The blog posted by fellow classmate, Kavina Patel: "A Fight for Equality - Gay Marriage", moved me to critique it:
http://thegovernmentnotebook.blogspot.com/
I whole heartedly agree with her blog. I like the fact that she provided her personal opinion on the issue, presented the facts, and concluded by voicing her hopes for future America.
The subject matter is a controversial and powerful one. People seem to either be completely for it or totally against it. I have never understood it when people say that homosexual relationships somehow degrade the institution of marriage and somehow hurt those involved in traditional relationships.
As K. Patel mentions, "The government shouldn't be the one who involuences people's decision over who to spend the rest of their lives with." This thinking seems like a no-brainer, whose business is it which gender your neighbor chooses to love? Patel also highlights a sad but true reality, "..even though the lift on the ban won't have immediate effects as it is going through the appeal process. As for right now "same-sex couples in Texas cannot get married." The tone of the blog is one of cautious optimism for the future, highlighting Judge Orlando Garcia's progressive steps forward, but reminding us not to unload the ticker tape just yet.
I would have liked to have heard more from K. Patel. I enjoyed her personal views on the subject matter. I seem to share the same perspectives on this issue and would have enjoyed a more indepth blog, not because I like lengthy compositions, but because it appears her views are insightful and meaningful to me. A breakdown on how she acquired her views would have been a great addition. Sometimes we're not sure of a specific moment or revelationary incident that brought us to our current mode of thinking, though. Sometimes, as I believe is true in my case, it is alot of minor moments along life's path.
K. Patel mentions the separation of church and state and denotes a poignant argument, as to who WOULD "force their religious beliefs on the topic of same-sex marriage"? However, much of the argument and debate does not have to do with the religious aspect of the same-sex marriage anyhow, it's the government benefits that are denied to these couples, and THAT seems to be as much of an issue of the same-sex marriage controversy as anything. Those that are against it hide behind the guise of it being something spiritual and religious, attempting to, as many right-wingers seem to do, appeal to those that are deeply religious by bringing God into the equation, when it's really about not wanting to provide benefits to same-sex couples.
I'm enjoyed reading your blog, K. Patel and look forward to reviewing more from you!
Friday, March 7, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
The Pros and Cons of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage.
The Pros and Cons of Increasing the Federal Minimum wage.
Increasing the federal minimum wage could result in a net job loss of
approximately 500,000 workers (0.3%) (as the CBO states 0 percent impact on
employment is a reasonable trade off), although it would mean increasing
wages for 16.5 million others.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2 positive effects would occur
by increasing the minimum wage which would be: It would increase the family
income for 16.5 million, and for approximately 900,000 of these workers they
would be lifted out of the federal poverty bracket.
The negative effects would be for the same said workers would be the
elimination of some jobs.
This is a "for the greater good" argument - are there more that would benefit
or more that would lose from this minimum wage increase? If you look at it in
those terms of black and white it appears it will be more of a positive than a
negative.
The proposal is to raise minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to
$10.10.
As a group, workers with earnings being increased would be paying more in
taxes and receive a reduction in federal benefits, however the trade off is
those few (in relation to those receiving a wage increase) who do lose their
jobs would pay less in taxes and have their federal benefits increased -
nullifying the positive and negative effect either way, in that respect.
Therefore, since it is estimated more people would be being positively
effected (16.5 million) versus those who would lose their jobs (500,000), the
wage increase appears to be something to be supported.
Republicans that are against this seem to have an insecurity issue. Does
supporting the lower income workers somehow threaten their elite salary
status? Does oppressing those who are already repressed somehow make
them feel more powerful?
This is an issue of wealth redistribution that seems fair, but the wealthy are
constantly wanting lower taxes - so they want to obtain their wealth and
continue increasing their income - it sounds like greed to me!
The world is a better place when everyone is happy - when equality is a goal
to be achieved, not something to avoid. We should not be striving to make the
gaps between income levels larger - but working to bring everyone closer
together.
