Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Budget Compromise

April 9, 2011

The threatened government shutdown has been averted.  The politicians in Washington realized that no one would appreciate the idea of our military being in combat, and their families not receiving financial support.  That would cost them votes next election.

I have not seen the details of the compromise.  If it is a good compromise then everyone should be equally unhappy.  Yes, I said unhappy.  A compromise means that you have had to give up something that you wanted originally.  It means that you hoped for more than you are receiving in the deal.  It is a fair compromise, when both sides give up equal shares.  Of course, each side also should receive things that are important to them., but they should come at the cost of other things of lesser importance.

Hopefully, our political leaders will figure out what is truly important.

Advertisements

1000 Dead Civilians?

April 4, 2011

Last week I heard that our primary reason for the use of military force in Libya was to protect civilian life.

Saturday, I read about 1000 civilians that had died in the Ivory Coast due to internal conflict.

Should we have been involved there as well?

If we are trying to protect civilian life there are many places in the world experiencing turmoil.

We cannot be everywhere.  How will we decide who gets our support?

Our interjection of force into a nation’s internal conflict is not the way to go.

Libyan No-Fly Zone

March 22, 2011

The United Nations has decided to impose a no-fly zone in Libya.  American forces have launched attacks in Libya, destroying much of the ability of Libya to control the skies of their own country.  The reason given is to protect civilian life.

Libya was in the process of quashing an armed rebellion.  This was not simply massive, peaceful protests such as has occurred  throughout the Arab world, it was an armed rebellion with the rebels taking control of significant portions of the country.

So, in effect, we are supporting a rebellion.

I appreciate that we are there at the direction of the United Nations, with broad support from Arab countries.

That does not make it right.

Libya should have been left alone.  Our involvement is costly and unnecessary.  I do not believe that it was a good use of our resources.

Divided Congress

January 8, 2011

The Senate is controlled by the Democrats and the House is controlled by the Republicans.  One benefit of a divided congress is that in order to get anything passed it will be necessary to achieve some level of bi-partisanship.

That is not a bad thing.

It will be necessary to hammer out some common ground…or do nothing but argue for two years, which is unacceptable to everyone.  Congress will have to find a way to work together.  A shared goal and agreed path will have to be found.

Perhaps, having a divided congress will help to unite a divided country.

That would be a good thing.

Lame Duck?

December 20, 2010

In the closing days of this years congress the politicians are busy.

The tax deal has been passed.

Another large spending bill was defeated.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed.

And there is more to come before the end of this lame duck session.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this flurry of activity at the end of the year.  I do know that I regularly pray that God will help our political leaders to make good decisions.

I think that I may need to pray harder.

January is coming, and it will be a different congress.

I hope that is a good thing.

 

 

 

Judges Fired!

November 4, 2010

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Iowa voters decided the fate of three of the seven judges who decided that Iowa should legalize gay marriage.

They were fired.

Hopefully this will send a message throughout the country that the people do not want a small handful of people making decisions of that type, and  magnitude, in that fashion.  The decision of seven people did not strike down a new law, but in effect, created a new law of the land.  The attempt by legislatures to put into writing what had been the common practice, understanding, and law, of the state for one hundred and fifty years should not have been declared unconstitutional.

I am surprised by the observed response of the media.  It has been kept pretty quiet.  You would think that something that has never happened before would be a bigger story.  It has been a strange response.  I am curious to see what will be the ramifications of this action of the people of Iowa.

Finally Election Day

November 2, 2010

I am so tired of political ads on television and political calls at home.  I am glad that election day is finally here if for no other reason than I am ready for a break from the commercials and the calls.

I don’t pay attention to the ads.

I hang up on the calls.

They both still annoy me.

I did read something in the paper yesterday that bothered me.  A Republican leader stated that his two goals were “no compromise” after the election today, and to “win back the White House”.

I would like to suggest a different goal.

Work together with other elected officials to find ways to achieve the common good.

I can dream can’t I?

Iowa’s Opportunity

October 28, 2010

Iowa has an opportunity on November 2nd to send a message to the judicial world.   Three of the judges responsible for gay marriage becoming a reality in Iowa are on the ballot this coming Tuesday.  If enough Iowans vote “no” on the ballot, these three judges will be removed from Iowa’s Supreme Court.  It will not repeal the law, but it would send the message that judicial activism will not be tolerated.  Why do I call the legalization of gay marriage an example of judicial activism?  Iowa became one of a handful of states to allow gay marriage, not because of legislative action, nor by a vote of the people, but because of the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court.  When something that was illegal for over one hundred and fifty years, becomes legal, by the decree of a small group of judges, that is judicial activism to me.

It should not be tolerated.

 

Campaign Crud

October 25, 2010

I am tired of attack ads.

I truly wish that candidates would campaign on what they have done, and what they would try to do if elected.  There are sufficient differences in political ideologies that if people would focus on the different approaches to solving problems then perhaps we could have constructive political interaction instead of half-truths, distorted reports and accusations.

Where do we want to go?

What is the best way to get there?

These are the things that we should be discussing in our electoral campaigns. I would enjoy that discourse.  As it is, I just want the campaign season to end.

From Me to We

October 11, 2010

When we are having problems in our relationships with other people, whether it is in a church, our workplace, our community, or even in our families, the problem is usually experienced as my dissatisfaction with your actions.  I am unhappy, because you are doing something wrong.  I think that we would be better served if we would shift our focus from our personal perspective to a shared goal.  Instead of asking “How can you make me happy?” or “How can I get my way?”  We should ask “How can we make our situation better?”  How can we make our church better?  Our workplace better? Our communities, and our families better?

In seeking solutions to common problems we need to shift our thinking from me to we, from thinking of our personal needs and goals to thinking of the needs of the group.  Problems that exist in a group setting are not my problems, they are our problems.  Solutions then should focus, not on me, but on we.