbian marriage equality or abortion, only God knows the President's heart, just as He knows the hearts of each of us. Each of us arrives at our own views of these two core issues (in the minds of so many) based on deeply held beliefs and often, life experiences. Yes, Scriptural principles come down on the side of life beginning at conception and on the side of marriage being God's design to be between a husnband and his wife (who would illustrate the relationship between God and His people). But we live in a very broken world where so many feel driven to choose abortion or where life circumstances make the sexual orientations of many do awry. The fact that we are so angrily debating these issues shows that we have serious issues that the President, if anything, realizes needs to be addressed. We may not like or agree with how he is addressing gay/lesbiam marriage equality or abortion but the Scripture tells us to honor and pray for those in power.
As we get closer and closer to the Presidential debates and the election ( now just days away), whoever those of us in the US vote for, let us remember that votes that are cast based on hate for a Candidate and the desire to defeat him at any cost, are poorly cast.
And if we can disrespect the person who hold the highest office in the free world, we will find it easy to disrespect anyone. This is happening on a WIDE scale. Look at how parents, schoolteachers and pastors of congregations are so often disrespected! Granted, much of that is because far too many have done things UNWORTHY of their titles, but their positions still should be respected and most do deserve to be respected and are not among "the bad apples."
Now the Election is only weeks away, and the campaign is quite nasty. I have seen one Facebook page called, "1 Million Strong Against Mitt Romney," but most of the Facebook pages pages seem to have been set up, blatently, to influence and even bully, people into NOT voting for President Obama. A phenomenon has been happening for a long time but is getting worse: I'm talking about the lamentable political practice (and yes, it is done on BOTH sides) of trashing one's opponent to get votes. This seems to be replacing the building of a positive message, outline and vision of what Candidates desires to do and how THEY would do better to lead the Country than their opponents would. However, from what I have observed over many, many months to present, I have seen that the trashing, bullying, intimidation and slander seems to be worst in the Romney campaign and among the more partisan among his supporters and among those who call themselves the TEA Party.
Whether anyone reading this supports or (if you are in the US) will vote for President Obama or not is beside the point of this blog. Whether you support him or vote for him, keep in mind that he is, currently, the President of the United States and the holder of the most powerful office of the Free World. When respect for that office is lost, we will feel freer to disrespect each other or anyone, including ourselves. Is this what we want?
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Getting Ready For November 6
It is not possible to tune into the news, whether on TV , newspaper, magazines or through social networks, without hearing about the 2012 US Presidential campaigns and constant anaysis of the candidates and sound bites from both of them. As a regular Facebook user, I find myself getting tired of hearing about it and I get very tired of all the sponsored ads that keep flooding my homepage, and more seem to be coming from the Romney campaign than from the Obama campaign. But I know that there are currently only 28 days, at least, before it will be all officially over and we will stop seeing all those campaign ads. I know that these events are located in my country, the US, but as any President and his administration make many decisions involving foreign policies affecting the entire world, that who will spend the next four years in the White House, as any four-year period, will profoundly affect the rest of the world.
A week ago, the political debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney was held, and I know that it was widely watched and everyone has different views about the performances of both men. Should we base our votes on what we see of Candidates' performances in a debate? I do not think so. Are such performances an accurate reflection of the job candidates would do as President? In part, yes, especially as candidates respond under pressure and how they would conduct themselves. But to accurately "size up" a Candidate and his or her fitness for office, we should take MANY things into consideration: their past records of performance in other offices in politics (Mitt Romney as Governor of his state and President Obama as President), their entire conduct on the campaign trail, what they say about themselves, what they say about their opponents and their lifestyles and how they relate to the public. Which Candidate do you feel best represents you, your family and the values that you hold dear?
