The start of a new blog even when I don't keep up with my old one.
I have often thought about the duality of nature. Positive and negative aspects of the same thing, two sides to every story, the view from here, seeing life through rose colored glasses, optimistic or pessimistic, and no two eye witness describe the same scene. Much of my personal philosophy comes from these contemplations. Often our reality is of our own making and not the same reality shared by others. Over the years in my attempts to define truths that I believe are universal I came up with this statement "Proper focus brings, clarity of mind, strength of spirit, and an able body making all things possible." Often Truths can be difficult to see. In the star wars saga there is an especially revealing line from Qui-Gon "Your focus determines your reality" or in Biblical terms:"For as a man thinks within himself, so he is (Proverbs 23:7) or Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya. Given this line of thought I intend to use this blog to post at least two different views or arguments about topics. Each post will have at least two view points sometimes more. We can all try to get to the "truth" of the matter.
One of the things that really irritates me about politics is how things are painted in a very left or right light. You are either Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Right Wing or Left Wing. I happen to think that it takes both wings for the Eagle to soar.
I call myself an irregular. I know many would say you are an independent, but I don't happen to think so. If you must agree with xyz to be on one side and abc on the other and independents are well independent of everyone else. Then I must be irregular. I don't fit into any of these categories. I also do not like to be told I am in the middle of the road. To me this would indicate that I am unable to make up my mind. to the contrary I am very decisive about things. So if I am not like regular people I must be irregular.
Of course I get some pretty strange looks when the conversation turns to politics and everyone is proclaiming their affiliations. "I am a democrat", "I am a Republican", "I have gone Green" and I reply " I'm irregular".
What about you are you regular?
Some further fodder for the furnace: Who should an irregular person vote for?
From my prospective, it seems my choices are a former US military officer and pilot or a former lawyer(Hillary and Barack were both lawyers). Hmmmm
I recently ran across a post that stimulated some additional political thinking. In his blog Justin Lately comments on "Social Security" by referencing the Christian Bible and the rewards of being charitable. Many religions establish a moral cause and obligation of their followers to be charitable. I pose the question then what should the role of government be in this endeavor to take care of those needing assistance?
Not wanting to pose questions that I am unwilling to answer, I will respond here and link back.
Here in the USA the founding fathers set forth a direction of government that left many things to the states. During colonial times people were governed more by local governments and it was determined that those local governments could provide better services in some areas while they needed to band together on others like national defense. Two specific things left out of federal government were welfare and education. There are many who believe that this was an over site, and in the 20th century many new programs were brought into the federal level of government. New taxes were created and while the states are said to control these things they must do so at the direction of the federal government if they want to receive the money to support the programs.
It is my considered opinion that we have taken a wrong turn in this matter. Education and welfare belong at a more local level. These governmental services are much better managed when addressed to the localized needs of American citizens. For example the needs of the population in a city like San Francisco, California population ~750,000, are much different than the needs of a citizen in Nichols Hills, Oklahoma population ~4,000. I see no problem with establishing some Federal guidelines about the minimum services that are recommended, but the taxing power and implementation should be as local as possible to prohibit waste and abuse. I also think that medical services should be part of that same system.
Lets take for example utilities. Would we suggest that since we think everyone should be able to heat their home during extreme cold that the federal government should assume responsibility for the utility that provides this service. A new tax to fund the project would be needed and yet more money flows into the federal government and away from city county and state government. Until now it has been determined that this same utility is better provided for by private enterprise. Yet in some communities (usually smaller) the city or a cooperative has taken charge because there is not enough profit in their area to entice private enterprise to provide the service.
Bottom line these are not things that are easily or efficiently managed over the vast differences in our country. The federal government should suggest minimum services that should be provided to American citizens and let the local government handle it from there. Oh, and you might notice I said "Citizens" but we will leave that for another post.
Add comment