What the wealthy seem to forget (often conveniently) is that where they came
from often supports where they end up. The wealthy will say that they have
worked hard for what they have and for what status they have achieved in life,
however, they fail to recognize to themselves and others that they were
brought up in a very conducive environment to allow their success to be
realized.
Often those that have come "from nothing" and have made something of
themselves - who have achieved a high status in the world - do not embody
the attitude that those who have come from nothing and have not achieved
great things should be further oppressed - but generally support the very
programs and services that allowed them to achieve the income and social
standing they are currently enjoying. Generally these people that have
achieved great things despite their background are very grateful and wish to
encourage and support those that came from the very beginnings they did.
It is very easy to live in a bubble when you are wealthy and forget about those
who are less fortunate than you are, but that is not a very "American" stance
is it? Aren't we "the land of opportunity"?
Republicans seem intent on highlighting that the focus should be on creating
not destoying job opportunities - but this seems just a convenient argument. If
they really cared about those less fortunate - why would their platform
generally always be about decreasing funding to social programs that
support the less fortunate? About increasing taxes for the poor and
decreasing taxes for the rich?
Personally, as our household income has increased throughout the years our
party idenitifcation could much more lean to the right, but morally and
ethically I cannot allign myself with a party that seems to want to keep those
that are at the lower end of the income bracket continually oppressed.
Equality is very important to me in all forms - racial, gender, sexuality, and
income. I enjoy seeing those less fortunate and who have come from meager
beginnings rise up and thrive - and if I can assist them through direct contact,
or taxes, or by being on the supporting end of passing laws that make it
easier for them to make something of themselves despite their humble
background then I'm all for it.
As House Minsority Lader Nancy Pelosi, D-California has stated, "It's time to
give America a raise" and I have to agree with her.
Increasing the federal minimum wage could result in a net job loss of
approximately 500,000 workers (0.3%) (as the CBO states 0 percent impact on
employment is a reasonable trade off), although it would mean increasing
wages for 16.5 million others.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2 positive effects would occur
by increasing the minimum wage which would be: It would increase the family
income for 16.5 million, and for approximately 900,000 of these workers they
would be lifted out of the federal poverty bracket.
The negative effects would be for the same said workers would be the
elimination of some jobs.
This is a "for the greater good" argument - are there more that would benefit
or more that would lose from this minimum wage increase? If you look at it in
those terms of black and white it appears it will be more of a positive than a
negative.
The proposal is to raise minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to
$10.10.
As a group, workers with earnings being increased would be paying more in
taxes and receive a reduction in federal benefits, however the trade off is
those few (in relation to those receiving a wage increase) who do lose their
jobs would pay less in taxes and have their federal benefits increased -
nullifying the positive and negative effect either way, in that respect.
Therefore, since it is estimated more people would be being positively
effected (16.5 million) versus those who would lose their jobs (500,000), the
wage increase appears to be something to be supported.
Republicans that are against this seem to have an insecurity issue. Does
supporting the lower income workers somehow threaten their elite salary
status? Does oppressing those who are already repressed somehow make
them feel more powerful?
This is an issue of wealth redistribution that seems fair, but the wealthy are
constantly wanting lower taxes - so they want to obtain their wealth and
continue increasing their income - it sounds like greed to me!
The world is a better place when everyone is happy - when equality is a goal
to be achieved, not something to avoid. We should not be striving to make the
gaps between income levels larger - but working to bring everyone closer
together.
What the wealthy seem to forget (often conveniently) is that where they came
from often supports where they end up. The wealthy will say that they have
worked hard for what they have and for what status they have achieved in life,
however, they fail to recognize to themselves and others that they were
brought up in a very conducive environment to allow their success to be
realized.
Often those that have come "from nothing" and have made something of
themselves - who have achieved a high status in the world - do not embody
the attitude that those who have come from nothing and have not achieved
great things should be further oppressed - but generally support the very
programs and services that allowed them to achieve the income and social
standing they are currently enjoying. Generally these people that have
achieved great things despite their background are very grateful and wish to
encourage and support those that came from the very beginnings they did.