I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them. And it is very easy to do and tempting for most of us.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
There is the Project Vote Smart website which is a nonpartisan website that gives the facts about politicians all over the country, from states to state as well as the two Presidential Candiadates. On the page for each Candidate there are a variety of top tabs for pages. One is for their past voting record. Another is for their stand on the issues. On the page we are told if a politician has taken the Project Vote Smart "Political Courage Test" which is a form that details a politician's stance on a variety of issues. I visited the pages for both Presidential Candiages and, according to Project Vote Smart, neither has filled out that form though asked over and over again. In my opinion, though I prefer that a politician has filled out the form, I don't think it should, in and of itself, count against any politician's fitness for office if they have not filled it out. We need to look at their willingness to take unpopular or controversial stands in everyday life.
Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 6. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Just today, I saw a Facebook page called, "I Will Not Vote For President Obama" and there a photo with the caption "Nobama." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
During the time when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is. According to one online "Fact Sheet" that I pulled up today, both Candidates are doing much to misrepresent the other's position. If they are correct in their evaluation of both the Presidential Candidates, who are we to trust? Sometimes I'm unsure of whether to trust the very "Fact Checker" sites that have been set up and if they themselves may be done by people with unconscious biases. In the end, I believe that each one of us needs to make up our own mind about who is the most qualified person to fill any office, all things considered.
I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
Another issue that is HUGE in this debate is that of abortion and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party LOVE to portray President Obama as the "most pro-abortion President in US history." Granted, I do NOT agree with President Obama on this particular issue, but with so many things at stake in this election, I wonder at the wisdom of basing one's vote on a single issue. I know that many people are "one-issue" voters and I respect that, though I do not agree with it anymore. I see little wisdom in voting for a Candidate just because I agree with him or her one one issue, while I do not like their stance on any other issue I care about. Yes, the "pro-life" movement leaders do have a STRONG point when they say that if we condone abortion, all other forms of life will cheapen and this is happening. They also have a point when they declare that life is the issue on which all other issues are based. What they fail to see, I believe, is that the many other issues also are based on life issues. What we need, and what neither Candidate OR their parties can or will work toward, is a consistent life ethic which affirms ALL of human life, from conception to death, and not only represented in a certain set of issues while ignoring the others. I was going to provide you with a link to an article that gives an interesting perspective about both political Candidates and abortion, but it seems that the site on which the article appeared has been moved or is deleted. The thrust of the article was that while Romney declares that he will "end abortion," that in his past, much of his private money has indicated that he may not be as "pro-life" as he presents himself. The same article stated that none of President Obama's past private money has funded the abortion industry. There may be more gray area, concerning where they really stand, than we think.
Quite a few weeks ago, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment. Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
As these final weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.
http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.
http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
A week ago, the political debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney was held, and I know that it was widely watched and everyone has different views about the performances of both men. Should we base our votes on what we see of Candidates' performances in a debate? I do not think so. Are such performances an accurate reflection of the job candidates would do as President? In part, yes, especially as candidates respond under pressure and how they would conduct themselves. But to accurately "size up" a Candidate and his or her fitness for office, we should take MANY things into consideration: their past records of performance in other offices in politics (Mitt Romney as Governor of his state and President Obama as President), their entire conduct on the campaign trail, what they say about themselves, what they say about their opponents and their lifestyles and how they relate to the public. Which Candidate do you feel best represents you, your family and the values that you hold dear?
I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them. And it is very easy to do and tempting for most of us.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
There is the Project Vote Smart website which is a nonpartisan website that gives the facts about politicians all over the country, from states to state as well as the two Presidential Candiadates. On the page for each Candidate there are a variety of top tabs for pages. One is for their past voting record. Another is for their stand on the issues. On the page we are told if a politician has taken the Project Vote Smart "Political Courage Test" which is a form that details a politician's stance on a variety of issues. I visited the pages for both Presidential Candiages and, according to Project Vote Smart, neither has filled out that form though asked over and over again. In my opinion, though I prefer that a politician has filled out the form, I don't think it should, in and of itself, count against any politician's fitness for office if they have not filled it out. We need to look at their willingness to take unpopular or controversial stands in everyday life.
Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 6. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Just today, I saw a Facebook page called, "I Will Not Vote For President Obama" and there a photo with the caption "Nobama." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
During the time when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is. According to one online "Fact Sheet" that I pulled up today, both Candidates are doing much to misrepresent the other's position. If they are correct in their evaluation of both the Presidential Candidates, who are we to trust? Sometimes I'm unsure of whether to trust the very "Fact Checker" sites that have been set up and if they themselves may be done by people with unconscious biases. In the end, I believe that each one of us needs to make up our own mind about who is the most qualified person to fill any office, all things considered.
I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
Another issue that is HUGE in this debate is that of abortion and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party LOVE to portray President Obama as the "most pro-abortion President in US history." Granted, I do NOT agree with President Obama on this particular issue, but with so many things at stake in this election, I wonder at the wisdom of basing one's vote on a single issue. I know that many people are "one-issue" voters and I respect that, though I do not agree with it anymore. I see little wisdom in voting for a Candidate just because I agree with him or her one one issue, while I do not like their stance on any other issue I care about. Yes, the "pro-life" movement leaders do have a STRONG point when they say that if we condone abortion, all other forms of life will cheapen and this is happening. They also have a point when they declare that life is the issue on which all other issues are based. What they fail to see, I believe, is that the many other issues also are based on life issues. What we need, and what neither Candidate OR their parties can or will work toward, is a consistent life ethic which affirms ALL of human life, from conception to death, and not only represented in a certain set of issues while ignoring the others. I was going to provide you with a link to an article that gives an interesting perspective about both political Candidates and abortion, but it seems that the site on which the article appeared has been moved or is deleted. The thrust of the article was that while Romney declares that he will "end abortion," that in his past, much of his private money has indicated that he may not be as "pro-life" as he presents himself. The same article stated that none of President Obama's past private money has funded the abortion industry. There may be more gray area, concerning where they really stand, than we think.
Quite a few weeks ago, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment. Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
As these final weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.
http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.
http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
What's the Straight Scoop On Welfare, Entitlements and the Ryan Plan?
Anyone who even casually is exposed to or follows the news can discern that the current, raging debate and controversy in the Presidential campaigns center around government programs and about what should be done about them and about our current President's supposed current role in "keeping them alive" for the purpose of "getting welfare recipients to vote for him." The philosophy of Republicans and the more the more conservative the more pronounced, is that government should not give people anything that would discourage what they call "personal responsibility," and this includes anything that would supposedly discourage the motive to work and make one's way in life. The Democrats and the more liberal the more pronounced is the befief, that while people do have "personal responsibility," that the government has a social responsibility to provide a safety net for vulnerable people in our society through government programs.
But even before this debate that is going on, I have seen a widespread resentment of people who use government programs and misconceptions about what is welfare and about people who use government programs, including those that are, in fact, welfare. One day, recently, I was scrolling through my Facebook homepage. In my newsfeed streamed a poster bearing thse words, "So I'm supposed to be outraged about how Mitt Romney Spends HIS money? How about how President Obama spends MY tax dollars? And underneath this photo, four people clicked the "like" button, displaying their approval of the poster and its sentiment. Yes, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but in an economy like this, we need to be concerned about the way all $$$ are spent.
The posting of that photo, to me, is free speech. But posts like other are not; they lean closer to "hate speech." Many months ago one morning, I had just logged into Facebook and this vitriolic post, all in capitals, stared at me: This Facebook user was bitterly lashing out at "welfare bums" who "live it up and use the system." She went on and on with her bitter diatribe. Then she finished with, "AND YOU GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I EAT MY NOODLES!"
I know that this stereotype of people who use government programs is widespread. In my network is one of many Facebook users who make no secret of their political leanings. I see nothing wrong with that as long as people share their views graciously, politely and respect differences. However, most people do not take this approach when they "get political. I have seldom seen it, in person or online. One Facebook user has been explicit in her contempt for "welfare bums." One day, I was scrolling through my homepage when a post by this user leapt out at me. Her post thundered about the uselessness of people who "sponge off on the US taxpayer" and that when this user's candidate of choice presumably took office, that the "free ride of the welfare bums will end!"
