Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.
One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Responsible Leadership Allows for Choice
Responsibility means that "the buck ends here", as one of America's Presidents said. Leadership means responsibiity in all its various contexts. Leadership is not good, unless it allows for "choice".
The first and foremost important relationship is that of the family. The Family forms the child's values, his understanding of himself in the world, his self-concept, which ultimately help to form his goals. Good parenting exposes the child, bears with the child and studies the child. Good parenting is "knowing the child" well, so that the child can be guided, but not guarded; nudged, but not prodded. The parent teaches the child about choice, responsibility and helps the child to grow by giving them age appropriate responsibilities that will build a sense of confidence and assurance about their abilities. Good parenting ultimately knows that the child will grow away from a dependence on their leadership and be able to make responsible choices on their own.
Leadership at school is also important in preparing the child for responsibility. Teachers, guidance counselors, and principals all influence the child and young adult's development toward making good choices and becoming a responsible citizen, ready to give back to society.
The university or on the job training is also important in leading the young adult into functioning in society productively. Professors, supervisors, and older workers help the adult to know if their choice of major or job is the "right one".
Society, itself, is governed by leaders. And good government is only when leaders understand their position as a public trust. These leaders don't shirk their responsiblity be representative of 'the people". But, such leaders must know how to negotiate, compromise, and look for the greater interest of the nation. Those under such leaders have more choices about their lives, because leadership has acted responsibily.
Responsibility is about taking ownership, seeing need, response to one's environment. Such responsibility is about choices, priorities, and values. Not everyone will consider the same needs, or values. Some will not be able to handle more responsibility than their familial ones. But, everyone in society gains when they take their responsibilities seriously!
All good leadership allows for responsible choice. And responsible choice is about being equipped with informaton, conscious of the needs before them, evaluating one's priorities in a given time, and committing to ultimate values, when one is through the reflecting process.
Every stage of development should be a time of growth, challenge and new responsibilities, as responsibilites are what life is made of and for.
The first and foremost important relationship is that of the family. The Family forms the child's values, his understanding of himself in the world, his self-concept, which ultimately help to form his goals. Good parenting exposes the child, bears with the child and studies the child. Good parenting is "knowing the child" well, so that the child can be guided, but not guarded; nudged, but not prodded. The parent teaches the child about choice, responsibility and helps the child to grow by giving them age appropriate responsibilities that will build a sense of confidence and assurance about their abilities. Good parenting ultimately knows that the child will grow away from a dependence on their leadership and be able to make responsible choices on their own.
Leadership at school is also important in preparing the child for responsibility. Teachers, guidance counselors, and principals all influence the child and young adult's development toward making good choices and becoming a responsible citizen, ready to give back to society.
The university or on the job training is also important in leading the young adult into functioning in society productively. Professors, supervisors, and older workers help the adult to know if their choice of major or job is the "right one".
Society, itself, is governed by leaders. And good government is only when leaders understand their position as a public trust. These leaders don't shirk their responsiblity be representative of 'the people". But, such leaders must know how to negotiate, compromise, and look for the greater interest of the nation. Those under such leaders have more choices about their lives, because leadership has acted responsibily.
Responsibility is about taking ownership, seeing need, response to one's environment. Such responsibility is about choices, priorities, and values. Not everyone will consider the same needs, or values. Some will not be able to handle more responsibility than their familial ones. But, everyone in society gains when they take their responsibilities seriously!
All good leadership allows for responsible choice. And responsible choice is about being equipped with informaton, conscious of the needs before them, evaluating one's priorities in a given time, and committing to ultimate values, when one is through the reflecting process.
Every stage of development should be a time of growth, challenge and new responsibilities, as responsibilites are what life is made of and for.
You Cannot Demand Relationship
I have spent the greater part of the morning trying to "discuss" (at least that was my thinking) a particular person's needs. She had called me, so I thought that this was a suggestion of her openness to me. But, unfortuately, one cannot demand a healthy living relationship.
Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.
This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!
When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.
I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.
Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.
Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.
Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world, there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?
Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.
This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!
When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.
I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.
Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.
Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.
Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world, there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Why I Think Believing Iis Dangerous in the World of Science and Scientists
Belief in the supernatural realm is dangerous, because it denies the real world and tries to blame "the devil" or accepts passivly such things as tyranny, abuse, and evil. Such thinking does not lead one to learn, grow or expand, becuase "God will take care of you". Whenever suffering or injustice happens, it is chalked up to "God's training ground, because God doesn't allow anything to happen unless it is in his Divine Purpose, Plan and Will. Tyranny, abuse and evil in the world is not challenged, it is accepted as "God's rule on earth", whereas, each person deserves the right to exist, be respected and given opportunity.
Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...
Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.
Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.
So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.
Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...
Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.
Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.
So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
RE-Review on "Inception"
I have to continue my analysis of "Inception", because of what I left out. The "anti-realist" view of "Inception" is a "thought experiment". Ideas breed thoughts that "bloom" in the mind. And my mind "blooms" many thoughts :)!
The main character's father had been the initiator of the "anti-realist" position to his son. But, he had found that his son had become "stuck" over the guilt and responsibility of his wife's mental instability and resulting suicide. The father pleaded for his son to leave "this world", a created one, and come to the "real world" where sanity could be restored. When the effort failed, the father introduced his son to a bright and promising student. This student was to continue the "tradition" of "creating worlds"....
The student soon became aware that there was a hinderance on the part of her mentor. The teacher was stuck and she sought to find out what had hindered him in his ability to "enter" the world of the other without interference of his own "baggage". The student's own journey could not be continued without letting the teacher go, as he had to work through his own issues. The impact on the real world of "his creation" could not be recognized or acknowledged, as he became obessessed with getting back to his children and the real world that they lived in. His fear of separation from them had led him to his bondage and he punished himself by creating the prison of his own mind.
This is the real world of "self punitive" behavior when one has not forgiven oneself for past indiscretions. Acknowledgment of one's limitations and failures is part of maturing and coming to terms with reality, which is what the "old man" represented in the end.
Humans have a great capacity to deny their "real worlds" for the "worlds" they create and inhabit. These "worlds" are walls of prisions that won't surrender their victims until the victim takes the responsibility without demanding perfection of himself. The "ideal" hinders growth, liberty and an ability to embrace life with its complexity, joys, sorrows, fears, hopes and dreams. These realities are what life is made of and for. Without entering life, there is no hope for entering another's life, not really, because life will always be about accomplishment, success, or perfection which hinders the ability to see, understand and grasp the real world of another life.
The main character's father had been the initiator of the "anti-realist" position to his son. But, he had found that his son had become "stuck" over the guilt and responsibility of his wife's mental instability and resulting suicide. The father pleaded for his son to leave "this world", a created one, and come to the "real world" where sanity could be restored. When the effort failed, the father introduced his son to a bright and promising student. This student was to continue the "tradition" of "creating worlds"....
The student soon became aware that there was a hinderance on the part of her mentor. The teacher was stuck and she sought to find out what had hindered him in his ability to "enter" the world of the other without interference of his own "baggage". The student's own journey could not be continued without letting the teacher go, as he had to work through his own issues. The impact on the real world of "his creation" could not be recognized or acknowledged, as he became obessessed with getting back to his children and the real world that they lived in. His fear of separation from them had led him to his bondage and he punished himself by creating the prison of his own mind.
This is the real world of "self punitive" behavior when one has not forgiven oneself for past indiscretions. Acknowledgment of one's limitations and failures is part of maturing and coming to terms with reality, which is what the "old man" represented in the end.
