On November fourth, we, the people of the United States, witnessed an unprecedented election as the first African-American man was chosen to be our next president. Welcome, President-elect Barack Obama.
John McCain has slowly gained my support throughout this campaign. I respect the fact that he is a war veteran. Even more I respect the fact that he is a torture victim that returned home with his honor. But nothing he has said or done has had more of an effect on me than his concession speech given in Arizona. I haven’t seen or cared about very many elections, as I am still fairly young. However, from what I understand, concession speeches often lack sincerity and depth and are little more than a formality. Tonight however, I heard a very sincere plea directed at the American people. Support your new President!
I can understand why it must have been confusing for supporters of McCain to hear their candidate build up his former bitter opponent as he did. After months of very critical, negative and down-right dirty campaigning, it is a bit odd to hear anything positive or hopeful. But I don’t think that is any excuse to “boo” as McCain’s crowd did upon mention of President-elect Obama. The behavior of the crowd didn’t diminish my opinion of McCain in any way -- he did silence them -- but such behavior concerns me greatly. I’m not sure where or when it originated, but such behavior perfectly characterized the attitude that exists in American politics. We’re all a bunch of sore losers.
Why is this damaging?
A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to lead a group of about 20 of my peers toward a religious goal. As their leader I was expected to maintain the highest standards of behavior and conduct. I was supposed to lead by example just as much (if not more) as by my words. I found this to be very difficult. Yes, I was more experienced than most of those that I led, but I was far from perfect. I knew about my imperfection all too well. On various occasions I was caught in the act of doing something that I should not have been doing. Getting caught doing the very things you’re preaching against is not fun. In many ways, I was not practicing what I preached. I appeared a hypocrite. It was never anything big but I didn’t like being caught doing ANYTHING bad.
In these moments of public guilt I would make a decision on how to react. I could have given excuses to those that I led hoping they wouldn’t think me any less of a leader. I could have told them that I was allowed to do what I wanted because I was the boss. I could have lied about doing anything wrong. Or I could have admitted to wrong-doing, apologized and corrected my action. I am fully aware that the choice was mine to make. I was responsible for my actions then and cannot blame any poorly made decisions on anybody. But I also know what would have made the correct reaction easier.
When a leader acts imperfectly, he fears what those below him will think. Will they still listen to me? Will they justify themselves in doing wrong based on my actions? This fear is an added stress that is not needed or welcome. Fear is the antithesis of leadership. How much more effective would it have been for somebody to walk up to me and say, “Jared, don’t worry. We know you’re trying your best and we trust you to keep trying. Here are some suggestions that you might try out. You have our support. What can we do to help you?”
In our country, we have a way of defacing those that we don’t agree with. Instead of saying, “I don’t agree with you and here’s why…,” we tend to say, “you’re a moron and here’s why…” Yet we wonder why nobody respects the office of the President anymore.
When it comes down to it, the judgment of a leader should only be two-fold. Does he have a vision to accomplish good things for us? What consequences will be brought about due to his actions? We have to realize that there is more than one way to reach most goals. And while it may be true that one way is more efficient than the other, contention and division is much worse than inefficiency. If our nation doesn’t choose our way, and the alternative isn’t going to bring us to our knees, we should buck up and support the alternative. Yes, there are certain initiatives and propositions that would bring us to our knees, but these are in the minority by far.
The President of the United States will NEVER be able to please all those that he leads. To expect this of him is ignorant. We must expect to not get our way sometimes. Unfortunately, too many expect to win every time. Thus, we see a lot of unnecessary pouting and whining.
This pouting and whining does two things. First and foremost, it makes our nation appear as a group of snotty teenagers that didn’t get Daddy’s car tonight. Second, it insults and defaces the president, putting him on the defensive. Instead of worrying about how to improve our country, he’s worrying about his approval ratings.