Medicaid is the federal program that addresses the basic health care needs of qualifying US citizens. Many years ago, the Republican Governor who was in office at the time, Gov. Matt Blunt,
as a way to cut the Missouri budget, made a package of cuts to many Missouri programs, including many that helped the most vulnerable and needy in our state. He made cuts to Medicaid. So I found a petition to restore Medicaid and end the cuts to it in our state and got involved. I got a good response to my effort to collect signatures. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, saying firmly, "Sorry to punish children for the sins of their parents but I have seen adults cash in on their EBT cards to get liquor. I cannot support this." Another person refused to sign, stating, "I don't support the project; in fact, I support some of thse cuts."
I have struggled with what to think about mandatory drug-testing, as I would like to see the serious drug epidemic come to an end. Should ANYONE be subjected to such drug-testing? Over and over, when scrolling through my homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like, "Whatever you think of my views, I'm in favor of people applying for government assistance to be drug-tested. Why should our tax dollars go to drug addicts who do not work? Those of us who do work and earn our money get drug-tested; what about those who get benefits for nothing?" Every time this status is reposted, multiple users hit the "like" button underneath it to show their approval of this status. I have no doubt that some people who use government programs of any kind use drugs, but the way the programs are set up, those who apply for government programs are carefully screened and "due diligence" is done on their lifestyles and there are stiff penalties for any who dare abuse benefits by using them for drugs.
Food Stamps is a Federal Program that supplements the nutritional needs of qualifying US citizens. Recently, a certain politician said of the current US President and as no compliment to President Obama: "Barack Obama is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
The misonconception that poor people are lazy and do not want to work, is very widespread in our culture. The fact is that most DO work; many work at low-paying jobs with no benefits. Others who "live on wefare" are busy raising their families and volunteering their time. And often, many hours must be spent simply filling out forms, waiting in lines and "getting" reviewed to ensure that they qualify. But even politicians hold misconceptions about their constituents who are poor. Recently, one politician, obviously annoyed with the debate about the "merits" of making cuts to the "Big Three," Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, declared, "I agree that the poor need something. They need the opportunity to learn the responsibility of work."
At one time I listened to a talk show run by a very conservative talk show host, mostly for entertainment. One day, though, I grew furious at him when he ranted at poor people in general. He ranted, "The poor should stop getting their taxes cut! It is time that they begin paying their share and it is called PAYING TAXES! I say an end to the free ride once and for all!" In anger, I turned my radio off! To me, this was NOT free speech but rather, hate speech. Plus, it showed how uninformed and prejudiced this talk show host was in defining "work" as being only paid, gainful employment.
I was on Facebook one day and was circulating a petition calling for stopping any efforts to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the top entitlement programs, to balance the budget. I posted the petition's link to a certain fan page, which turned out to be a mistake. I got Facebook notifications that people were commenting on my post, so I checked to see what people were saying. People said things along the lines that many people who use these three entitlements are among "the underserving poor," whic, to the minds of those posting, included "illegal aliens" and those who refuse to work, whoever they are; people said to be irresponsible, freeriders, and parasites who "abuse the system." The fact is, that thse three programs, as "entitlement programs," are VERY strict in who can use them and they are not counted as welfare programs in that they are not (except for Medicaid) based on financial need) but on age or (in the case of Social Security Disability) on disability or, in the case of Veteran's benefits, US veteran status. In other words, one must be "deserving" to use thse programs. Yes, I know that some do slip between the cracks and use these programs illegitimately, but they are exceptions.
We talk about the value of "stay-at-home moms" on one hand, but when poor woman use government benefits and take on this role, the tone changes to the need for those woman to "get off their duffs and go to work." Years ago, I read an article called, We Value Stay-At-Home Moms, Unless They are Poor." The point of the article was my point here, that we talk "out of both ends of our mouths" when we laud women who stay at home while their husbands work paid jobs, while castigating poor women on benefits who take on this role, trashing as "lazy, welfare bums," those moms who used Aid to Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance To Needy Families) to make ends meet. Years ago, in college class, we were discussing the topic of depency on the government as "Big Brother." The topic got on that of poor single moms who use government assistance. The professor was saying, "These women can get out and work. They just have to take their children with them, even if they have to take them on the bus."