It is very easy to live in a bubble when you are wealthy and forget about those
who are less fortunate than you are, but that is not a very "American" stance
is it? Aren't we "the land of opportunity"?
Republicans seem intent on highlighting that the focus should be on creating
not destoying job opportunities - but this seems just a convenient argument. If
they really cared about those less fortunate - why would their platform
generally always be about decreasing funding to social programs that
support the less fortunate? About increasing taxes for the poor and
decreasing taxes for the rich?
Personally, as our household income has increased throughout the years our
party idenitifcation could much more lean to the right, but morally and
ethically I cannot allign myself with a party that seems to want to keep those
that are at the lower end of the income bracket continually oppressed.
Equality is very important to me in all forms - racial, gender, sexuality, and
income. I enjoy seeing those less fortunate and who have come from meager
beginnings rise up and thrive - and if I can assist them through direct contact,
or taxes, or by being on the supporting end of passing laws that make it
easier for them to make something of themselves despite their humble
background then I'm all for it.
As House Minsority Lader Nancy Pelosi, D-California has stated, "It's time to
give America a raise" and I have to agree with her.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-health-care-myths-we-live-by/2014/02/06/8a74d7b2-8f66-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Being a nurse I found this article from 'The Washington Post' interesting. Alot of the information provided are issues that we observe in the hospital setting. We are often frustrated by the same circumstances that are mentioned in this article. The commentary touches on, but does not explain in depth, why these discrepancies between fact and fiction may exist.
The author, Charles Krauthammer, does have medical background. Mr. Krauthammer practiced medicine for three years as a resident and progressed as a chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1980s. It is interesting how his background in medicine and current status as a political commentator (on Fox news) mesh and co-exist. He was also a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondate and helped direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration.
I found this article to raise some interesting questions, but it left me with many more questions and not alot of answers.
Below I have addressed several of the topics mentioned in Mr. Krauthammer's editorial entitled, "The health-care myths we live by".
On the issue of vitamin supplements and the ongoing debate on whether they are useful, useless or harmful continues, as stated in the article. Why might this issue continue to baffle? The issue exists because the studies and experiments used to determine situations such as these (supplement effects) are reported in lag time. A delayed reaction if you will. Many of the studies and research that are conducted take an extremely long period of time to complete and are done in a variety of different environments, with different populations, and under varying circumstances. Thus, since the outcomes of the research become available at different times (depending on the technology available at the specific time the studies were conducted) and invariably are different. The outcomes of the research , since many of the studies conducted are not the same - but are testing essentially the same or nearly the same hypothesis - are going to be in conflict. It is similar to attempting to do research on the internet - you are going to find claims against and for an argument - but this gets an indivdual no closer to the truth, unfortunately. This is why some studies for supplements (and depending on who is conducting the research and whether they are wanting a positive or negative outcome) are going to be in favor of them and others against them. You also have outdated information that some portion of the population has latched on to, while updated information is being circulated as well. As the article mentions, antioxidants have long been touted to be beneficial, while new research may be suggesting that to be untrue or that they may even be harmful - it will take a certain amount of time for that information to circulate and become common knowledge.
In the medical community, generally, procedures are continued to be viewed as a staple and actively practiced until concrete evidence is available to challenge it. As in the case of tonsillectomies, this was a widely practiced procedure - then when the research came back that it was unnecessary, for the most part, the routine procedure was, in most cases, abruptly stopped. In the medical community, issues are often based on scientific fact. The medical community is unable to waver back and forth on an issue, it must come together, examine the evidence, and make a concrete decision and stick by it. The medical community actually has to ACT ON the said research - not just decide to be for or against it - and to actually believe in it and take an active stance on it.
