It was just reported that Biden said that the recovery didn't work BECAUSE we didn't SPEND ENOUGH!!! Does he believe this because he is out of touch with reality and with real people?
Politicians get to spend our money. These are entrusted servants, not entitled Kings. But, I think when one is conditioned by long terms in office to spend what is "budgeted", otherwise, there is less money to spend the next year, then one can "imagine" how this type of living and thinking can lead to a disconnect with where the money comes from and with the responsibility of the government to live frugally, like the rest of us.
This statement is amazing, too, because it is totally out of touch with what the population, as a whole is saying! Independents, and Republicans alike are calling for a "cut-back" in spending. But, while the government tells us to sacrifice, and to learn to do with less, they are being emboldened to further their borders in our private lives and personal pocketbooks!
Amazing! Absolutely Amazing!
Showing posts with label public servants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public servants. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Naturalism is Just Another Name...
Naturalism is just another name for God. Naturalism claims that there is no 'open universe". Resources, whether they be the natural environmental, or social are in "short supply". So, all people are called to altruistic ends, because we all need to survive.
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Crime is viewed as not affirming human need, whether in material resources, or social structures. Crime is really the fault of society, because we don't share and dont' care.
I don't want to sound sarcastic, as I understand that there are many that suffer from the failures of others, but that doesn't mean that the whole of society should suffer the consequences of the "underdog". Under-dogs are prone to stay under-dogs unless they are given proper resources to overcome their deficiencies.
Leaders in the naturalistic scheme of things are those that create society and form the interests of the state. And the state should have all citizens interests in mind when formulating the laws that govern it. Equality under law, must be of primary importance when the governing bodies propose policy for 'public good". Does the policy build on liberty of individuals under the rule of law, or does it circumvent this equality under law, by prescribing how equality is to be served?
So, it is "we the people", not "we, under the rule of government", or "we, the people under God-ordained authority". We are a people that have minds, wills, dreams, hopes, and desires that create our republic. We the people has meaning. And the "common good" or the 'public interest" should not be formulated in naturalism's interests alone. We the people are human beings, that are designed to benefit from a free and open society that has no ulterior agenda other than serving the interests of the people the government serves!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What Do You Do?
What do you do when someone 'knows best" or "better for you" than you do yourself? Although we all need support and 'another set of eyes" to see at times, others are not omniscient or omnipotent.Those who think this way are dangerous. These think that their understanding, the way they see things, is all there is, because they are "omnipresent". Time nor boundaries have no meaning to them, because they disregard history. These tout 'supernatural revelation", or knowledge, insight, or experience. Their experience is universal.
I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..
In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?
It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.
On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.
I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.
There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.
What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.
What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.
I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..
In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?
It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.
On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.
I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.
There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.
What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.
What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Corruption and Compromise in High Places
The news is filled with the downfall of many of our leaders and we yawn. Our democracy is only as strong as the leaders' commitment to value the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Some believe that without personal character, these ideals will be compromised. Others suggest that even our Founders were immoral in certain areas of their lives. Does it matter?
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
Monday, April 13, 2009
An Interesting Experience This Morning....on Defining Values
This morning, as usual, I picked up the newspaper. There was an article about the 'new dog" at the White House, which is a water spaniel.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Doing Unto Others and Ethical Choices
Choice is a value that makes us human. Humans have a choice because they have a mind, that can reason about difference in values and the choices that uphold those most important values. People choose what they do for different reasons. But, all humans choose what they value most, or think is most important in spectrum of choices. Reason, then, is an important human attribute to develop.
World religions have different ways of addressing the ethical, but the ethical is understood to define what is universal. In the Judeo/Christian tradition, the universal is the Golden Rule. In Kant's moral philosophy, it is the categorical imperative.
People usually agree about the universals, the "ideals". But, they diverge in how to decide to act in a real world that is not ideal. That is the quandary for all decisions in this life, whether the individual, group, or nation.
How do we resolve the dilemma to the questions of choice and the ideal in an imperfect world? Well, that really depends on how you view the world and the players in the world. Conservative Christians believe that God acts in the world. But, what this means differs. Some believe that God does miracles directly impacting the world, while others believe that God has given humans the mandate to change the world.
If we believe that the world needs change, whether one believes that it comes about directly from the hand of God or not, comes about by understanding the importance of the Golden Rule. How are we to apply that in our imperfect world? The Golden Rule cannot be implemented without choice, so government is a priority. Good government is made by people who are public servants. And the American government is the best means of choosing these public servants. These public servants are called to maintain the values of freedom for our people in religion, vocation, and lifestyle (within the bounaries of law).
Therefore, good government is the most important value to pursue, so that the moral order can be maintained, and people can live in peace. It is also most important so that individuals can make their choices in freedom.
The ideal values of religion are relativized to good governance in allowing choice in a real world.
World religions have different ways of addressing the ethical, but the ethical is understood to define what is universal. In the Judeo/Christian tradition, the universal is the Golden Rule. In Kant's moral philosophy, it is the categorical imperative.
People usually agree about the universals, the "ideals". But, they diverge in how to decide to act in a real world that is not ideal. That is the quandary for all decisions in this life, whether the individual, group, or nation.
How do we resolve the dilemma to the questions of choice and the ideal in an imperfect world? Well, that really depends on how you view the world and the players in the world. Conservative Christians believe that God acts in the world. But, what this means differs. Some believe that God does miracles directly impacting the world, while others believe that God has given humans the mandate to change the world.
If we believe that the world needs change, whether one believes that it comes about directly from the hand of God or not, comes about by understanding the importance of the Golden Rule. How are we to apply that in our imperfect world? The Golden Rule cannot be implemented without choice, so government is a priority. Good government is made by people who are public servants. And the American government is the best means of choosing these public servants. These public servants are called to maintain the values of freedom for our people in religion, vocation, and lifestyle (within the bounaries of law).
Therefore, good government is the most important value to pursue, so that the moral order can be maintained, and people can live in peace. It is also most important so that individuals can make their choices in freedom.
The ideal values of religion are relativized to good governance in allowing choice in a real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
