In my "Will God Speak Again?" Reply to 2016, Part I, I make amend to my friend
VE: He corrected me in that he had written, in his opinion, the 2016 movie was a political "argument, a theory,"
not a religious "argument, a theory." After re-reading his
comments, clearly his basis was political and not religious, even as he
described an apologist relationship D'Souza had with Hitchins. VE says, "I
do not remember any religious arguments in either the book or the movie. If
there were any, they were minor and not germane to the principal argument, at
least as I remember." Others, by emails, commenting on 2016 movie
expressed a strong religious component, but that may have come from their
understanding of D'Souza's works being more in the religious vein. In any event
I'll standby the "conspiracy theory," aptly classified as political,
even as D'Souza is a Christian apologist. Conflation of politics and religion?
Evidently, it's Dinesh D'Souza's stumbling block, put in place by fellow-conservatives,
he has to cross before he gains credibility in politics.
Henceforth are questions/comments from my "Republican
Card Carrying" friend, EB. I offer the most succinct answers possible, some
of which I yield (link) to writers who more eloquently express my view. Some of
these may be presidential debatable material:
·
Funny
how when terrorist blow up a school bus, pizza parlor, or school, full of women
and children, people come out of the woodwork to defend Islam as a religion of
peace, or blame others for their acts. I'm not aware of any Christian
international Terrorist groups, but I'm certain some in the media can find an
excuse to justify the behavior of murderers and terrorists. Answer: Exploiting
the Prophet
·
In
reference to Zackaria, the so called "conservative". Why do liberals
in the national media paint all "Tea Partiers" as rabid anti women,
anti gay, anti poor, anti immigrant, racist, etc…? Does that wash? That's just
ignorance being paraded as fact. As I understand the Tea Party movement, it's
simply a decidedly "anti Federal Government waste" movement. Zacharia
doesn't represent my views. Answer: How Fareed Zakaria Became the Most Conservative Liberal Of All Time. (Conservatives have lost their
way; the traditional definition not longer applies.) Here Zakaria explains. Zakaria does not ascribe to your
description of TP, and I don't think that's altogether how the liberal media portrays
it either. It's much more than anti-FG waste. Zakaria's principle thesis:
"Anger and nostalgia are at the heart of
the Tea Party." I agree, I've
seen it demonstrated not just on TV. I think the Tea Party, of which are many
good people, have many different objectives, somewhat as Occupy does. I have
several friends who are Tea Partiers, at least I hope they're my friends. I
just think they are misguided by the crazies, Bachman, Cain, etc. demonstrated
throughout the Republican primary tours and debates. (They're not really crazy
but play to craziness that undermines the best in man.) Of course they probably
think the same of me.
"Grandma off the cliff" commercial
was a response to the lie by Palin and others that grandma may not survive
"the death panels." I agree all these are detestable, but even more
concerning is the Citizens United decisions that allow 503(c)4 organizations'
flood of money to make them possible. The films, and film makers, you refer to
I haven't seen and have not plans to see any of them.
The caricatures of both parties are
absurd. There are plenty of Republicans, Democrats, & Tea Party members
that have reasonable positions. The shame is that our political leaders have to
play to the far left or far right, because that's the only thing that gets the
media's attention. Then we all have to live with this cartoonish election
cycle, made by the huge media who are trying to out-do each other every minute
of every day. Answer: To a great extent you're right here.
However, you have to be careful not to perpetuate a "false
equivalent" because the extremes do not match, the intransigence has no
equal cause. As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (Two guys that have followed
congress and administrations for thirty to forty years.) write: "Never
before have cosponsors of a major bill conspired to kill their own idea, in an
almost Alice-in-Wonderland fashion. Why did they do so? Because President
Barack Obama was for it, and its passage might gain him political
credit."......"Republicans greeted the new president with a unified
strategy of opposing, obstructing, discrediting, and nullifying every one of
his important initiatives." ......"The second is the fact that, however awkward it may be for the
traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major
parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically
extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime;
scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts,
evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political
opposition. When one party moves this far from the center of American politics,
it is extremely difficult to enact policies responsive to the country’s most
pressing challenges." (It's Even
Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the
New Politics of Extremism (2012-05-01)) (Of course we knew this
already if we were observant; we didn't have to read it out of a book.)