The author's suggestion that, "This is not to indict, but simply to advocate for caution grounded in humility" is fine for the average person, but what if you are a nurse or doctor having to assimilate fact from, literally, "fact", and actively practice and incorporate the information into your profession? Humility is not really the issue - it's an issue of attempting to provide the most accurate data available for the medical community to make the best decisions possible for it's patients. Often if a medical provider is not confident in the information that is being provided to patients, the patients become frustrated and are incapable of making individual health decisions - in some cases waiting to make a decision can be lethal and no action is the same as making a decision and sometimes it can be the wrong one.
The issue the article brings up a widely heated debate surrounding ER visits for the uninsured. We see this very frequently at the particular facility I am employed by. What the author fails to mention are possible reasons for this other than "perhaps they still preferred the immediacy of the ER to waiting for an office appointment with a physician." I believe the problem is more indepth. Attempts to insure and place the patients on medicaid may work for a fraction of the population - but let us analyze the population. The particular assemblage in question is made up of those at the lower end of the income bracket. Generally these people are made up of people who are uneducated or under-educated, when the government wants to suddenly insure and place people on medicaid there is education that needs to go along with this change? Education needs to be provided at a level that ensures understanding for this population - otherwise the said population is more confused than ever. When statistics are reflecting that ER visits have actually gone up since insuring a percentage of this population, is it being taken into account the rise and fall of unemployment? A habit is often created after a certain period of time and continued practice of a new behavior - has there been time allowed for it to become a habit to no longer frequent the ER and instead utilize insurance and making physician appointments? There would be people continually on either end of the spectrum utilizing insurance - those newly placed and those who obtained insured status months or even years from the time the study was conducted that states "...in a randomized study, Oregon recently found that when the uninsured were put on Medicaid, they increased their ER usage by 40 percent." Oregon does not constitute the entire nation. It seems apparent the author is attempting to sway his target audience (those against insuring the unisured and those who are undecided) that medicaid and insuring those previously uninsured is not a solution and has not been effective in reducing ER usage for this portion of the population.
On the issue of the federal government forcing doctors to convert to electronic health records and that this will "..save zillions" - this is true and false - and in writing this article I'm not sure where the author came up with "zillions" as a quotable, factual or believable figure. Employing "scribes", as they are called, and as one can imagine (at a mediocre salary at best) is far less expensive, in the long run, than having a highly-educated and well paid MD performing the mindless task of data-entry. Are "scribes" having to be employed due to EHS mandates? Yes, and at a cost, but far less than the alternative.
Over-all I would state that the view points of the author leave much to be desired. I would have appreciated a more indepth article, especially given the author's background in medicine. I believe this article was to reinforce right-wing perceptions that insuring the uninsured, preventative health-care, and mandated reforms are all unnecessary and to persuade those undecided to the right.
Being a nurse I found this article from 'The Washington Post' interesting. Alot of the information provided are issues that we observe in the hospital setting. We are often frustrated by the same circumstances that are mentioned in this article. The commentary touches on, but does not explain in depth, why these discrepancies between fact and fiction may exist.
The author, Charles Krauthammer, does have medical background. Mr. Krauthammer practiced medicine for three years as a resident and progressed as a chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1980s. It is interesting how his background in medicine and current status as a political commentator (on Fox news) mesh and co-exist. He was also a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondate and helped direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration.
I found this article to raise some interesting questions, but it left me with many more questions and not alot of answers.
Below I have addressed several of the topics mentioned in Mr. Krauthammer's editorial entitled, "The health-care myths we live by".
