One of the not-so-subtle and important aspects of life is measured by the positive impact one has others. Be it small or large, when we positively impact another, both they and we benefit.
It might be the small kindness shown a stranger or some more meaningful act. Perhaps it is nothing more than mentoring a student or advising a young person. It might be a single event or on-going. Regardless of the context, positively impacting another is exceptionally important and gratifying. There are times we are actually unaware of the impact we have when interacting with others.
The small kindness, the simple courtesy may be offered automatically, without regard or expectation. Unbeknownst to us, these acts or words may rise to the level of life altering for the other individual. Or they may simply be reinforcing at the right time and in the right situation. It may be we go on with our lives without fully appreciating the impact we have had.
It might be years later, when a stranger, who is actually an acquaintance from earlier times, walks up unexpectedly to say thank you or to just pay their respects. The individual taking deliberate action to offer the unexpected comment reinforces the impact you had on their lives. The smile, the handshake, the quick comment all go to recognizing the importance of how we treat one another.
Every day, we have the opportunity and ability to make a difference in someone's life. Let's not waste those opportunities.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Arizona legislation
A great deal has been written and spoken recently about Arizona SB1062, the intent of which was to amend the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1999). The chorus most loudly stated or shouted and most often written about characterize SB1062 as "anti-gay." By most, I mean the activists, liberal media, and self-appointed progressive pundits.
However, a reading of SB1062 (available at http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm)
reveals no wording or reference to homosexuality. Specifically, SB1062 states under definitions, "'Exercise of religion' means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." (Amended wording is highlighted.)
I've not researched the motivation of the Bill's sponsors, but can easily conjure up reasonable rationale for seeking greater legal protection of religious beliefs. Perhaps, too, have the most vocal of the opponents to the Bill. Perhaps they know of cases where business owners were punished by state entities, let alone LGBT activists, for refusing to recognize same sex marriages, when their religious beliefs and convictions state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus the activists and their liberal allies fear the increased protection provided religion, with emphasis on Christianity. If greater legal protection were provided, the activists couldn't use the state to force acceptance of their choices. For example, an oft repeated case involved the owners of a small bakery who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. The owners reasonably cited their religious beliefs and convictions as basis for their refusal. They even went so far as to clarify that they routinely sell other baked goods to members of the LGBT community, but reserved the right as business owners to refuse service based on their religious beliefs and convictions. (Doesn't a business have the right to reasonably refuse to serve someone?)
The hue and cry from the liberal media were deafening. More disappointing, however, were the sometimes vicious attacks against the business by the LGBT community. I found their attacks, boycotts, threats, and the like to run opposite to their demands for tolerance.
Instead of being free in their religious beliefs and convictions in the conduct of their business, the owners of the bakery were ultimately forced out of business by the wholly intolerant LGBT community.
So I can see why some in Arizona might have been motivated to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When activists demand that we accept their views, our basic and essential freedoms are threatened. When these activists are aided by the liberal media and the state, other voices are drowned out and the very freedoms for which our nation stands are shunted aside.
It is one thing to expect tolerance of otherwise legal activity. It is something altogether different to demand that those holding opposing views based on their religious beliefs and convictions, change their beliefs to comport with and embrace those of the activists. This expectation runs contrary to our elemental freedoms and demonstrates the greatest degree of intolerance by the activists.
So, yes, I can understand why some believe our Christian beliefs and values are being summarily attacked. I can also understand why some may believe stronger legal protections are required. Sadly, I also understand how in Arizona's case, the media fanned hue and cry of the activists resulted in a veto.
But I also understand that the entire spectacle didn't change the view of even one Christian who believes that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
However, a reading of SB1062 (available at http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm)
reveals no wording or reference to homosexuality. Specifically, SB1062 states under definitions, "'Exercise of religion' means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." (Amended wording is highlighted.)
I've not researched the motivation of the Bill's sponsors, but can easily conjure up reasonable rationale for seeking greater legal protection of religious beliefs. Perhaps, too, have the most vocal of the opponents to the Bill. Perhaps they know of cases where business owners were punished by state entities, let alone LGBT activists, for refusing to recognize same sex marriages, when their religious beliefs and convictions state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus the activists and their liberal allies fear the increased protection provided religion, with emphasis on Christianity. If greater legal protection were provided, the activists couldn't use the state to force acceptance of their choices. For example, an oft repeated case involved the owners of a small bakery who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. The owners reasonably cited their religious beliefs and convictions as basis for their refusal. They even went so far as to clarify that they routinely sell other baked goods to members of the LGBT community, but reserved the right as business owners to refuse service based on their religious beliefs and convictions. (Doesn't a business have the right to reasonably refuse to serve someone?)