I know and freely acknowledge that there are always those people who slip between the cracks and "work the system" and use it in their unfair favor. I have witnessed that and I do not condone it at all. Some who collect benefits do not use them for the purpose that thse benefits were intended. They hurt not only the taxpayers and waste and steal government $$$, but they give a bad name to all the deserving MAJORITY of those who are forced, by life circumstances to use these programs. Most people who use thse programs, given the choice and the right circumstances and where needed, the support, would much rather be gainfully employed or be helped to start their own businesses. Most know how they are perceived by their society. I see posts angrily castigating those who make "collecting benefits their careers" and are being aided and abetted by the government which is now accused of "funding the lazy." I know that many people will continue to entertain the notion that people who use government programs are somehow able to enjoy lives of ease and even lavish lifestyles. Those who may actually do that are in the MINORITY of those who lie to the system and who should not be collecting any government benefits.
And what about the Ryan Plan? I have not mentioned that until now, but a HUGE part of this proposed program includes cuts, over time, to these programs and such cuts would especially hurt future generations. Since the author of this proposed program is the running mate of Mitt Romney, and it is a major part of the Presidential race to the White House, we all need to take the time to inform ourselves about what can profoundly affect almost all US citizens who are not independently wealthy. It personally angers me greatly that, instead of raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (which even some of them are calling for!), we are having to base our votes, in part, on a plan that proposes to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it!
I am providing materials which give facts about the candidates, welfare, entitlements and the Ryan Plan. I hope that you will take the time to read these materials and educate yourself about things that profoundly affect all of our lives. In my opinion, if we would spend more time doing "due diligence" about these poeople who have power over all areas of our lives, we would make more informed decisions about who rises to power. In a free country, we get the government we deserve.
http://cobacourses.creighton.edu/businesscommunity/new773/wfm.htm
This article gives the facts about welfare. The writers are based in Omaha, Nebraska but the article includes a national study and answers basic questions.
http://usaunemploymentbenefits.com/welfare-facts/
This article gives the basics about government programs in general and links to other informative sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
This is a comprehensive analysis of the Ryan Plan, very detailed.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
This article discusses the Ryan Plan is is affects Medicare.
http://politifact.com
This is a comprehensive website that examintes the truth and accuracy of the words of politicians
But even before this debate that is going on, I have seen a widespread resentment of people who use government programs and misconceptions about what is welfare and about people who use government programs, including those that are, in fact, welfare. One day, recently, I was scrolling through my Facebook homepage. In my newsfeed streamed a poster bearing thse words, "So I'm supposed to be outraged about how Mitt Romney Spends HIS money? How about how President Obama spends MY tax dollars? And underneath this photo, four people clicked the "like" button, displaying their approval of the poster and its sentiment. Yes, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but in an economy like this, we need to be concerned about the way all $$$ are spent.
The posting of that photo, to me, is free speech. But posts like other are not; they lean closer to "hate speech." Many months ago one morning, I had just logged into Facebook and this vitriolic post, all in capitals, stared at me: This Facebook user was bitterly lashing out at "welfare bums" who "live it up and use the system." She went on and on with her bitter diatribe. Then she finished with, "AND YOU GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I EAT MY NOODLES!"
I know that this stereotype of people who use government programs is widespread. In my network is one of many Facebook users who make no secret of their political leanings. I see nothing wrong with that as long as people share their views graciously, politely and respect differences. However, most people do not take this approach when they "get political. I have seldom seen it, in person or online. One Facebook user has been explicit in her contempt for "welfare bums." One day, I was scrolling through my homepage when a post by this user leapt out at me. Her post thundered about the uselessness of people who "sponge off on the US taxpayer" and that when this user's candidate of choice presumably took office, that the "free ride of the welfare bums will end!"