On the issue of vitamin supplements and the ongoing debate on whether they are useful, useless or harmful continues, as stated in the article. Why might this issue continue to baffle? The issue exists because the studies and experiments used to determine situations such as these (supplement effects) are reported in lag time. A delayed reaction if you will. Many of the studies and research that are conducted take an extremely long period of time to complete and are done in a variety of different environments, with different populations, and under varying circumstances. Thus, since the outcomes of the research become available at different times (depending on the technology available at the specific time the studies were conducted) and invariably are different. The outcomes of the research , since many of the studies conducted are not the same - but are testing essentially the same or nearly the same hypothesis - are going to be in conflict. It is similar to attempting to do research on the internet - you are going to find claims against and for an argument - but this gets an indivdual no closer to the truth, unfortunately. This is why some studies for supplements (and depending on who is conducting the research and whether they are wanting a positive or negative outcome) are going to be in favor of them and others against them. You also have outdated information that some portion of the population has latched on to, while updated information is being circulated as well. As the article mentions, antioxidants have long been touted to be beneficial, while new research may be suggesting that to be untrue or that they may even be harmful - it will take a certain amount of time for that information to circulate and become common knowledge.
In the medical community, generally, procedures are continued to be viewed as a staple and actively practiced until concrete evidence is available to challenge it. As in the case of tonsillectomies, this was a widely practiced procedure - then when the research came back that it was unnecessary, for the most part, the routine procedure was, in most cases, abruptly stopped. In the medical community, issues are often based on scientific fact. The medical community is unable to waver back and forth on an issue, it must come together, examine the evidence, and make a concrete decision and stick by it. The medical community actually has to ACT ON the said research - not just decide to be for or against it - and to actually believe in it and take an active stance on it.
The author's suggestion that, "This is not to indict, but simply to advocate for caution grounded in humility" is fine for the average person, but what if you are a nurse or doctor having to assimilate fact from, literally, "fact", and actively practice and incorporate the information into your profession? Humility is not really the issue - it's an issue of attempting to provide the most accurate data available for the medical community to make the best decisions possible for it's patients. Often if a medical provider is not confident in the information that is being provided to patients, the patients become frustrated and are incapable of making individual health decisions - in some cases waiting to make a decision can be lethal and no action is the same as making a decision and sometimes it can be the wrong one.
The issue the article brings up a widely heated debate surrounding ER visits for the uninsured. We see this very frequently at the particular facility I am employed by. What the author fails to mention are possible reasons for this other than "perhaps they still preferred the immediacy of the ER to waiting for an office appointment with a physician." I believe the problem is more indepth. Attempts to insure and place the patients on medicaid may work for a fraction of the population - but let us analyze the population. The particular assemblage in question is made up of those at the lower end of the income bracket. Generally these people are made up of people who are uneducated or under-educated, when the government wants to suddenly insure and place people on medicaid there is education that needs to go along with this change? Education needs to be provided at a level that ensures understanding for this population - otherwise the said population is more confused than ever. When statistics are reflecting that ER visits have actually gone up since insuring a percentage of this population, is it being taken into account the rise and fall of unemployment? A habit is often created after a certain period of time and continued practice of a new behavior - has there been time allowed for it to become a habit to no longer frequent the ER and instead utilize insurance and making physician appointments? There would be people continually on either end of the spectrum utilizing insurance - those newly placed and those who obtained insured status months or even years from the time the study was conducted that states "...in a randomized study, Oregon recently found that when the uninsured were put on Medicaid, they increased their ER usage by 40 percent." Oregon does not constitute the entire nation. It seems apparent the author is attempting to sway his target audience (those against insuring the unisured and those who are undecided) that medicaid and insuring those previously uninsured is not a solution and has not been effective in reducing ER usage for this portion of the population.
On the issue of the federal government forcing doctors to convert to electronic health records and that this will "..save zillions" - this is true and false - and in writing this article I'm not sure where the author came up with "zillions" as a quotable, factual or believable figure. Employing "scribes", as they are called, and as one can imagine (at a mediocre salary at best) is far less expensive, in the long run, than having a highly-educated and well paid MD performing the mindless task of data-entry. Are "scribes" having to be employed due to EHS mandates? Yes, and at a cost, but far less than the alternative.