The hue and cry from the liberal media were deafening. More disappointing, however, were the sometimes vicious attacks against the business by the LGBT community. I found their attacks, boycotts, threats, and the like to run opposite to their demands for tolerance.
Instead of being free in their religious beliefs and convictions in the conduct of their business, the owners of the bakery were ultimately forced out of business by the wholly intolerant LGBT community.
So I can see why some in Arizona might have been motivated to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When activists demand that we accept their views, our basic and essential freedoms are threatened. When these activists are aided by the liberal media and the state, other voices are drowned out and the very freedoms for which our nation stands are shunted aside.
It is one thing to expect tolerance of otherwise legal activity. It is something altogether different to demand that those holding opposing views based on their religious beliefs and convictions, change their beliefs to comport with and embrace those of the activists. This expectation runs contrary to our elemental freedoms and demonstrates the greatest degree of intolerance by the activists.
So, yes, I can understand why some believe our Christian beliefs and values are being summarily attacked. I can also understand why some may believe stronger legal protections are required. Sadly, I also understand how in Arizona's case, the media fanned hue and cry of the activists resulted in a veto.
But I also understand that the entire spectacle didn't change the view of even one Christian who believes that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Humility and sincerity
Listening to politicians, pundits, and self-described journalists, I'm struck by a striking similarity in their behavior. The absence of humility and sincerity.
While we can disagree on matters of political views and what is best for our nation, we can can also magnanimously assume those with whom we disagree are doing their honest best. Since we are human, even the best of honest intent sometimes falls well short of expectations or desire. These shortfalls can manifest as misstatements, errors, and even false utterances.
How one reacts when caught up in a shortfall speaks loudly about his/her character.
Sadly, all too often politicians, pundits, and self-described journalists fail to display unqualified genuine humility and sincerity in such situations. Rather than humbly acknowledge their shortfall and sincerely take responsibility for their human failures, politicians, pundits, and self-described journalists demonstrate the propensity to obfuscate, deflect, blame others, (occasionally) misrepresent, and otherwise seek to avoid accountability.
I can respect someone who, at the time, honestly believed in what he/she was stating, and when the information or position is later found to be incorrect, stands up and clearly accepts responsibility without qualification. I may still disagree with their position, but I must respect humility and sincerity associated with accepting unqualified responsibility.
I cannot respect a person in such a situation who, by actions and words, directly or through surrogates, fails to accept humbly and sincerely their own responsibility.
Whether it is a Republican member of Congress, a MSNBC news persona, POTUS, a Fox commentator, or local reporter or politician, failure to display unqualified humility and sincerity when found to be wrong disqualifies forever that person's standing. No longer will I grant said individual the benefit of assumed genuine honesty when they speak or write.
The absence of unqualified humility and sincerity too sadly disqualifies many who have access to the public discourse in our nation.
While we can disagree on matters of political views and what is best for our nation, we can can also magnanimously assume those with whom we disagree are doing their honest best. Since we are human, even the best of honest intent sometimes falls well short of expectations or desire. These shortfalls can manifest as misstatements, errors, and even false utterances.
How one reacts when caught up in a shortfall speaks loudly about his/her character.
Sadly, all too often politicians, pundits, and self-described journalists fail to display unqualified genuine humility and sincerity in such situations. Rather than humbly acknowledge their shortfall and sincerely take responsibility for their human failures, politicians, pundits, and self-described journalists demonstrate the propensity to obfuscate, deflect, blame others, (occasionally) misrepresent, and otherwise seek to avoid accountability.
I can respect someone who, at the time, honestly believed in what he/she was stating, and when the information or position is later found to be incorrect, stands up and clearly accepts responsibility without qualification. I may still disagree with their position, but I must respect humility and sincerity associated with accepting unqualified responsibility.
I cannot respect a person in such a situation who, by actions and words, directly or through surrogates, fails to accept humbly and sincerely their own responsibility.
Whether it is a Republican member of Congress, a MSNBC news persona, POTUS, a Fox commentator, or local reporter or politician, failure to display unqualified humility and sincerity when found to be wrong disqualifies forever that person's standing. No longer will I grant said individual the benefit of assumed genuine honesty when they speak or write.