Medicaid is the federal program that addresses the basic health care needs of qualifying US citizens. Many years ago, the Republican Governor who was in office at the time, Gov. Matt Blunt,
as a way to cut the Missouri budget, made a package of cuts to many Missouri programs, including many that helped the most vulnerable and needy in our state. He made cuts to Medicaid. So I found a petition to restore Medicaid and end the cuts to it in our state and got involved. I got a good response to my effort to collect signatures. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, saying firmly, "Sorry to punish children for the sins of their parents but I have seen adults cash in on their EBT cards to get liquor. I cannot support this." Another person refused to sign, stating, "I don't support the project; in fact, I support some of thse cuts."
I have struggled with what to think about mandatory drug-testing, as I would like to see the serious drug epidemic come to an end. Should ANYONE be subjected to such drug-testing? Over and over, when scrolling through my homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like, "Whatever you think of my views, I'm in favor of people applying for government assistance to be drug-tested. Why should our tax dollars go to drug addicts who do not work? Those of us who do work and earn our money get drug-tested; what about those who get benefits for nothing?" Every time this status is reposted, multiple users hit the "like" button underneath it to show their approval of this status. I have no doubt that some people who use government programs of any kind use drugs, but the way the programs are set up, those who apply for government programs are carefully screened and "due diligence" is done on their lifestyles and there are stiff penalties for any who dare abuse benefits by using them for drugs.
Food Stamps is a Federal Program that supplements the nutritional needs of qualifying US citizens. Recently, a certain politician said of the current US President and as no compliment to President Obama: "Barack Obama is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
The misonconception that poor people are lazy and do not want to work, is very widespread in our culture. The fact is that most DO work; many work at low-paying jobs with no benefits. Others who "live on wefare" are busy raising their families and volunteering their time. And often, many hours must be spent simply filling out forms, waiting in lines and "getting" reviewed to ensure that they qualify. But even politicians hold misconceptions about their constituents who are poor. Recently, one politician, obviously annoyed with the debate about the "merits" of making cuts to the "Big Three," Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, declared, "I agree that the poor need something. They need the opportunity to learn the responsibility of work."
At one time I listened to a talk show run by a very conservative talk show host, mostly for entertainment. One day, though, I grew furious at him when he ranted at poor people in general. He ranted, "The poor should stop getting their taxes cut! It is time that they begin paying their share and it is called PAYING TAXES! I say an end to the free ride once and for all!" In anger, I turned my radio off! To me, this was NOT free speech but rather, hate speech. Plus, it showed how uninformed and prejudiced this talk show host was in defining "work" as being only paid, gainful employment.
I was on Facebook one day and was circulating a petition calling for stopping any efforts to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the top entitlement programs, to balance the budget. I posted the petition's link to a certain fan page, which turned out to be a mistake. I got Facebook notifications that people were commenting on my post, so I checked to see what people were saying. People said things along the lines that many people who use these three entitlements are among "the underserving poor," whic, to the minds of those posting, included "illegal aliens" and those who refuse to work, whoever they are; people said to be irresponsible, freeriders, and parasites who "abuse the system." The fact is, that thse three programs, as "entitlement programs," are VERY strict in who can use them and they are not counted as welfare programs in that they are not (except for Medicaid) based on financial need) but on age or (in the case of Social Security Disability) on disability or, in the case of Veteran's benefits, US veteran status. In other words, one must be "deserving" to use thse programs. Yes, I know that some do slip between the cracks and use these programs illegitimately, but they are exceptions.
We talk about the value of "stay-at-home moms" on one hand, but when poor woman use government benefits and take on this role, the tone changes to the need for those woman to "get off their duffs and go to work." Years ago, I read an article called, We Value Stay-At-Home Moms, Unless They are Poor." The point of the article was my point here, that we talk "out of both ends of our mouths" when we laud women who stay at home while their husbands work paid jobs, while castigating poor women on benefits who take on this role, trashing as "lazy, welfare bums," those moms who used Aid to Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance To Needy Families) to make ends meet. Years ago, in college class, we were discussing the topic of depency on the government as "Big Brother." The topic got on that of poor single moms who use government assistance. The professor was saying, "These women can get out and work. They just have to take their children with them, even if they have to take them on the bus."
