Two nights ago, President Obama gave the State of the Union address. In my opinion, there wasn't anything new until the second half of it; the beginning was just a mash-up of all his campaign speeches and part of the inaugural address. In the second half, there were statements about different subjects in which the President mentioned that we can do better. There were not specific ways mentioned to get us to the point of "doing better."
At certain points in Obama's speech, there was applause. Sometimes everyone stood up, sometimes some people stood up, and sometimes everyone stayed seated. Apparently, this showed which senators support or do not support the statement at hand.
Here are some of my questions:
- Is it a partisan issue to have equal rights for women? When the President mentioned the Equal Pay Act and there was a standing ovation by about half of the chamber, the camera focused on a few female Republican senators who remained seated and did not clap. This bill is for them. Do they not want equal pay? Is having the vote enough; do we not need to actually have equal rights?
- Is it a partisan issue to keep our planet clean? We all live here. All of us. It's not like global warming is going to skip over the congressmen and women who refuse to pass a bill that promotes clean energy. Our environment is the only one we have; we don't have anywhere else to go if our climate gets so extreme that we kill off our planet. We will all be effected.
- Is it a partisan issue to help people in poverty? Don't we all want a strong country? An argument I've heard from a lot of Republicans is that the poor "just need to work harder." Right. Is that what Jesus would have said? The only reason I'm mentioning Jesus (because, yes, I acknowledge that it's not directly related) is that a lot of these Republicans are the same ones who run around mentioning Christianity. If they want to take this Lenten season to reflect on the life of Jesus and prepare for his coming (as is the wont of Christians during this time of the year, I understand), maybe thinking about solving poverty in our country would be a good place to start.
- Is it a partisan issue to have equal education in this country where we offer free public education? Schools are getting intensely competitive and even preschoolers are having to procure letters of recommendation to get into the kindergarten their parents want them to attend. But not all parents can afford to send their kids to preschool. Just a few weeks ago, the governor of Kentucky, who ran on a platform of state funded preschool for all children, cut funds. The funds he cut were to the program that gives single mothers who are enrolled students at a state university free preschool for their children while they go to school. So, now those mothers cannot obtain a higher education degree because they have to stay home with their children. Do you see how this is a broken cycle? Do you see how this is a humanitarian issue, and not a Republican or Democrat issue?
- Is it a partisan issue to keep military grade guns that were never intended for civilian hands off our streets? There is not one, not one person in Congress who thinks we need to take everyone's guns. No one is saying that. But that's the only argument against gun control I'm hearing. I'm going to repeat: no one is trying to take your guns. But semi-automatic killing machines that were built for the battlefield have no place in our neighborhoods. And I don't think that if any one of the children of any member of Congress had been in Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, there would be a dispute about this.
These all seem like subjects we can agree on. All of us. If at this point you're reading this thinking, "No, those aren't high priorities for the government; that's an issue for individual people," please put either you or your family in the position of anyone in any of the above scenarios. Go ahead. Let it sink in. I'll wait.
Can you see how upset you would be if you were enrolled in school, one semester away from getting your bachelor's degree (putting you in the top 30% or so of educated people in the country), your three-year-old's preschool was suddenly cut, and you couldn't finish school so you could get a higher paying job to make a better life for your child than the one you had? Or can you understand how angry you would be if you'd worked your tail off for 25 years in your career, got a PhD in your field, were internationally respected, and then found out that you make 15% less money than your male counterpart, just because you are a woman?
Now that you've actually thought about what it would be like to be in those situations and we can all agree that they're problems of the non-partisan sort, let's get to work on figuring out how to fix them.
Cue: Arguing.
Yes! This is where the arguing starts. Disagree on how we are going to fix the problems, not on whether or not we should fix them. This is where people, in both Congress and the general public, disagree. We can and should disagree, at least a little bit, on how to fix things. Disagreement, if done in an intelligent and respectful way, can foster the best compromises and solutions. But there must be solutions. And there must be compromises. Neither side--neither side--will ever get everything they want. That's not how building community works.
Please, urge your congressperson to do what is right for our country. Please stop disagreeing with progress just because of the party of the person who suggests it. We need to get our country moving together, not in two halves.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Cue: Arguing.