Please understand that I do not believe that the President should be free to do as he pleases, for he is not a dictator. I believe that in order for a dictator to rise the only thing that needs to happen is for good people to do nothing. Just understand that in my eyes, the defamation of our President does not count as “something”. Our country was set up with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any leader from acting against the will of the people. Whether it be through a petition or a letter to a congressman, when united and organized we have a great deal of power. We should act with intelligence rather than irrelevance.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Glass Houses
Who is at fault? Who is to blame? How far away from ourselves can we point the finger? I hope this mentality sounds familiar to all readers. If the existence of this mentality has escaped your senses, I’m afraid you may be in need of some introspective thinking because you represent the cause of many of our problems. However, before confronting the concept of responsibility directly, let’s examine a phenomenon that will lead us in responsibility’s direction.
For a brief moment I would like to visit the idea of a tyranny in the United States. Can you imagine what the tyrant’s role might be? Who would make the decisions? Who would be to blame for any fall-outs or problems? Where would the bulk of our taxes go? If a problem arose, where would we turn to for solutions? Now, consider our current situation. Frankly, I don’t like to add up the similarities, as the number grows too large for comfort.
Any properly functioning organization that's stewardship covers a great deal of geographical distance, functions on a basis of decentralization. The concept of decentralization emphasizes the need for the placement of decision making authority towards the extremities of the organization. As stated in the introductory post of this blog, when I look at my paycheck I see myself giving a disproportionate, inappropriate amount of authority (i.e. money) to the “central” government. Can the citizens of this country honestly believe that an organization with it's base located 1,000 miles away (in some cases) from the state they live in is most capable of ensuring a healthy standard of living for them? How can we expect people that operate so far away from us to use our money in an efficient manner that benefits us?
Our federal government spends unfathomable amounts of money on programs that, due to our specific geographic, social and cultural needs, have no relevance to us. I submit that the federal government should disband programs that can be handled by the states just as, if not more, efficiently. The Preamble to our Constitution may be able to provide some guidance as to the role of our federal government.
This leads me to my next and final point of this post. With the elections so close we are all analyzing which characteristics to look for in a President. Let me give you a hint; if you’re looking for a perfect, or even a near-perfect man, you’re in for a disappointment. This may seem like common knowledge, but our behavior suggests otherwise.
When we place any substantial amount of responsibility or blame for the problems in the United States on one man, we’re giving that man too much credit. I can almost guarantee that in future textbooks, our current economic situation will most likely be blamed on the Bush Administration. The problem with this placement of blame is the implied notion that the president actually has a substantial effect on the economy. He doesn’t. If you really understand economics, you already know this, but for the sake of those that don’t, I’ll explain.
Economics is defined as the study of how scarce resources are allocated amongst a group of people. You see, the president has very little power to allocate said resources. This power would be more appropriately credited to the Fed and the owners of the scarce resources. To say that the president is to blame for a bad economy is to say that he owns and controls everything. Remember the whole “tyrant” allusion? Now, do I think that our president is a tyrant? Not in the slightest. I just think that if I were being blamed for so much, I should have control over everything I was being blamed for. Thus, when we place blame in places it doesn't belong, we're handing power over to parties that don't deserve it.
The fact of the matter is that we, as a people, need to start assuming more responsibility for solving our own problems. As we continue to blame the other party and hand our problems over to the government, the very same government will continue to grow. As it grows, more generalized laws and bills will be passed that don’t begin to solve all the region-specific problems in the country. Eventually, we’ll wake up one day to find that our right to solve our own problems has been taken away.
In the next few posts, I’ll elaborate more on this issue of responsibility. Look forward to a post that discusses what can be done to more efficiently and effectively help the poor. Look forward to an explanation of what the president’s role should be along with what makes a good one. Also look forward to reading about a better way to bring about the “change” that Obama is so vainly promising.
SO MUCH TO DISCUSS!
For a brief moment I would like to visit the idea of a tyranny in the United States. Can you imagine what the tyrant’s role might be? Who would make the decisions? Who would be to blame for any fall-outs or problems? Where would the bulk of our taxes go? If a problem arose, where would we turn to for solutions? Now, consider our current situation. Frankly, I don’t like to add up the similarities, as the number grows too large for comfort.