This is really the crux of the problem. There is a genesis to
this problem and of the current-day Republican Party's discordance, explicitly
intertwined with the Tea Party in control. It goes back to Lee Atwater of the
1980s and even further. Some of this history, I wrote about in Selling The Soul and Healing American - Part II. It has descended to what Sam Tanehaus in The Death of Conservatism, called a
revanchist party. (These are painful realities that must be faced, not in any
way to excuse Democrats of misdoings. I take no pleasure whatsoever in its
revelation; an eye-opener that will never be understood by many.)
I'm actually in favor of smaller
Federal government, less spending on every program, including Department of
Defense and all Social Programs. Answer: Yes, we agree because, inevitably, slower growth as
measured against GDP, cuts and revenue balance, must be implemented on a timely
basis as the economy recovers.
- I'm for closing the borders,
and a path to citizenship for currently illegal immigrants. Answer: Immigration
reform! Yes, but the only way you can stop illegal immigration
(at border) is to stop illegal hiring by having a foolproof social
security ID card (other than the green card). That's something needed
throughout the US system, including a universal ID for voter registration.
Money will be required to overhaul, make fail-safe, this most important
universally American system.
- I'm for clean air and water…
(my family uses both) (But can you guarantee clean water and clean air without
some government control, EPA, to look over safe-fracking, etc.?) but
anti government involvement in government subsidies for alternative
energies or alternative energy companies. Progress energy pays nearly 50%
more per kilowatt hour for excess power generated by private
companies/individuals, than they charge, due to Federal mandates for the %
of renewable energy requirements. Can't address the extra cost per kh; that's
now a Duke Energy question. I'm antigovernment for big oil subsidies, but
nothing could be more critically important than stimulus, R&D, for
renewable energy. Even John McCain had a sizeable amount in his platform.
·
I'm pro healthcare reform, but anti
- "affordable care act", because of the unintended consequences, like
the burden it will put on low income families, when their work hours are cut to
30 per week or less. And the hardship placed on the same low income families,
and small businesses having to purchase insurance, or be fined every year. (The
dream of the insurance industry is to have the government force people to buy
insurance) The impact will be far more devastating that the 700,000 bankrupted
families annually noted below. (where does that fact come from?) Answer: Reid, T.R. (2009-07-23). UC-The
Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care
(Kindle Locations 425-432). The Penguin Press. Kindle Edition. Excerpt: When I was traveling the world on my quest, I asked the
health ministry of each country how many citizens had declared bankruptcy in
the past year because of medical bills. Generally, the officials responded to
this question with a look of astonishment, as if I had asked how many flying
saucers from Mars landed in the ministry’s parking lot last week. How many
people go bankrupt because of medical bills? In Britain, zero. In France, zero.
In Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland: zero. In the United States, according to a joint study by Harvard Law School
and Harvard Medical School, the annual figure is around 700,000.
- I'm pro death penalty and anti
abortion on demand. (funny how liberals call pro-abortion
"choice", so they don't have to think about what it really is.) But your
religion says, "Thou shall not kill." Are you taking God's judgment
into your own hands? However, you may have an out, for as Karen Armstrong
says, "A single text could be interpreted to serve diametrically
opposed interests." For example, "At the same time as African
Americans drew on the Bible to develop their theology of liberation, the
Ku Klux Klan used it to justify their lynching of blacks." (Karen Armstrong. The Bible: A Biography (Kindle
Locations 1595-1599). Kindle Edition.) For me the main thing is: Can you guarantee
an innocent person will not be put to death? We know now that many have
been released, proved not guilty by DNA.
- I don't know anyone who's not Prolife.
Prochoice is terminology to differentiate, in many situations just
nuances. Many republicans are
prochoice, such as Barbara Bush and Mitt Romney. Oops, did he switch back
or not?. A true pro-lifer is proven by his/her attention to life as an inalienable right throughout
childhood and adult life regardless of where they live in this world.
