American needs good leadership at all levels of society!
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.
The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!
The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.
Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.
All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.
Showing posts with label public good. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public good. Show all posts
Sunday, February 13, 2011
America Needs Statesmanship!
America is in need of Statesmanship in today's climate of volitility!
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!
Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison
Context: Federalist No. 10
Year: 1787
“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”
Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)
“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”
James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)
"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”
Dr. Louis Orr quotes
“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”
Hubert H. Humphrey quotes
"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”
Mark Twain quotes
"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”
Abraham Lincoln quotes
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!
Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison
Context: Federalist No. 10
Year: 1787
“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”
Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)
“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”
James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)
"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”
Dr. Louis Orr quotes
“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”
Hubert H. Humphrey quotes
"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”
Mark Twain quotes
"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”
Abraham Lincoln quotes
Friday, February 4, 2011
"The Good Is Really the Bad"
Ayn Rand
"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.
Men seek to subvert others in their pursuits of happiness (values and choice) because they deem it necessary to define the "good life" for you. And it also usually means that their interests supercede yours.
Using moral platitudes to undermine another's right to life and liberty is the oldest game in the book. It plays on man's false sense of responsibility, and guilt. Adults are made to frame their own realities and choose for themselves what defines their life, as to purpose.
Don't let anyone else control your mind and life.
"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.
Men seek to subvert others in their pursuits of happiness (values and choice) because they deem it necessary to define the "good life" for you. And it also usually means that their interests supercede yours.
Using moral platitudes to undermine another's right to life and liberty is the oldest game in the book. It plays on man's false sense of responsibility, and guilt. Adults are made to frame their own realities and choose for themselves what defines their life, as to purpose.
Don't let anyone else control your mind and life.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Equal
Our thinking is influenced by many factors. What we are exposed to, what interests us, and what values are of most importance influence how we understand and 'put together' our realities. These underlying issues also affect and influence what we choose to read, and educate ourselves and how we understand this information within the context of other understandings in our "world" (reality). So, thinking and one's understanding and commitment to one's values, is a life-long process. One should remain open to new information, as long as one lives.
I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.
This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.
But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.
Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".
I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.
This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.
But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.
Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".
Saturday, May 2, 2009
When Politics Drives Policy
My husband and I are in Colorado attending a scientific conference. Most of the information has been exciting to him, but tonight he wanted me to join him in attending a talk(s) on how science affects society and policy.
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Pay-Offs and Government Power
Many have been outraged with the government bail-outs of AIG, as government has tried to "use" thier bail-out as a means of increasing government's power to tax (at 90%). This seems to be the case with the recent suggestion about government lending private investors money to hold toxic assests.
Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.
This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...
Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?
Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.
This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...
Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