Humans have a great capacity to deny their "real worlds" for the "worlds" they create and inhabit. These "worlds" are walls of prisions that won't surrender their victims until the victim takes the responsibility without demanding perfection of himself. The "ideal" hinders growth, liberty and an ability to embrace life with its complexity, joys, sorrows, fears, hopes and dreams. These realities are what life is made of and for. Without entering life, there is no hope for entering another's life, not really, because life will always be about accomplishment, success, or perfection which hinders the ability to see, understand and grasp the real world of another life.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)
We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A GAG ORDER???
What is happening to our free society? Why are the American people left in the dark in regards to healthcare legislation?
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...
I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Bad Attitudes, Good Attitudes in the Media and Healthcare
I have to admit that I haven't been engaged with the discussion on healthcare, as I am not open to government taking over that part of my life, no matter what their "greater good" arguments are. I recognize that my husband's employer, as well as many other employer's are probably most interested in this discussion, as many foot much of the bill. But, I have listened to some of the discussion. What stikes me is the press!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
We need a Free Press to remain a Free Society. Without a free press, we are headed for an authoritarianism that will subvert any choice that the individual may want. The taking over of our liberties is done incrementally and without much notice, unless one is aware. The press is aware of what is happening, if they will 'take a step back for ideological commitments and do their job responsibly. The government is held accountable by the press and is the greatest assest, if sometimes the only way "we, the people" are informed! I love to see a "critical press". But, most of the time the press holds a double standard when it comes to Republican and Democratic leaders.
I caught a glimpse of change when one of the press's most prestigous and well-known asked a question of Obama's press secretary. He tried to delay answering the question until the end of the press conference. Why? Was it because he hoped that the question would not be televised, or that he had time to "think" about how to finagle out of directly answering the question? Was the question so direct and critical that he was "taken aback"?
Whatever the reason of his request for delay, he was held accountable to the press! In fact, the press insisted that the question be answered, then and there. And it was suggested that the press was being controlled! I was very elated to see such courage, such critical thinking, such responsibility toward the American people and one's job!
Was this a bad and disrespectful attitude toward those in authority? Or was this a Good Attitude because the press was not being held hostage to the adminstration's desires about healthcare?
Is this adminstration having an open dialogue with the American people about the real problems, and allowing the population to engage, be informed and educated, as well, as being honest about the pros and cons of both sides of the issue? I don't think so.
I "ran upon" a town hall meeting when flipping through the channels last night, while babysitting. The moderator asserted that Obama had not been informed beforehand about any question that was forthcoming. He was answering honestly and directly. The first question was about why America wouldn't want a one payer insurance policy, meaning that the government underwrites all of everyone's healthcare. Obama did not answer with pros and cons, but only with the pros concerning government take-over of everyone's healthcare.It seemed to me that it was a 'prepared answer' to a specifically focused question. Obama didn't show any critical thinking skills at all.
Then, a woman stood up and said she hoped she could ask a question without crying...she gave her "story" and the public was moved, Obama gave her a hug and reassurance that "government would be there"! I was not moved and was incredulous at a Town Hall meeting of our president, the most powerful of the free world, having an"Oprah-like" "feel". I turned off the TV. I couldn't bear how manipulative the whole scene seemed.
I am not negating this woman's real crisis, if it is real. But, I am negating what seems to be a "play for reality TV" when it comes to our policy decisions. All it takes for authoritariansm to take hold of our government is for there to be no accountability. The "consent of the governed" is being taken incrementally, subtly, and without any critical thinking on the part of the American people!
Did the press have a "bad attitude" toward the press secretary by "not being nice" in his request of denying an anwer to a direct question? or was the press really in "good behavior" according to their responsibility toward the American people? I think it is obvious!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Balance of Power in American Government
I was thinking the other morning about the recent abuses of power in our government.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.
At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?
We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.
On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".
Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.
It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.
Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Two Sides to the "Golden Rule"
All religious traditions have ethical concerns and many hold to a view of what the Christian understands to be the "Golden Rule". But, how one understands the "Golden Rule" is as various as the people who acknowledge it.
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