Yes! This is where the arguing starts. Disagree on how we are going to fix the problems, not on whether or not we should fix them. This is where people, in both Congress and the general public, disagree. We can and should disagree, at least a little bit, on how to fix things. Disagreement, if done in an intelligent and respectful way, can foster the best compromises and solutions. But there must be solutions. And there must be compromises. Neither side--neither side--will ever get everything they want. That's not how building community works.
Please, urge your congressperson to do what is right for our country. Please stop disagreeing with progress just because of the party of the person who suggests it. We need to get our country moving together, not in two halves.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
First, the Equal Pay Act didn't pass because there are already 3 acts that I know of that deal with this issue. Also, this act took for granted that discrimination was simply based on sex when, in the real world, women are more likely to leave and re-enter the workforce to raise their children. Because of this, their salaries/jobs/experience/length of employment may not be comparable to someone, male or female who worked consistently.
ReplyDeleteIt's not partisan to want to live in a clean environment. What's partisan is the premise that 'global warming'/'climate change' is entirely man-made and can be stopped by spending billions of tax-payor money on businesses that in turn, launder that money and return it to political campaigns and then go conveniently bankrupt.An alternative solution would be to have businesses, through public pressure in the marketplace, to compete to run clean businesses.(Do your research: global warming stats have been faked, pictures of polar bears on ice, etc...have been photo-shopped.)
Since my answer is too long, I will stop now and continue to next post.
Even if there ARE 3 acts that supposedly deal with this issue, they're not working very well. There still isn't equal pay--I have friends who are professors and don't make as much as their male counterparts. Yes, more women leave to have kids and come back, but even the ones that don't leave still aren't making as much.
DeleteI don't really have much to stay about the photoshopping of polar bear photos and faked stats. I don't believe in conspiracy theories--I don't see them as "doing my research.
I'll reply to the rest of your answer under your other post.
they're not conspiracy theories; the bear being photo shopped just didn't appear in mainstream media in the US. i read it in Drudge, Hello, Daily Telegraph and Science Today. you're never going to get the complete truth from the mainstream media. they just neglect to report things that don't follow their agenda.
DeleteContinued from previous comment:
ReplyDeleteWe've had a government 'War on Poverty' for more than 40 years which has only served to institutionalize poverty--generations of families on welfare and STILL in poverty. In my community the best program we have supports people and families while the working-able are assisted in finding jobs, day-care, education--not all FREE (payback in time, energy, and money by helping others, is required)Something that is FREE is most likely less valued--human nature. This is a private program in which people are taught to fish instead of just given a fish--Jesus taught that people would be better served to learn to take care of themselves and become responsible for themselves. This way,they not only take care of their families, but they are in a better position to take care of others. When the government confiscates other's money and just distributes it, nobody wins in the long term. Charities run low on money as a result of higher taxation, people become resentful and less likely to want to help those who are getting for free, what they had to work for.
Yes, preschool education is important. I thought we had a very expensive Head Start program. A study just came out that found that all the advances and equality gained in Head Start were lost by the time the child entered 3rd grade. To me this is a parenting issue. Welfare and other social programs have made it more 'profitable' to raise families with single parents and to have more children in order to receive more money. Another thing that makes education so expensive to states so that they feel they must cut programs are the federal unfunded mandates--making states conform to cookie-cutter regulations that may or may not suit their state. Cut the Federal Dept. of Ed. and return the responsibility back to the states where families will have a more direct impact on the education of their children.
Gun control--make all the restrictions you'd like. Criminals don't play by the rules, won't follow any of these restrictions. Look at Chicago and Washington, DC. They have the most restrictive laws in the country and the most gun crime. Law abiding citizens will be left at a disadvantage as the criminals will have these guns and ammo while they won't. This is a SOCIAL problem, not a gun problem.We need to better care for our mentally ill, encourage strong families, allow faith-based institutions to assist, etc. Australia has a very vigorous crime underground as their citizens are un-armed and vulnerable and the criminals know it, break the law to get their guns, and then break it again by using their guns
Your premise seems to be that the only way these problems can be fixed is through our huge, beaurocratic government and the career politicians. I argue that citizens left unencumbered by endless gov't regulation, taxation and restriction can solve any problem more effectively. Th Gov't tends to BE the problem when it tries to micro-manage citizen's lives. The Constitution says that the gov't's job is to ensure the security of its citizens so that they can be free to live how they think is best. I don't want a nanny gov't--I've had a great life having to figure out things on my own, hard as it's been sometimes. I've had my faith in God, myself and my family to get me through--no government can surplant that!