The absence of unqualified humility and sincerity too sadly disqualifies many who have access to the public discourse in our nation.
Monday, February 17, 2014
The tide has turned - UPDATE
What once had noble purpose in protecting and serving the average working man unfortunately mutated over time into gluttony, financial excess, and political power mongering. The tide has turned, however, as the American people view the abuses perpetrated by organized labor with disdain.
Right to work laws are passing in red and blue states, perhaps no where more prominently covered by the media than Wisconsin. In Tennessee, the workers at the VW plant rejected organization by the United Auto Workers. In California, arguably the most union friendly state with a legislature well-known, if not infamous, for being puppets of organized labor, Americans are fighting in the courts against forced, mandatory dues (including so-called agency fees) being used for political campaigns and purposes the union members do not approve. In one California case, students are bringing action against the union policy of granting teachers near bullet proof tenure after 18 months. Indeed, the tide has turned.
The more traditional unions are working hard to build up their rapidly dwindling numbers. In one major California university, an office provides funded tutoring to select students. The hired tutors are almost exclusively graduate students at the university. Due to the arcane laws impacting public education in California, the office was required to permit a labor organizer to speak to the tutors about joining a union. Care to guess which union? If you said the UAW, you'd be right. Now what on earth does the UAW have to do with university tutors? The same UAW to which some commentators attribute a great deal of the tremendous financial distress in the city of Detroit. With rapidly declining memberships, the unions now search for any and all opportunities to foist themselves upon the American way of life.
2-19-14 Update: Just read a report that labor, United Steelworkers to be specific, is trying to organize college football players at Northwestern University into a union. Absurd!
The primary focus of organized labor, collective bargaining, has been totally overwhelmed by the political actions of the unions. (Excessive benefits and pensions rank as #2 and #3, particularly for public sector unions.) They spend enormous amounts to elect "labor friendly" candidates who do their bidding in the states houses and city councils around the nation. In California the situation is so bad that pedophile teachers can't be fired, because of the protective laws written by unions and voted for by their lackeys in Sacramento. Further, the job protections for teachers are actually state laws, written into the state constitution again by the unions and voted for by their paid servants in Sacramento.
At virtually every level of government, legislators and chief executives curry the favor of organized labor, in return for massive amounts of financial support. The favors continue to flow all too liberally, such as organized labor being exempted from major portions of the Affordable Care Act; mandates to employ companies filled with union workers, rather than those companies who provide the best bid for local contracts; and the manic pursuit of pre-kindergarten, which has been proven time and again to have no lasting impact on our children, but will swell the coffers of unions as new workers are forced to join their rolls and pay mandatory fees. Most insidious of the current union tactics is its work in the public service sector, coincidentally the one sector whose employees are members of the very governments controlled by labor lackeys.
But the tide had turned.
It won't occur over night, but the influence and political power of organized labor will be reduced across the country. And it is about time. What was once noble now reeks with the stench of corruption, greed, and perversion.
Right to work laws are passing in red and blue states, perhaps no where more prominently covered by the media than Wisconsin. In Tennessee, the workers at the VW plant rejected organization by the United Auto Workers. In California, arguably the most union friendly state with a legislature well-known, if not infamous, for being puppets of organized labor, Americans are fighting in the courts against forced, mandatory dues (including so-called agency fees) being used for political campaigns and purposes the union members do not approve. In one California case, students are bringing action against the union policy of granting teachers near bullet proof tenure after 18 months. Indeed, the tide has turned.
The more traditional unions are working hard to build up their rapidly dwindling numbers. In one major California university, an office provides funded tutoring to select students. The hired tutors are almost exclusively graduate students at the university. Due to the arcane laws impacting public education in California, the office was required to permit a labor organizer to speak to the tutors about joining a union. Care to guess which union? If you said the UAW, you'd be right. Now what on earth does the UAW have to do with university tutors? The same UAW to which some commentators attribute a great deal of the tremendous financial distress in the city of Detroit. With rapidly declining memberships, the unions now search for any and all opportunities to foist themselves upon the American way of life.
2-19-14 Update: Just read a report that labor, United Steelworkers to be specific, is trying to organize college football players at Northwestern University into a union. Absurd!
The primary focus of organized labor, collective bargaining, has been totally overwhelmed by the political actions of the unions. (Excessive benefits and pensions rank as #2 and #3, particularly for public sector unions.) They spend enormous amounts to elect "labor friendly" candidates who do their bidding in the states houses and city councils around the nation. In California the situation is so bad that pedophile teachers can't be fired, because of the protective laws written by unions and voted for by their lackeys in Sacramento. Further, the job protections for teachers are actually state laws, written into the state constitution again by the unions and voted for by their paid servants in Sacramento.