Any properly functioning organization that's stewardship covers a great deal of geographical distance, functions on a basis of decentralization. The concept of decentralization emphasizes the need for the placement of decision making authority towards the extremities of the organization. As stated in the introductory post of this blog, when I look at my paycheck I see myself giving a disproportionate, inappropriate amount of authority (i.e. money) to the “central” government. Can the citizens of this country honestly believe that an organization with it's base located 1,000 miles away (in some cases) from the state they live in is most capable of ensuring a healthy standard of living for them? How can we expect people that operate so far away from us to use our money in an efficient manner that benefits us?
Our federal government spends unfathomable amounts of money on programs that, due to our specific geographic, social and cultural needs, have no relevance to us. I submit that the federal government should disband programs that can be handled by the states just as, if not more, efficiently. The Preamble to our Constitution may be able to provide some guidance as to the role of our federal government.
This leads me to my next and final point of this post. With the elections so close we are all analyzing which characteristics to look for in a President. Let me give you a hint; if you’re looking for a perfect, or even a near-perfect man, you’re in for a disappointment. This may seem like common knowledge, but our behavior suggests otherwise.
When we place any substantial amount of responsibility or blame for the problems in the United States on one man, we’re giving that man too much credit. I can almost guarantee that in future textbooks, our current economic situation will most likely be blamed on the Bush Administration. The problem with this placement of blame is the implied notion that the president actually has a substantial effect on the economy. He doesn’t. If you really understand economics, you already know this, but for the sake of those that don’t, I’ll explain.
Economics is defined as the study of how scarce resources are allocated amongst a group of people. You see, the president has very little power to allocate said resources. This power would be more appropriately credited to the Fed and the owners of the scarce resources. To say that the president is to blame for a bad economy is to say that he owns and controls everything. Remember the whole “tyrant” allusion? Now, do I think that our president is a tyrant? Not in the slightest. I just think that if I were being blamed for so much, I should have control over everything I was being blamed for. Thus, when we place blame in places it doesn't belong, we're handing power over to parties that don't deserve it.
The fact of the matter is that we, as a people, need to start assuming more responsibility for solving our own problems. As we continue to blame the other party and hand our problems over to the government, the very same government will continue to grow. As it grows, more generalized laws and bills will be passed that don’t begin to solve all the region-specific problems in the country. Eventually, we’ll wake up one day to find that our right to solve our own problems has been taken away.
In the next few posts, I’ll elaborate more on this issue of responsibility. Look forward to a post that discusses what can be done to more efficiently and effectively help the poor. Look forward to an explanation of what the president’s role should be along with what makes a good one. Also look forward to reading about a better way to bring about the “change” that Obama is so vainly promising.
SO MUCH TO DISCUSS!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Merry-Go-Down
The amazing part about the subject of this post is the fact that all political parties and people acknowledge the existence of a problem. Yet, we continue running around in circles. Scores are rarely settled, compromises are rarely achieved and "issues" are rarely resolved.
In the introductory post on this blog, I alluded to the problems with a partisan system of politics. After viewing way too many hours of CNN, NBC and FOX News -- hours that I will never have back, by the way -- I have seen no progress made towards compromises or settlements. In fact, the opposite is more true. Each party's ideals seem to drift further apart each day.
For those who don't believe this a problem, I'll present to you a metaphoric situation. Imagine a disagreement between a married couple. Both have an equal measure of interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. How can they best accomplish this resolution? The way I see it, they have two options.
On the one hand, the male could retreat to his buddy's pad where they would share their disgust for femininity in all it's emotionally confusing grandeur, as they watched the Cougars beat UCLA soundly. The female could retreat to Kneaders (a shnazzy little breakfast nook) to analyze the baffling simplicity of the male mind. In the end, both have had their opinions validated by people who agree, but the problem has not been solved.
On the other hand, we have a situation where the male and the female come together and discuss in a rational, objective, non-threatening manner the source of the conflict. Opinions are shared, irrationality is vanquished and a deeper, more respectful love is formed.