Over-all I would state that the view points of the author leave much to be desired. I would have appreciated a more indepth article, especially given the author's background in medicine. I believe this article was to reinforce right-wing perceptions that insuring the uninsured, preventative health-care, and mandated reforms are all unnecessary and to persuade those undecided to the right.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Obama Pledges Gun Control in SOTUWith Or Without Congress
One year after Newtown, President Obama brought up gun control again in the SOTU speech. Last year he urged congress to act after the Newtown tragedy, just two months prior to the 2013 SOTU, however the Senate failed to pass any gun legislation. Opponents including the NRA spear headed a campaign to oppose any gun safety law implementation. President Obama said in this latest SOTU address, "Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals
from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police
officers all over this country who say 'we are not afraid,' and I intend
to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies
from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls,
or schools like Sandy Hook." Even though the President only mentioned gun control once in his current address, it is thought perhaps he understands congress will not act on this. It appears he will use his executive action authority. Obama can not effect the law more than making the background check procedure more strenuous and thorough, including a focus on not selling firearms to the mentally ill. It should be noted that after the 2013 SOTU address 23 executive actions were taken to strengthen gun control laws.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Personal Political Profile - beliefs, views and ideals
I am a married, mother of one 12 year old son, 3 dogs, 1 cat, 1 lizard who works as a full-time R.N.. Unfortunately, like many Americans these days, I do not have the luxury of keeping up, as well as I would like, with all of the political culture, figures and controversy that is available via the vast media sources available today. However, I do have a strong idealistic view of what a democratic political landscape and culture should look like.
I would describe myself as first and foremost to subscribe to democratic views. I used to, as those who are younger do, have a very rigid view of democrats vs. republicans (and in my mind, now years later I realize ignorant as it may have been, in my mind, right vs. wrong). As I have matured I have become much more accepting of those on the left, right and everything in between. I would say most Americans, even those who are politically minded, would categorize themselves as belonging to one "camp" or the other - but generally, we all have one or two outliers that prevent one from being completely defined by one party or the other (even ideologies). That said, I believe that politics strongly resembles organized religion - there are those extremists who would die for their religious beliefs and do anything (lie, cheat, steal, kill) to defend them - just as there are in politics, and there are those who are casual religious believers who define themselves as "spiritual" but do not necessarily subscribe to a particular religion or visit church every Sunday. Unfortunately, both religion and politics often seem to separate people from one another instead of bring them together. This is why I decided to become more accepting of those who hold different political views than my own, and to concentrate on the commonalities we share to bring us together instead of focusing on the political beliefs that may keep or tear us apart.
I do, however, behind closed doors, hold a belief of an idealistic way America should be, despite how logical it would be to obtain and attain. My ideal society would be one that would respect one another no matter what race we are, job we hold, or background we come from. We would respect the differences of our neighbors, friends and family as long as those differences did not hurt, exclude or hinder anyone. Government would give us the freedom of true expression, while protecting our lives and property and would strive to resolve conflict in non-violent ways first and foremost (including involvement with foreign countries).
I believe I would define myself as primarily liberal with a few conservative outliers. Based on the four ideological types, narrowing categorization down further between the following: liberal, communitarian, libertarian and conservative I would say I most identify with communitarians. However, the aforementioned ideology is based on the fact that my ideals and morals just happen to run parallel to those who conform with many laws present in society, therefore by following upheld rules, regulations and laws already in place I do not feel like my personal freedoms are violated. I think something important to mention is if your current belief system is in accordance with the laws currently upheld in society and you value freedom - you are not going to view yourself as much as a liberal as someone who feels restricted by the current laws and regulations in place - as they would be constantly rebelling against them. I would say my values would be equality first, then order, then freedom - but if I felt my believe system was constantly being restricted I would say I would value equality first then freedom then order.
I have lived through the elections of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton and now Obama. Definitely the election that affected me the most was that of Obama, I felt very passionately that he should be elected. I was proud to cast my vote and see the first black President elected. Obama has lifted me up at times and let me down at times, but I am glad to call him the President of the United States.