At virtually every level of government, legislators and chief executives curry the favor of organized labor, in return for massive amounts of financial support. The favors continue to flow all too liberally, such as organized labor being exempted from major portions of the Affordable Care Act; mandates to employ companies filled with union workers, rather than those companies who provide the best bid for local contracts; and the manic pursuit of pre-kindergarten, which has been proven time and again to have no lasting impact on our children, but will swell the coffers of unions as new workers are forced to join their rolls and pay mandatory fees. Most insidious of the current union tactics is its work in the public service sector, coincidentally the one sector whose employees are members of the very governments controlled by labor lackeys.
But the tide had turned.
It won't occur over night, but the influence and political power of organized labor will be reduced across the country. And it is about time. What was once noble now reeks with the stench of corruption, greed, and perversion.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
When will it end? - Updated
"Liberals say the law [Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare] isn't harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite."
Wall Street Journal Editorial 2-11-14
"I can do whatever I want."
President Obama 2-10-14
“The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America.”
Barrack Obama 3-31-2008
Lancaster, Pa.
"But none of that excuses President Obama’s increasingly cavalier approach to picking and choosing how to enforce this law." [Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare]
Washington Post Editorial 2-12-14
“The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America.”
Barrack Obama 3-31-2008
Lancaster, Pa.
"But none of that excuses President Obama’s increasingly cavalier approach to picking and choosing how to enforce this law." [Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare]
Washington Post Editorial 2-12-14
It can be rightfully argued that the foundation for our successful constitutional government is based upon the separation and balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This foundation is currently under attack, leaving me to ask, "When will it end?"
Regardless of one's views, it is unacceptable for one branch of government to supersede and ignore the others. When the executive branch does so, the threat and damage are enormous, because the executive branch is charged with enforcing our nation's law, so it controls the mechanisms of enforcement. Be it Nixon or Obama, violating federal laws can not stand. Arrogance is not governance. Political rhetoric is not leadership. And most certainly, unilaterally modifying/changing "black letter law," failing to enforce existing laws, and using the broad federal enforcement mechanism to harass, punish, and leverage those with differing political views for one's own political advantage are so egregious as to warrant immediate corrective action.
So, when will it end? And how will it be ended?
It isn't sufficient to remain mute, assuming either the 2014 or 2016 elections will be in and of themselves sufficiently corrective. The corrosive precedence has been established when the chief executive is permitted to act unchecked, to the great damage of the American people and the nation. The visible, let alone invisible or currently unknown, actions and in-actions by the chief executive are undermining and perverting the laws of the land. (That one of the laws, ACA, is of his own creation clearly underlines the purely arrogant, self-serving political purpose of unilateral unlawful changes.)
This can not stand, so it is time to seriously undertake all forms of corrective action to end this autocratic attempt at governance, up to and including impeachment and removal from office.
*********************************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************************
"In the ongoing saga of the Affordable Care
Act, oddly referred to by Democrats as the law of the land even as it is
amended at will by presidential fiat, we are beginning to understand
the extent of its war on jobs."
Charles Krauthammer 2-14-14
"This is the executive branch affirmatively rewriting law in defiance of our constitutional system and the rule of law."
Rich Lowry 2-14-14
"The transparent electoral motive that fuels so many of Obama’s executive orders seems unprecedented."
Deroy Murdock 2-17-14
"Manipulating large-scale legislative policies, duly enacted, around election schedules goes beyond the parameters of executive discretion."
Eugene Kontorovich
"...the established rule is that if Congress explicitly enacts a deadline without including the means by which that deadline may be changed, the president is required to enforce the law as written."
Charles C.W. Cooke 2-12-14
"Do the actual words in our laws still bind the people sworn to execute them? No. Has Obama violated his oath of office? Yes."
Terrence P. Jeffrey
2-12-14
"The transparent electoral motive that fuels so many of Obama’s executive orders seems unprecedented."
Deroy Murdock 2-17-14
"Manipulating large-scale legislative policies, duly enacted, around election schedules goes beyond the parameters of executive discretion."
Eugene Kontorovich
"...the established rule is that if Congress explicitly enacts a deadline without including the means by which that deadline may be changed, the president is required to enforce the law as written."
