Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Conservative VS Liberal - But What is it Really ?



By Chuck Marshall

This is six brief paragraphs and around 3 minutes time, but it's worth the read!

*The political labels of our times and why they need tweaking.

     I've always been annoyed with name calling, group think, and any assumptions about a group of people.  I think it's simple minded to go through life thinking everyone in any group thinks and acts in a specific way and to not consider  the complexities of a people or an issue.   Today we live in a day and age where everything is left vs right.  Conservative vs Liberal.  Republican VS Democrat.  There has even been a movement that works to make liberals "progressives" which in its very name alienates anyone who's not progressive as being "regressive".  Hardly a productive name !  As a political moderate, all of this drives me nuts.

     The title "conservative vs liberal" is used for the purpose of conversation but it inaccurately jumbles citizens into categories that they may or may not belong.  The media loves this because it enables them to label groups of people with one word and if there's anything most of today's media appreciates it's a simplified version of the reality we live.   Mostly this is because they're lazy,  but I do understand the need for a simplified reference to the two political frames of thought. 

      I contend that the terms used today are no longer valid.   Today it's  "conservatives vs liberals",  but to more clearly define what it is we're referring to this won't work anymore.   The word conservative implies "one who does NOT want change" and the word liberal implies "one who DOES want change",  but that's hardly the case today.    In reference to the government it could easily be argued that "liberals" tend to want a lot to stay the same !  Witness how they've  been fighting to keep Trump from removing the "powers that be" in Washington, DC.  Love him or hate him, he is no friend of anyone with power in our nation's capitol.  (This, IMHO,  is why so many "conservatives" support him,  regardless of his appalling personal habits).  Conservatives want to see a lot change.  They see the government's power as out of control and in need of great change.

     So what do we call them then ?   "Liberals" want to enable government to fix things  more.  They are much more likely to see the government as the solution to problems.  They feel the government can "level the playing field",  and that it can "redistribute wealth" and it can effectively enact laws that forbid bad things like discrimination.  "Conservatives" think the government is the cause of most problems.   They see it as inept.  They see it as tax & spending machine.  They see it is a dangerous entity that is fully capable of taking away individual rights in the name of  "fixing things".   So if you boil it all down and remove all the innuendo, hatred, and false assumptions then you have two groups of people that want things to get better, they just see a different path to get to the goals of making things better.  The "liberals" see the government as the solution.  The "conservatives" see the government as the problem.  In my mind I think of it as "Stateism" VS "Individualism" or perhaps "Stateists and Individualists".

     I've always considered my political leanings to tend towards the "Individualism",  but as I read a lot of the policies of JFK and reflect on his Presidency (personal flaws, not withstanding)  I'm really pretty close to his opinions and approach to governing for the early 1960's even though he was more of a "Stateist".  Why ?  Because he tended towards the middle in the grand scheme of things.  Also, the things he wanted to change back then- civil rights is one example- were things that DID need to change.  Being a "stateist" meant something else back  then.

     For most citizens of any political persuasion, I think and firmly believe they want what's best for all of us.  Their anger is towards the "powers that be".  They feel passion for the "little guy", whoever that might be in their mind.  I have those same feelings.  I can't stand the idea of anyone, through government or through free enterprise getting an unfair advantage or ill gotten favor just because of their position and inherited power.  So there you have it, the "Stateists" and the "Individualists" fighting for the right cause.  If the two can come together and compromise- understanding and sincerely believing the other has their heart in the right place,  there is nothing that can't be accomplished.  I love the quote JFK made shown above in this blog "Forgive your enemies but never forget their names".  We do have an enemy today lurking amongst us in the United States of America, but it's neither the stateists 'nor the individualists.  Can you guess who it is ?

   






Thursday, February 7, 2019

Journalism = Democratic Party

By Chuck Marshall

     Today I announce the death of journalism.  What we have is the mouthpiece for the Democratic party, not journalists.  Today we have partisan nonsense spewing from nearly every source of news skewed, in 90% of all instances, to the left and in full embrace with the Democratic party.  No matter your politics, no matter  your beliefs, you cannot tell me that's not true.  In addition, anyone that cares to hear both sides and understand the fairness of allowing dialogue is not getting that today.  Anyone that wants to read the news and hear the facts and truth, not tinted with Democratic ideals and beliefs will not receive it. 

     Yesterday, the Orlando Sentinel printed the headline for Trump's state of the unions speech.  I was appalled at the partisan nature of a "news piece".  A source of news that I generally trust is now in doubt. 

     Of course I wrote a letter about it !!  They did not print it as of today.  Here it is and I repeated their headline to them with one small addition in the subject line.

"Trump Calls for End to Politcal Stalemate, but...."

Thanks for the headline article on Donald Trump's speech on today's front page.  Are the writers of this article members of the DNC ?  It certainly seemed like it.  It only took two small paragraphs to get to the line that the rancor in DC was "cultivated by Trump"- translation- DC was just fine before Trump arrived ?    Later it elaborated that Trump's comments regarding more women in the workforce than ever before "was due to population increase not something that could be accredited to any of Trump's policies".   I'm sure Economics is not required in journalism school, however it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize a vibrant economy is a cause for increase in employment for all of us  and you can have more people but much less employment.  Anyone not sure about this might review the Great Depression or modern day Venezuela.  These are just  two examples of the most obvious opinions uttered in this "news piece".  I can only imagine the other innuendos lurking around if I actually knew all the facts according to how the Democrats want to see them.  I agree with the President that partisan politics needs to stop for the good of our nation and I'd like to suggest it start with those whom we should all be able to trust with an honest take on what's happening.  The media.       


IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.  

Thursday, December 13, 2018

United Nations Resolution to Open Borders ?


     By Chuck Marshall

*The essence of the first paragraph below was published in the Orlando Sentinel today. 





     It was headlined in the media that the United Nations has established a compact encouraging more orderly movement of migrants.  Specifically, the Associated Press stated;   "US Not Among 164 Nations to Back Migration Proposal".    I don't pretend to know the details of what is being declared on this "nonbinding" compact.,  but I can certainly imagine it reduces any burden the United Nations might have to actually fix something.   No, they won't go after abusive and oppressive governments to build up Democracy and/or free markets to encourage prosperity, but they sure have no problem telling "rich"nations that they need to start taking in more people who are looking for more "economic opportunities".  After all,  the "rich"nations are "aging"and we need young people from third world countries if we have any hope to survive.

     I have a problem with this line of thinking.

1)  I thought the United Nations was established to keep the peace not re-organize the world's economic wealth.

2)  Shouldn't the "rich" nations be working on boosting their own populations and helping their own poor people rather than opening their borders in order to help incompetent governments go on governing ?  By exporting their more desperate citizens they not only fail their citizens but they also dilute and distract from endeavors to successfully eliminate poverty in the rich nations.   

3)  How is opening the doors for citizens from failed governments and allowing them to go to successful nations doing anything other than dragging down the success of the existing successful governments ?  Eventually, they too will be poor and the abject poverty and oppression of the failed country will move throughout the world like a cancer infecting all to the idea of poverty and want such that no corner of the world will be prosperous.

4)  The idea that the only way citizens of poverty stricken countries can possibly succeed is if they move into  wealthier "whiter" countries is highly bigoted in that it is implied that certain races are simply incapable of lifting themselves or their country out of poverty.




Wednesday, December 5, 2018

George HW Bush Brings the Country Together


At least for the time being.

By Chuck Marshall




     The sad news of President Bush senior passing away this past week has brought back memories to me.  I was in high school when George was running in the primaries against Reagan.  I supported Bush because I thought he had a better resume and seemed more moderate (of course - a moderate leaning American even in my days of youth !) .  Of course,  Reagan won because the country was anxious to get away from the near socialist government we lived under in the late 1970's and his folksy demeanor appealed more to middle America.   Then Reagan chose Bush as his VP and I was suddenly a Reagan fan.  Yes, at the start I liked Reagan because he chose Bush !

     I voted for George Bush in his first election.  It seemed appropriate given the success of Ronald Reagan that his VP should take over his successful Presidency.  That was my thinking even though at the time he lacked the excitement of a great leader.  George, at that time, had become familiar to all Americans and looking back he had become taken for granted.  Maybe a little boring.  But he won.    Much in the news has been elaborating on the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf war that Bush presided over.  This is all history and I think his handling of both episodes was exactly what we needed at the time.  Calm, professional, patriotic, intelligent  and understated diplomacy. 

     In his second election against Bill Clinton I found Bush to have evolved into a bit of an arrogant and detached windbag.   At this time the Republican party began its departure from a moderate approach regarding protection of  the environment towards an openly hostile attitude regarding all things green.  "Tree huggers" became their scorn towards citizens like myself that think we're obligated to take care of the planet.  George HW Bush was no exception,  So, I voted for Bill Clinton.  This is the only time I ever voted for a Democrat running for the Presidency.

     In the end, George Bush Sr. was a gift  to our country and mankind.  He was a brilliant diplomat who lead our country with great clarity and decency.   His accomplishment as a pilot in WWII is a remarkable story of  youthful courage.   His years after the presidency revealed a big heart for helping those who could not help themselves.  His friendship with ex- president Bill Clinton under the auspice of helping victims of natural disasters was a wonderful example of American exceptionalism.

     Well done George HW Bush you were sincerely a fine human being and our country was very fortunate to have you as a leader. 


Thursday, November 15, 2018

The Age of Incompetence: Election Recounts


By Chuck Marshall


                                                          I'm so confused.......

     Here in Florida we have an official recount going on for three candidates from the midterms.  The Agriculture Secretary, the Governor and the Senator.  I'm not going to get into too much detail about who the players are or what the problems are at the moment because it's such a predictable bore.   Just keep in mind this is a consequence of our two party system where we have grown adults acting like 4 year old children and the incompetence of most anything the government does is glaringly obvious. 

     In reference to my last blog regarding the fact that some people should just NOT VOTE., I have to point out that one of the issues includes re-counting the ballots where the person who did the "filling out" didn't follow instructions.  For example, they mark an x instead of filling in the bubble so the machine cannot read the ballot.  If I filled out a standardized test in grammar school  or a final in college where I marked and X instead of bubbling in the proper answer then I would have missed the question because I didn't follow instructions.   If you can't follow instructions properly - given that there are all manner of volunteer "helpers" there to instruct you on the complications of bubbling in a ballot-  then you should not be voting.  That's the hard, cold reality of life  as an adult.  If you don't follow instructions then you "got it wrong" and consequently  you lose money, you lose the job, you don't get what you want.  We all must deal with this harsh reality--  try again next year !  Because of these "instruction challenged people" here we sit as our "so called" leaders squabble over how to recount people's wrong answers !   What a colossal waste of everyone's time and energy because people can't bubble in a ballot.  As always, incompetence thrives in our times. 

    Who benefits ?  The media conglomerates with their nauseating and hysterical breakdown of the current "controversy",  a feast of incompetence for the incompetent and their viewers..... In My Humble Opinion.