I hate watching CNN and feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated. I love to listen as Sean Hannity tells me how right my viewpoints are. I love watching him bring lunatic Democrats on his show only to demolish their beliefs and never let them get a word in. But what good does that do? The only thing such behavior accomplishes is the further division of our "United States". We tell those who agree with us how good we are and it stops there.
Lets not forget that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were not drafted and signed by two opposing political parties, but rather by a room full of intelligent, extremely different citizens seeking to overthrow a giant. Is our situation so different? We'll discuss the size of our government at a later date, but suffice it to say, we have much to conquer.
If you are reading this blog in hopes of finding a detailed description of my plans for fixing this problem, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed for a while. I am in no position (mainly due to age and experience) to draft detailed plans of action. If my ideas don't fit into the constraints of your idea of how the world works, be patient and optimistic. There is more to come.
If you are, however, looking for an uncommon way of looking at our current situation, stay tuned. My goal at the present is to create awareness for another option and mentality. Our current system is not bettering our current situation.
Wise man once say, "Never listen to or take advice from somebody more 'screwed' up than you." (pardon my wise man's French) Take a break, for a moment, from listening to corporate broadcasting and listen to a real wise man. I submit the following:
17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
In the introductory post on this blog, I alluded to the problems with a partisan system of politics. After viewing way too many hours of CNN, NBC and FOX News -- hours that I will never have back, by the way -- I have seen no progress made towards compromises or settlements. In fact, the opposite is more true. Each party's ideals seem to drift further apart each day.
For those who don't believe this a problem, I'll present to you a metaphoric situation. Imagine a disagreement between a married couple. Both have an equal measure of interest in the successful resolution of the conflict. How can they best accomplish this resolution? The way I see it, they have two options.
On the one hand, the male could retreat to his buddy's pad where they would share their disgust for femininity in all it's emotionally confusing grandeur, as they watched the Cougars beat UCLA soundly. The female could retreat to Kneaders (a shnazzy little breakfast nook) to analyze the baffling simplicity of the male mind. In the end, both have had their opinions validated by people who agree, but the problem has not been solved.
On the other hand, we have a situation where the male and the female come together and discuss in a rational, objective, non-threatening manner the source of the conflict. Opinions are shared, irrationality is vanquished and a deeper, more respectful love is formed.
I hate watching CNN and feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated. I love to listen as Sean Hannity tells me how right my viewpoints are. I love watching him bring lunatic Democrats on his show only to demolish their beliefs and never let them get a word in. But what good does that do? The only thing such behavior accomplishes is the further division of our "United States". We tell those who agree with us how good we are and it stops there.
Lets not forget that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were not drafted and signed by two opposing political parties, but rather by a room full of intelligent, extremely different citizens seeking to overthrow a giant. Is our situation so different? We'll discuss the size of our government at a later date, but suffice it to say, we have much to conquer.
If you are reading this blog in hopes of finding a detailed description of my plans for fixing this problem, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed for a while. I am in no position (mainly due to age and experience) to draft detailed plans of action. If my ideas don't fit into the constraints of your idea of how the world works, be patient and optimistic. There is more to come.
If you are, however, looking for an uncommon way of looking at our current situation, stay tuned. My goal at the present is to create awareness for another option and mentality. Our current system is not bettering our current situation.
Wise man once say, "Never listen to or take advice from somebody more 'screwed' up than you." (pardon my wise man's French) Take a break, for a moment, from listening to corporate broadcasting and listen to a real wise man. I submit the following:
17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Begin...
The United States of America
It has Become Apparent in recent years, given the current state of affairs, that the United States of America could be more accurately named the United Political Parties of America. It would seem that the focus which used to be centered on the states is now on the one part of our country that isn't a state; Washington D.C. This is not the direction we need to go. When I look at my paycheck and see how much of my money goes to the state I live in, compared to the amount that goes across the country (and even across the world), I'm worried.
Few have any substantial level of trust in the organization that makes out laws and presents us to the world, and many are apathetic to the subject.
Elections are no longer a matter of supporting one candidate, but rather making sure the other does not get put into office.
This blog will discuss some of my ideas for fixing such problems.
Let's begin...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