Ideally I think those in the World should learn to do communicate with one another and respect our differences and attempt to understand one another. What is the source of some long standing beliefs in certain countries? Understanding takes time - but if it can save lives from preventing war and strife - isn't it worth it to take that time in the end? It's easy to appear to be communicating and listening when two people, leaders, countries hold a discussion - but are they really understanding each other? I think understanding and compromising is the key to other countries co-existing with one another in a non-violent manner.
I have posted images of several political figures who, recently, have been stirring up a great deal of controversy"
Hillary Clinton - What are her chances in the 2016 election?
Bob McDonnell - What was he thinking using political monies for his own personal gain?
Chris Christie - Did his own power go to his head?
Bob Gates - Are Tell-All books politically correct?
Thank-you for the opportunity to blog, vent, cheer and learn.
Sherry
I would describe myself as first and foremost to subscribe to democratic views. I used to, as those who are younger do, have a very rigid view of democrats vs. republicans (and in my mind, now years later I realize ignorant as it may have been, in my mind, right vs. wrong). As I have matured I have become much more accepting of those on the left, right and everything in between. I would say most Americans, even those who are politically minded, would categorize themselves as belonging to one "camp" or the other - but generally, we all have one or two outliers that prevent one from being completely defined by one party or the other (even ideologies). That said, I believe that politics strongly resembles organized religion - there are those extremists who would die for their religious beliefs and do anything (lie, cheat, steal, kill) to defend them - just as there are in politics, and there are those who are casual religious believers who define themselves as "spiritual" but do not necessarily subscribe to a particular religion or visit church every Sunday. Unfortunately, both religion and politics often seem to separate people from one another instead of bring them together. This is why I decided to become more accepting of those who hold different political views than my own, and to concentrate on the commonalities we share to bring us together instead of focusing on the political beliefs that may keep or tear us apart.
I do, however, behind closed doors, hold a belief of an idealistic way America should be, despite how logical it would be to obtain and attain. My ideal society would be one that would respect one another no matter what race we are, job we hold, or background we come from. We would respect the differences of our neighbors, friends and family as long as those differences did not hurt, exclude or hinder anyone. Government would give us the freedom of true expression, while protecting our lives and property and would strive to resolve conflict in non-violent ways first and foremost (including involvement with foreign countries).
I believe I would define myself as primarily liberal with a few conservative outliers. Based on the four ideological types, narrowing categorization down further between the following: liberal, communitarian, libertarian and conservative I would say I most identify with communitarians. However, the aforementioned ideology is based on the fact that my ideals and morals just happen to run parallel to those who conform with many laws present in society, therefore by following upheld rules, regulations and laws already in place I do not feel like my personal freedoms are violated. I think something important to mention is if your current belief system is in accordance with the laws currently upheld in society and you value freedom - you are not going to view yourself as much as a liberal as someone who feels restricted by the current laws and regulations in place - as they would be constantly rebelling against them. I would say my values would be equality first, then order, then freedom - but if I felt my believe system was constantly being restricted I would say I would value equality first then freedom then order.
I have lived through the elections of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton and now Obama. Definitely the election that affected me the most was that of Obama, I felt very passionately that he should be elected. I was proud to cast my vote and see the first black President elected. Obama has lifted me up at times and let me down at times, but I am glad to call him the President of the United States.
Ideally I think those in the World should learn to do communicate with one another and respect our differences and attempt to understand one another. What is the source of some long standing beliefs in certain countries? Understanding takes time - but if it can save lives from preventing war and strife - isn't it worth it to take that time in the end? It's easy to appear to be communicating and listening when two people, leaders, countries hold a discussion - but are they really understanding each other? I think understanding and compromising is the key to other countries co-existing with one another in a non-violent manner.
I have posted images of several political figures who, recently, have been stirring up a great deal of controversy"
Hillary Clinton - What are her chances in the 2016 election?
Bob McDonnell - What was he thinking using political monies for his own personal gain?
Chris Christie - Did his own power go to his head?
Bob Gates - Are Tell-All books politically correct?
Thank-you for the opportunity to blog, vent, cheer and learn.
Sherry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)