I know and freely acknowledge that there are always those people who slip between the cracks and "work the system" and use it in their unfair favor. I have witnessed that and I do not condone it at all. Some who collect benefits do not use them for the purpose that thse benefits were intended. They hurt not only the taxpayers and waste and steal government $$$, but they give a bad name to all the deserving MAJORITY of those who are forced, by life circumstances to use these programs. Most people who use thse programs, given the choice and the right circumstances and where needed, the support, would much rather be gainfully employed or be helped to start their own businesses. Most know how they are perceived by their society. I see posts angrily castigating those who make "collecting benefits their careers" and are being aided and abetted by the government which is now accused of "funding the lazy." I know that many people will continue to entertain the notion that people who use government programs are somehow able to enjoy lives of ease and even lavish lifestyles. Those who may actually do that are in the MINORITY of those who lie to the system and who should not be collecting any government benefits.
And what about the Ryan Plan? I have not mentioned that until now, but a HUGE part of this proposed program includes cuts, over time, to these programs and such cuts would especially hurt future generations. Since the author of this proposed program is the running mate of Mitt Romney, and it is a major part of the Presidential race to the White House, we all need to take the time to inform ourselves about what can profoundly affect almost all US citizens who are not independently wealthy. It personally angers me greatly that, instead of raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (which even some of them are calling for!), we are having to base our votes, in part, on a plan that proposes to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it!
I am providing materials which give facts about the candidates, welfare, entitlements and the Ryan Plan. I hope that you will take the time to read these materials and educate yourself about things that profoundly affect all of our lives. In my opinion, if we would spend more time doing "due diligence" about these poeople who have power over all areas of our lives, we would make more informed decisions about who rises to power. In a free country, we get the government we deserve.
http://cobacourses.creighton.edu/businesscommunity/new773/wfm.htm
This article gives the facts about welfare. The writers are based in Omaha, Nebraska but the article includes a national study and answers basic questions.
http://usaunemploymentbenefits.com/welfare-facts/
This article gives the basics about government programs in general and links to other informative sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
This is a comprehensive analysis of the Ryan Plan, very detailed.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
This article discusses the Ryan Plan is is affects Medicare.
http://politifact.com
This is a comprehensive website that examintes the truth and accuracy of the words of politicians
Friday, August 17, 2012
Politics and Seeking A Consistent Life Ethic
This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think,less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began months ago during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion.
How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?
I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.
I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.
In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?
So, as I go the the polls on November 2, as always, I will be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.
As I stated in my last post, someone in my social networks saw a recent status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.
http://www.consistent-life.org/
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
This article examines how both the Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective.
How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?
I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.
I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection. Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.
In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?" His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?
So, as I go the the polls on November 2, as always, I will be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.
As I stated in my last post, someone in my social networks saw a recent status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.
http://www.consistent-life.org/
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
This article examines how both the Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Getting Ready for November 6
It is not possible to tune into the news, whether on TV , newspaper, magazines or through social networks, without hearing about the 2012 US Presidential campaigns and constant anaysis of the candidates and sound bites from both of them. As a regular Facebook user, I find myself getting tired of hearing about it and I get very tired of all the sponsored ads that keep flooding my homepage, and more seem to be coming from the Romney campaign than from the Obama campaign. But I know that there are two full months, at least, before it will be all oficially over and we will stop seeing all those campaign ads. I know that these events are located in my country, the US, but as any President and his administration make many decisions involving foreign policies affecting the entire world, that who will spend the next four years in the White House, as any four-year period, will profoundly affect the rest of the world.
I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 2. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
This weekend, when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is.
I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
Recently, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment. Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
As the weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.
http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.
http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 2. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
This weekend, when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is.
I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
Recently, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment. Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
As the weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.
http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.
http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)