Love your idea about not having "free" assistance! I think that's a great way to do it! I also think that maybe our government could do something like that so it doesn't have be privatized. I completely agree that people need to be responsible for themselves and their families; but I also think that we need to give people the opportunity (like through programs like the one you mentioned) to learn to be responsible.
DeleteIn terms of your education paragraph, YES YES YES I agree that parenting is a MASSIVE issue. Parents don't parent the way they did in the 50s or the 80s or even the 90s. I totally agree that parents need to do more interacting with their kids. I don't, however, feel that it should be entrusted to the states. I currently live in Kentucky (I'm not a native Kentuckian) and I would do just about anything to keep my state government from taking over our state's education. If that happened, I would have to move to NY or Massachusetts to make sure my kids got a good education.
Okay, fair enough on the gun control--I forgot to mention that I've also heard the argument that you just made. So, what you're saying is that criminals aren't going to follow laws. Obviously; that's what makes them criminals. But does that mean that we don't need laws? Murderers aren't going to follow that "don't kill someone" law, but we still have that law. Burglars aren't going to not steal things, but we still have the "don't take someone else's stuff" law. I think it's silly to say that we shouldn't have a law because criminals won't follow it. That's not the point of having a law.
YES, we absolutely have a social problem here when it comes to guns. Yes. I know. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that our country has more guns than any other country and we also have the most gun deaths in any country. I don't feel like that's a coincidence.
I respect your view saying that you don't want a huge government. To be honest, I don't really either, but at the same time I don't trust our citizens who bought stores out of AR-15s the week after the Sandy Hook shooting to self-govern in a good way. That's the only reason I feel like we need to have a "big" government: because our people aren't mature enough to govern ourselves.
Thanks for the comments! :-)
I love it that you respond to your comments and stand up for your views. However, I was floored by your last sentence, "I feel like we need to have a "big" government: because our people aren't mature enough to govern ourselves". This sets up an elitist class of people who label those who don't share their agenda as immature, low-information voters, etc. This is how tyranny begins.One group thinking they have all the answers and everyone else is too stupid, ignorant, and/or selfish to get it. Look at the genesis of all the tyranny our planet has experienced in the past. I would argue that some of these 'immature' people are running our government. They blame everyone else for the problems we're facing while refusing to look at what they have done to cause the problems. US citizens died in Benghazi and our officials say,(I paraphrase)what difference does it make, now, how it happened and refuse to take responsibility?! They pass a massive, tax and fee-laden healthcare bill without reading it first. They send our soldiers overseas to risk their lives for some fuzzy reason and tie their hands with unreasonalbe 'rules of engagement' that our 'enemies' don't bother to follow. I could go on. To me, in my opinion, these people are 'immature' and they ARE running our BIG government. We have the government we deserve and until we DEMAND integrity, this is what we will continue to have.
Deleteman, are you on target,jen! I love how liberals say that we are being unreasonable if we disagree that government should and can fix all of our problems. We have to 'stand up' and clap like good little soldiers or we're misguided, immature and don't the best way to live our own lives. This is an extreme example, but I remember seeing a film of how Hitler gained control and power over the German citizens. Citizens were shamed into thinking they were ignorant, ill-informed and ill-equipped to govern themselves, let alone make their own decisions for their own lives. They were convinced that the elites in their government knew what was best for the country. Our government is now our of control: drones, smart boxes in our homes and cars, Homeland Security making enormous buys of ammo and guns--wake up folks!
DeleteI beg to "argue" that your premise is all wrong. Government is not the answer to all of our problems. You also ask us to not disagree with progress just because it comes from the other party--are you the only one who can define progress? I would say progress is less government interference, taxation, regulation in our lives.I'm sure you would "argue" differently!