I'm
against gay marriage, not gay people. I'm commanded by my God to love everyone,
however I don't have to support everyone's lifestyle to do that. Answer: read
15 Propositions (Hyperlink failed; email attachment
herewith.)This might have been Karen Armstrong speaking but it's actually a
Methodist Minister.
- I'm against the government
paying for contraception, or viagra… I think healthcare, whether government or
private insurance, paying for contraception (not Viagra) is a wonderful
thing. Young ladies, whether
married or not, who can't afford, can't support the first child or
additional children, especially those that are born into poverty need not
perpetuate the cycle of degradation, repeating or increasing social ills
whereby another child may be incarcerated at an annual cost to your tax
dollars of $50,000.
- I'm for fair taxation, which
doesn't punish success. A tax code where everyone is treated equally, and
everyone contributes. (simple, simple, simple) The notion that you can
make opportunity for the middle-class (favorite buzzword of the democrat
party) and not create opportunity for higher income people is nonsense. At
what economic level does a person graduate from the middle-class working
person, to the wealthy totally selfish 1% person who doesn't pay their
"fair share"? And do you trust any administration
to make that judgement? Probably not! But if you don't understand where we've
been in the last four years, that there was a cause, you have fallibly
missed the economic history of the last 80 to 90 years. I could give you a
lot on this, but suffice it just now to let one Duke
History professor speak as in Saturday's N&O.
- I'm anti drug legalization,
because I understand and have seen the effects in my own family of what
happens to people who use marajuana/drugs during the length of your entire
life. I'm really flummoxed on this one. I've heard debate from both side,
but it would be really hard for me to go with your Libertarian brethren,
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
- I'm anti-union, especially public
sector unions. The purpose of every business, including the business of
unions is the perpetuation of their own organization. Unions are not the
advocate of the companies or industries they operate in. Unions are for
Unions… see the current Chicago Teacher Strike. I've said
that unions, that is of the original variety, have long out-lived their
usefulness. On the other hand, workers need to have some say about work
conditions, competitive wages for like work, etc. As the free-market moves
forward, labor needs to have a voice, a representative by organization, if
not unionization. It could be critical to income imbalance, equilibrium of
market forces.
- I'm anti-bailout for any
company including Banks, auto makers, Airlines, or government agencies
like the post office, amtrak, dept. of education, etc… I'm anti
on some of this too, but there may be something you don't fully understand
here on first two items, that could have had serious consequences
economically. (more later)
- I'm anti Federal subsidies for
every business, farm, individual. Let's stop paying for continued
inefficiency in any segment of the economy. I think I would go along with
that for the most part.
- I'm for NASA. YES
- I'm for term limits for every
member of congress. No member of Congress should be able to reside in
Washington for years and years, building their wealth and influence, and
perpetually running for the next election, by promising largesse to every
advocacy group they can. Many thing are
just not as simple as it may seem: Raising money for election or re-election
is a big problem. It takes two years for a congressman to learn the ropes,
while raising money for re-election. How about public financing; house-term
limits to a single 5-years; senators to 10-year terms; no re-election; no
filibusters; no lobbyist job afterwards before 8-years out. Any takers,
you think we can get qualified candidates on these preconditions?
Possibly!
- I will also add that I'm for
senior citizens, as I would like to be one someday. However, I'm not for
keeping every promise to the current seniors by Politicians decades ago,
and breaking the promise for everyone else in the future. That's in
reference to medicare and social security reform. Seniors are largely
responsible for the government that we have, (as they are and have always
been a huge voting block) and the protectionist position of AARP and other
advocacy groups on Federal Programs. I'm for means testing
for all federal programs, including social security and medicare. Just
like the democrats insist on with taxation. Means testing is good! But
under what conditions are you willing to state up front just what you'd be
willing to give? As a starting point, I'd venture: Based on my last
5-years income agree to deduct 20% of SS payment, and progressively on higher-income
increments, to a point where higher incomes receive no SS
payment, --- if that what's
necessary for my children to continue in the system, years to come. Medicare could work on same basis
except that the income baseline would trigger at a higher level and be
fully covered by purchase of catastrophic health insurance.
All these issues need more critical thinking by people
smarter than me, but it must begin with "you
and me" in our communications with our representatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to
think about these issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment