Today, my friend summed it up in a short email… aren't kids great?
A CHILDS POLITICAL EDUCATION
I remember the time that Catherine - one of my daughter Shannon’s friends when she was little, told me that she wanted to be President one day.
Both of her parents are liberal democrats and were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine -
"If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
Catherine replied - "I would give houses to all the homeless people."
"Wow - what a worthy goal you have there Catherine." I told her, "You don't have to wait to until your President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up the entire dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5 
dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house."
Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied,
"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can pay him the $5 dollars."
Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine.
(Although the Republicans, lately, are dissapointingly weak on these principles, they seem to be our only choice. Can't whine about it, we the people should try to make our voices heard and strengthen the party. )
My question is, why is it so obvious to a 4 year old and not to half of America?
There must be consequences for actions and responsibility for the result.There must be work and reward.
There must be a sense of responsibility for the greater good.
There must be adherence to a moral code beyond our own gratification.
In order to achieve freedom, security, happiness, and prosperity.
Running a country by simply giving in to the desires of every politically motivated group, whether it is in the countries best interest or not, is lunacy.
I am a conservative.
I try to be kind, compassionate, charitable and understanding but I realize that sometimes you have to say no, not out of greed or self interest but in the BEST Interest of all. Governments have to be particularly careful.
If you are of a like mind, take a stand. Voice your opinion. TRY to fight the onslaught of immorality and degradation. Having the right to cast away honorable, decent behavior doesn't mean it's right to cast away honorable, decent behavior (and you can quote me on that).These words ain't easy, but they are right.
28 comments:
congratulations!!! you just made my post of note today!!!
which means that many may actually read this - but few will comment...
great post!
After Pedaling's comment I can't NOT comment! Thanks for this wonderful post. I just had to chuckle at that wonderfully amazing and insightful 4 year old girl. She would definitely get my vote for President!
Frankly, I find it to be a bit short sighted. You are clinging to a stereotype of who democrats are and what they stand for. An easily debunked stereotype if you took the time to actually do some research.
There are many people who work long hard hours every day and still can't afford decent health care and decent places to live. Many of those homeless people do have jobs, Ted. Not everyone is gifted with intelligence and good health. Not everyone can be a fancy shmancy land developer. Someone has to wait tables, pick up the garbage, etc. Those people deserve a decent life too, no? I don't care how hard you think you or any other CEO, etc. works, you don't work harder than the single mom working 3 jobs trying to support her kids and who still can't afford decent healthcare. No one person needs to make tens of millions or more a year - especially if there are people going hungry and without decent affordable healthcare. Doesn't one of your scriptures tell you "Where much is given, much is required"?
Doesn't your bible admonish you to be your brothers' keeper? And what about your Jesus? Matthew 25:33-45 I won't quote it all here, but it has the quote "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
I'm pretty sure if your Jesus was around today - he'd be a Democrat. He wouldn't take the side of big business and big profits at the expense of the working class. That's not what your Jesus was all about. He also wouldn't be pleased with the way the religious right engages in so much intolerance and hate mongering. Maybe you need to spend some more time reading the 4 gospels kiddo.
I'm an indepedent, there are things I agree with on both party platforms, however I don't think any one party currently has all the answers. But I do see the Republican party as more dangerous right now. I think it would be good for the Republicans to get a good behind kicking and then maybe they'll wake up and start disassociating themselves from the wacky ultra religious right. Those people are crazy and dangerous.
ahhhh, the typical liberal mindset, kathleen. you arrogantly accuse me of stereotyping and then stereotype me immediately thereafter. didn't we go to the same highschool? was i a "fancy schmancy land developer" then? i can guarantee you that if i waa given everything, i wouldn't have had the motivation to go build my companies and, by the way, employ hundreds of people. as you so shortsightedly forget, sheila had a child when we got married and did babysitting with 3 children to support us while i built my business. i didn't whine about the government putting me in that spot, i worked to change it. we are a great country because of a christian ethic and free enterprise. and no, i am certain that "my Jesus" would be a Republican or at least very conservative because he is insightful enough to know the difference between charity and government charity and he wouldn't support the democrat agenda of removing God from all facets of American life and pushing us towards communism.
socialism destroys enconomies and strong economies are what pay for social programs. duh.
no one is starving in this country. if you want healthcare, you can get it but if you socialize it, comrade, you'll destroy it for everyone.
(independent my eye...)
and by the way, i remember when hee was your Jesus too...
blogger etiquette states:
if one disagrees with a blog post of another- be careful to KINDLY disagree- remember you are a guest on that persons blog.
it's ok to disagree and have an open debate or response, but to accuse and attack, just isn't very nice, and does not reflect well on you, the guest commenter
haha oh those liberals...
I agree with 100% of what you said.
She probably doesn't know what to say. Those were some good answers. If she thinks she's so "independent" why is she relying on the government to supply what she has the opportunity to go out and EARN for herself. Isn't that what America is all about?
Some people...
I'm not meaning to come across as stereotyping you personally & I'm not forgetting anything. I'm not for full on socialism either. I thought the same as you for a long time. I was a young single mom with 2 toddlers trying to recover from a very abusive 1st marriage. I was putting myself through college. There were many times when all we could afford to eat was mac & cheese & pb&j. I didn't complain about it either. My 1st husband was constantly finding sleezy attorneys to take me to court to try and make me drop out of school (he wasn't paying alimony and only very minimal child support, so it's not like he was paying for my school in any way). Still through all that I stayed in school and graduated and was able to get a better job, move up and do pretty well for myself. For a very long time, I held the notion that if I could do it, well so could anyone else.
But slowly I came to realize over the years that not everyone is like me or can be like me. Not everyone has above average intelligence and/or is born with as much unsinkable spitfire as I am.
I decided maybe I should stop juding others by what I had done and what I personally was capable of. I decided it was wrong to try and squeeze everyone into the very same mold. I believe those of us who are able to achieve more because we have greater reserves of resiliency and intellectual capacity are obligated to our fellow human beings who don't have those same capacities. I believe we are obligated to reach out and lend them a hand.
Does that mean I think that we should just hand people everything on a silver platter? No. I think there are a lot of positives aspects to a free market society. However, I don't think it's a perfect system and I do think it encourages abuses when it's taken to the extreme & is allowed to run unchecked. And I do think it's moral to be generous. In order to refrain from being too verbose here, I'd like to redirect you to a recent article that helps illustrate what I want to say. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=do-all-companies-have-to-be-evil
I do think it's immoral for a company to cut benefits to workers and/or lay people off if it's solely to generate more profit for the company elite. Before my hubby Ken was a partner in a medical company, he worked for a big international corporation. The CEO decided he needed a $100 million bonus if he was going to continue on as the CEO. This was someone already worth many tens of millions of dollars. In order to give him his
$100 million bonus that year, the corporation had to lay off a bunch of people. And yes that was the motivation behind the layoffs - Ken was in far enough that he was able to be privy to the motivations.
The divisions where people were laid off were all very much in the black profit wise & were already short staffed as it was and really needed to hire more employees to properly cover the work loads. There were other policies put in place that put this company clearly in the Enron category. The company elite seemed to very obviously not view the employees as human beings, but merely as dispensable "cogs" to be used to build up the
company elite and then disposed of at will.
Do I think all companies operate this way? No. But unfortunately there seem to be more than a few that do. Do I assume that you operate your companies in that manner? I don't, and I most certainly hope I'm right in that gesture of good will. I hope you strive to be more like Google. We strive to be like Google. Ken wouldn't partner up with anyone who didn't agree with the Google philosophy. This doesn't mean they are ok with people slacking off and not doing their jobs, that they are going to continue to employ people who are true deadweight. You probably know only too well how difficult it can be to find good help. What it means is that we are all(the partners & spouses) ok with taking home less profit if we need to in order to keep good needed employees, pay them well, and not slash their benefits. We all already live at a level that is at least 95% better than the rest of the country and easily in the top 2% of the world - how much more do we really need? How much more profit can we truly justify in good conscience?
As for healthcare, I'm sorry but it's pure myth that no one in America is starving and that anyone can get healthcare if they need it. There's a serious problem with the working poor who don't get medical benefits with their jobs and who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or other medical assistance programs. There are many healthcare facilities that won't accept anyone who doesn't have insurance. Just simple routine things like being seen for strep throat can cost several hundred dollars. While that's pocket change to people like us, it's a lot of money to the working poor. And I have a very hard time believing that you honestly believe that a family making $30 -40K a year (or less) can realistically afford $500-1100 a month premiums for self bought insurance. And that's if everyone is healthy. If a family member has diabetes or some other ailment, the premiums can be much higher. I remember back when I was a single parent college student and I didn't have health insurance. I just couldn't afford it, not even from the university. I was totally paranoid about getting sick or having my kids get sick or hurt during the time the kids didn't qualify for medicaid. Going to the Dr. for a throat culture and antibiotics for strep throat became a really big deal and a big expense. I know the time and energy I had to spend worrying about that kind of stuff distracted me somewhat from my studies and job responsibilities. Once I had health insurance coverage again, things like that were a non-issue. I didn't have to spend time and energy worrying about how I was going to pay the Dr. bill. I could focus on other things, like how to be a better parent, citizen, employee.
Should the gov't be in charge of healthcare? I don't know, but our for profit insurance companies sure aren't doing that great of a job, IMHO. Talk about waste and inefficiency, yikes! Maybe you aren't aware of it because you don't run a medical company. We certainly had no idea before we got into the medical service arena. I used to seriously doubt claims that insurance companies were the main cause of skyrocketing health costs, but now it just seems so obivous after having been thrown into the middle of it. There are examples of other countries who have efficiently operating gov't run healthcare. Australia, France, Switzerland, just to name a few. I've purposefully sought out acquaintances in many different countries all over the world the last several years to try and learn from them firsthand how different systems work and how well they seem to work or not work for the average citizen.
Here's part of an exchange between myself and an American woman who's been living and working in both France and Switzerland for the past 10 years or so:
(Me): "I'm not sure having the gov't running universal healthcare would be the answer, however. We need to restructure and eliminate the already existing bureaucracy in healthcare not add to it. It seems when the gov't is in charge of something, they add to the bureacracy and they don't do a very good job with it. Just look at education for an example."
CH: To be honest, I think this expectation is part of the problem. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have been chanting this mantra, then they get elected and run services into the ground and say "See? I told you the government is incompetent."
Other countries do have decent public healthcare and education. See my posts: those wacky health insurance companies! (http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2006/02/those-wacky-health-insurance-companies.html), European dream (http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2007/09/european-dream.html), and steal this idea (http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/2007/05/steal-this-idea-greetings-from-opposite.html). [end quote]
I've thought about it a lot and tried to look at it from every angle I could imagine to see how things are, where do they seem to go if we take this path, or that path, etc. and also ultimately what's possible and I've ended up deciding that we can learn some good things from other countries.
That's all I have time for right now. I have little kids to attend to and a new grandson to dote on. Take care & I wish you and yours well.
my point is...be compassionate and do as much as you can and help everyone you can. set up charitable organizations, raise money, serve, serve, serve. But stop trying to turn the country into a welfare state and government is WAAAAY less efficient than free enterprise. that has been proven so many times in history that, i believe, it's irrefutable. Socialized medicine is poorer medicine. Socialized anything is poorer anything.
why do liberals always look to government to solve problems? quit putting energy into turning America into a welfare state and start applying the principles of free enterprise. you'll help more people, more efficiently. The LDS church has an incredible welfare program but it requires some effort on the part of the recipient.
The principles in my blog are right. let's find other ways to help people. If we don't, the financial burdens we are creating will crush us. That's a cold, hard fact no matter how compassionate you are.
looks like i need to comment once again on blogger etiquette...
when "one" leave a comment beyond long it should be left via e-mail or if that is not possible, on "ones" own personal blog....
by the way, Kathleen...i think you serious underestimate people. it doesn't require above average intelligence or a superhuman psyche, it requires desire. My equal business partner never graduated from college...
thanks ted.
As one who has had held four jobs at one time, paid insurance, taxes etc. on my own, went through 4 years of college, and appreciated the opportunity to work for others who had the vision and insight to start and run businesses that allowed me the opportunity to work for them. And then to also be a business owner and the employer of several others, paying salaries, providing health care and providing opportunities for others to earn salaries, all the while dealing with nonsensical government regulations bordering on socialism - I couldn't agree with you more.
You made my day:)
I don'tknow everything, but I know some things.
I know we need priorities.
Let's start here: Love God; love neighbor.
Jesus gave that answer to a lawyer over 2,000 years ago.
In closing, I am a one issue voter.
My one issue is abortion!
Which party is most friendly to the unborn.
I rest my case.
Any doubt who I will vote for?
I only have one final thing to say: if socialized medicine is poorer medicine then why is the US rated #37 by the World Health Organization in regards to healthcare? If your assumptions are correct - that non-socialized healthcare is better, then we should've been rated #1, or at least been up in the top 5.
It's more of a rhetorical question.
Let me remind all:
The WORLD HEAlTH ORGANIZATION is part of the UNITED NATIONS. THE UNITED NATIONS IS THE MOST CORRUPT ORGANIZATION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
blogger etiquette rule #3
The author of the blog -being, in this case, the son of theo- gets to have the last word/comment
Big Daddy, would you like to wrap this thing up???
kathleen, are you really trying to tell me that you believe that government can manage a massive health care system better? I'll have to look into the rating criteria on that list but i can tell you that any inefficiencies we are experiencing in our system stems from government regulations and liberal influences. The closer a system gets to free market, the more efficient it becomes. Whine all you want, but you can't change that fact.
Pedaling gets my vote for mediator of the year.
Here's the link:
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
If the closer a system gets to a free market the more efficient it becomes then how do you explain all the countries with socialized medicine being ranked higher than the US? France is ranked #1, and it's probably one of the most socialized countries around. I'm interested in hearing your explanation for that.
We could point and counter point forever, but I'm seriously interested in any hard data you have to back up your claims. I prefer raw data, if possible, that hasn't already gone through a series of spins. I don't think any system around is perfect by any means, I've just decided my own vision of morality requires me to err on the side of humanitarianism.
i like to debate but debating the obvious is tiresome. you make your entire argument based on a rating agency that has a socialized medecine bias. the final word is that rating system! i say again, you can not argue economic principles. you didn't like the hard facts in the 20/20 video i gave you? O.K., how about the following BBC article that says the inevitable and I quote "Doctors, nurses and other health professionals have taken to the streets of Paris to protest against government plans to cut back on a health service which has a projected overspend this year of eight billion pounds." You, like the French, are shortsighted and trying desperately to ignore the FACTS. You can not avoid the law of supply and demand. The highest percent of Gross National Product devoted to health care of any country on the earth is France AND THEY WILL STILL OVERSPEND THEIR BUDGET BY 8 BILLION POUNDS. would you like any more absolutely incontrovertible, cold, hard facts?
here's the full article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3419725.stm
it took me about 2 seconds to find that. want me to keep looking? i read one in French that makes the point even stronger.
Help for social issues can only effectively come on a local level. Neighbhor helping neighbor. Congregations helping those within their stewardships.
Unfortunately there are some issues no government program will ever solve, let alone manage. Divorce, abuse, mental illness, drug addiction . . .
Those issues are often (no, not in every case) a caveat of those who suffer long term or cause long-term suffering among families.
For the rest of us, many of us start out completely broke with hopes and many setbacks that we either learn from or learn to deal with. I think of those successfully handling setbacks like my uncle Ted, Kathleen, my grandparents, my own family and a host of other people I know. It is a tutoring process that the majority of us go through. Take it away and you crush a person's personal growth in so many areas.
I believe Kathleen has found a lot of compassion for her fellow man but I disagree with her thinking that the government can right most of the wrongs in our society. It cannot. Only individuals can do that as they begin with themselves and then work outwards to their own families, then communities. Grass roots (for lack of a better term) is more effective than fed. government programs.
very well stated...
a point made intelligently said in under 15 paragraphs- well within the acceptable standard...
nice job.
This is defnitely my last comment. I really only have time to be on the computer 2-3 times a week for a very specific period of time and only for very specific tasks & I really need to get back to my schedule. If you've made comments since the BBC article, I haven't seen them as I've been writing this offline, a few sentences at a time.
I notice the BBC article seems to be originally dated from 2003, and then at the top of the page says it was last updated January, 2004. I looked up other articles and left messages for European acquaintances and it appears the French gov't has been making reforms to remedy their issues. However, just because they've had some problems, I don't see a reason to negate the whole system. The first thing that comes to mind is that while house calls are undoubtedly nice, maybe it's a better idea to reserve those for the invalid that have a really hard time getting around. I don't think the French are stupid at all, if anything I think they are admirable for putting such a high value on human beings that they want to treat all their residents as well as possible.
There are also 35 other countries above us in that report whose systems should be studied as well. I don't buy the assertion that because you want to believe the WHO is controlled by liberals that they are on some vendetta to try and bring down or punish any country without socialized medicine. The report isn't just about access, it's about quality of care as well.
I never said I think the gov't should definitely be running healthcare here. I only said that healthcare is an issue we need to address and improve and I like to explore all possible options, not polarize into one corner and refusing to try to objectively look at all possible options. There's no need to polarize into a corner, IMHO. I believe the best solution is going to be somewhere in the middle. It seems obvious to me that leaving it all up to the free market hasn't worked for us in regards to healthcare. If it did work, we wouldn't have so much corruption in the insurance industry and so many uninsured people and even insured people who are denied the care they need. The only reason our system isn't worse is because of the gov't regulations we currently have in place. I remember clearly how if one changed jobs, the insurance company at the new job would take your money, but then deny payment for anything they could possibly find a way to consider a pre-existing condition for 12-18 months. So you had to pay your premiums and find a way to pay for needed care as well. For families with a member who had diabetes, cf, etc. that was a huge burden & often an impossibility. It was Federal regulation that put an end to that greedy practice by insurance companies.
I also haven't hinged my whole argument on the WHO report, I just mentioned it as a contrast to your statement that socialized healthcare is always worse than unsocialized healthcare. Clearly it isn't. Ken is half Canadian and has many Canadian relatives, many of whom have spent time living here in the US. None of them think that the quality of care in the US is better than it is in Canada. I've met other people who've lived both here and in various European countries or in Australia for extended periods of time and they all say those places have state of the art quality care as well. Certainly you will find people here and there who've had bad experiences in any place, but overall the consensus appears to be that the quality of care is not lower in many of the countries with some form of socialized medicine. If I've hinged my argument on any one thing it's been that I think humanitarianism should be the top priority.
I took economics too, micro & macro, and did well in them. I just don't think it's appropriate to take principles that are meant to be used to deal with non-persons and try to apply them to the health of human beings. When we're dealing with people's lives, I don't think we should be talking about supply and demand, etc. -- like we're comparing people to shoes or cars. That seems extremely callous. I think human beings deserve a higher standard of treatment.
Since people with PhDs who have spent their entire adult lives studying these types of things still can't agree yet, I can't accept your assertion that "the principles in your blog are right." You're just one average guy. Interesting that you think you know so much more than all these very learned people who've spent many years concentrating on these issues. Interesting indeed.
I think this type of discussion is going to be much more productive for me back in the Mensa SIGs where thankfully people don't seem to feel a need to polarize to one corner, but are willing to explore and analyze all possible options to try and find a good workable solution.
Sounds like Kathleen see's herself up and above the common man/woman....I gotta laugh out loud at this, as quoted by Ms. Warner, herself;
"But slowly I came to realize over the years that not everyone is like me or can be like me. Not everyone has above average intelligence and/or is born with as much unsinkable spitfire as I am."
Is that not the most egotistic statement you've ever heard?
My question now stated is as follows- IQ, yes, but standard socially acceptable in society? No.
After reading all of her comments- well skimming that one 15 paragraph one- here, served up on a silver platter, are some of the names she called you:
dangerous
fancy shmancy (jelously is never attractive)
stupid
callus
shortsighted
and my favorite; one who is not on the Lords side....
and then she lends you some advice:
"Maybe you need to spend some more time reading the 4 gospels kiddo."
oh, and I almost forgot, she called you kiddo....
This has been most entertaining!
i'm in cali on a business trip but wow, Katherine. you are arrogant. your elitist attitude boggles the mind. and way to throw in your mensa membership. that must mean you know way more than us common folk. i guess free market principles don't apply if the mensa member says they don't. if the mensa member says that gravity doesnt exist, should we start worrying about floating into space?
i simply stated my opinion. you then retorted (ooh, big word for a non mensa member) by calling me names (fancy schmancy developer, kiddo, check your bible). pretty belittling.
is that what they teach in mensa debate school? if you have a differing opinion, make sure you cast dispersions.
i've known a lot of phds that can't tie their shoes. (i was speaking metaphorically and do not think that they literally could not tie their shoes. wow, how did i, a non mensa member, ever come up with that?) Bill Gates never graduated from college. He must have asked a mensa member how to rule the world. the dalai lama doesnt have a phd, i guess his thinking is completely discredited.
i have been around the world several times and personally witnessed not only health care issues but free enterprise issues. i may be qualified to at least have an opinion.
i was hoping you would respond.- your sarcastic remarks are hilarious and i'm hoping this is indeed the last word.
i feel that even though kathleen tries to act as if she is not reading these responses; she is....
anyone who would put the time into writing a 15 paragraph comment on the blog of another, has alot of pent up frustration, misery and anger inside; not to mention alot of time on her hands....
oh, but wait, she is a mensa member, so i'm sure that means she and only she can whip up these matathon responses in just a matter of seconds....
Post a Comment