ReplyDeleteAlso, you gave the example of a women with a child needing day care while she is in college. I say she made a choice to have a child before completing her education. She needs to deal with the consequences of that action.(I made a very real choice not to have unprotected sex while completing my education so that I wouldn't have to deal with that consequence-Now you're asking me to take more money away from my family to pay for someone else's lifestyle choice!) The government being there to cushion us from every hardship only gives it permission to direct our lives--limits and denies our choices.I doubt you have children. If you cushion and protect your toddler from every fall, he/she never learns how to protect himself/herself. You mentioned Jesus who taught that it is better to teach a man how to fish so that he can eat everyday, rather that to give him a fish to eat for 1 day.
if you don't want people to get angry, judge your view, or anything else, you shouldn't be writing a blog. Weird! Maybe you need to grow some thicker skin.
DeleteI think you misunderstood what I meant by the author's note. I don't like it when people read the first paragraph or the first sentence, get angry, and then skip to the end and troll. I don't mind if people get angry or judgmental; I do, too. I just want people to read all of what I have to say before they start trashing me. I don't feel that's not having a "thick skin." I feel like it's asking for respect.
DeleteBack to your first comment: Okay. I have a friend who got pregnant in high school by accident (they WERE using protection), was a governor's scholar, and accepted to the same university I attended. So, you think that a high schooler with a 4.0 and a baby shouldn't be allowed to attend school? I mean, I guess if you're selfish to the point that you don't want a few dollars of your tax money going to someone in that situation, I can't expect you to step out of you bubble. You're saying that the government limits and denies our choices as it is right now. My friend got to go to school with work study and free preschool for her daughter because of the government. If the HADN'T gotten that financial aid, THAT would have limited her and denied her the choice of having an education.
My neighbor's daughter was in the same situation and was able to get private aid and work at her school's day care in order to receive day care for her daughter. It can be done. No, I do not think that she should be unable to go to school--she may have to work harder and take a little longer because of the poor choice she made to have sex (protected or not) before being able to accept the possible consequences for her actions. My point is that there are private and school funded (not federally funded) programs out there for unwed, teenaged mothers who want to continue their education.I'm just saying(and not very well) that those of us who make mature, responsible choices always end up funding those who do not. I certainly don't mind voluntarily funding private institutions who do this work--I'm on the board of the one mentioned above. I resent having my money confiscated by taxes(laundered through the inefficient gov't) making it harder for me to be responsible and take care of my own family so I/they won't have to go on welfare.Gosh, what happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? When something hard happens we expect the government to run to the rescue.
Deletebtw: is Joanne pulling your leg or is she for real?--OMG!!!
I think you are right, Kinsey--only the government can determine what is fair and equitable for our citizens. People are prejudiced, come from all different backgrounds, cultures and religions and tend to be uneducated and ill-informed. We need our leaders to stand up and decide what is best for all of us, in a fair way.
ReplyDeleteI agree there should be free preschool education as well as K-12; I also think that college should be free for all. Why should some benefit and some not? The college grad will pay more in taxes as they will have a higher paying job, thereby paying their debt to society.
Healthcare is a right; it should be free for all. In order to pursue my happiness and well-being as the Constitution guarentees, I have to be healthy.I have the right to choose what is right for my body. No one else has the right to tell me I can't have an abortion--its a personal, private choice and should be free and available to all who want it.
I have a right to live in a completely safe and gun-free environment where only police and government officials (CIA,FBI,ATF)have guns.
I have the right to eat healthy, safe foods that the government has mandated are safe; Soda, salt, fat--these dangerous things need to be strickly regulated.
I could go on and on;the anonymous people have it wrong. The majority of our citizens are following the wrong path by evidence of their food, healthcare, and gun choices-The government needs to step in soon in order to preserve our country and the people within it so that our children have a bright, safe future.
Oh, I forgot to talk about the debt and deficit problem. We are the wealthiest country on the planet and can certainly print all the money we need-we do it everyday. We've had debt and deficits in the past and it's never been a problem before. People are saying we have a spending problem-I disagree. I think some people just don't like our president and want to make an issue of the debt/deficit.We need to make sure our government is adequately funded so that it can function well for all of our people. Rich people can do with less so that a young mother can have birth control, day care, healthcare,education, etc. They can get by nicely on $200,000 a year, why should they get to live on millions when it's not necessary?It's not fair.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joanne, for your comments! :-)
Delete