Charles C.W. Cooke 2-12-14
"Do the actual words in our laws still bind the people sworn to execute them? No. Has Obama violated his oath of office? Yes."
Terrence P. Jeffrey
2-12-14
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Trust
Trust is a wonderful attribute, perhaps too often overlooked. It is also an essential element in society. Every day, each of us willingly give our trust to perfect strangers. Far more often than not, this trust is fully warranted and rewarded. This willing giving of trust is thankfully so routine as to become second nature.
We trust
But as we willingly give our trust to many, many others, in ways small and large, they too are giving their trust to us.
And that is a comforting realization.
We trust
- fellow drivers to obey the rules of the road
- public utilities to provide power and safe drinking water to our homes
- law enforcement to keep us safe
- first responders to be ready to save us should the need arise
- clerks to properly complete transactions at the shops we frequent
- waste management to collect our refuse
- our hard earned dollars to have value
- pilots to safely transport us to our holiday destinations
- mechanics to properly repair our vehicles
- friends to "have our backs"
- loved ones to be there, in thick and thin
- smiles
- genuine laughter
- cooks at our favorite eateries to provide good, safe meals
- our instincts
- our spouses
But as we willingly give our trust to many, many others, in ways small and large, they too are giving their trust to us.
And that is a comforting realization.
Friday, February 7, 2014
A dramatic contrast
I couldn't help but be struck by the stark and dramatic contrast between Jay Leno and our elected officials. Specifically, watching Leno's final installment of the Tonight Show provided an insight into the man's character, humility, and genuine compassion.
All one need do is watch and listen to the show to understand the measure of the man. Character, humility, and genuine compassion.
Contrasting is the boorish, self-absorbed, sometimes illegal, pandering, and childish behavior of our elected officials, most notably POTUS and Congress. Further, it is indisputable that Leno earned his pay night-after-night. The same cannot be said of all elected officials.
Employing comedy when the nation most needed it, Leno also brought attention to the ridiculous happenings by members of the political class. That his jokes were on point and rankled some was validated by the cheap shot Obama contributed to the farewell, while failing at his attempt to pass it off as humor. (A real leader of the nation would have thanked Leno, on behalf of the people, for his decades of making us laugh.)
So, I can't help but be struck by the stark and dramatic contrast between a humble man of character and those so-called public servants in Washington.
Thankfully there are real Americans who are thankful,and appreciative for the laughter Jay Leno provided us all.
All one need do is watch and listen to the show to understand the measure of the man. Character, humility, and genuine compassion.
Contrasting is the boorish, self-absorbed, sometimes illegal, pandering, and childish behavior of our elected officials, most notably POTUS and Congress. Further, it is indisputable that Leno earned his pay night-after-night. The same cannot be said of all elected officials.
Employing comedy when the nation most needed it, Leno also brought attention to the ridiculous happenings by members of the political class. That his jokes were on point and rankled some was validated by the cheap shot Obama contributed to the farewell, while failing at his attempt to pass it off as humor. (A real leader of the nation would have thanked Leno, on behalf of the people, for his decades of making us laugh.)
So, I can't help but be struck by the stark and dramatic contrast between a humble man of character and those so-called public servants in Washington.
Thankfully there are real Americans who are thankful,and appreciative for the laughter Jay Leno provided us all.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Amendment
Were I able to sprinkle magic pixie dust on our laws, it would be to put into place Constitutional term limits for the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. No more than two terms, separate or combined (meaning no more than two terms, even if they are one in the Senate and one in the House).
If it is good enough for the President, it must be good enough for Congress.
The framers provided zero indication that a permanent political class was to be created, as the country was formed. Recently, Congressman Waxman announced his retirement, after 40 years in the House of representatives. This is shameful!
On both sides of the aisle, too many politicians, particularly in the the House, are in safe positions. The gerrymandering for congressional districts all but assure incumbent reelection, which is bad for the country. Beholden to the money machines that put them into power and keep them there, these elected officials are not serving the people, they are serving themselves.
Only with a Constitutional Amendment that provides for a two term limit can we begin to wrest control from the political class and return control to the people.
If it is good enough for the President, it must be good enough for Congress.
The framers provided zero indication that a permanent political class was to be created, as the country was formed. Recently, Congressman Waxman announced his retirement, after 40 years in the House of representatives. This is shameful!
On both sides of the aisle, too many politicians, particularly in the the House, are in safe positions. The gerrymandering for congressional districts all but assure incumbent reelection, which is bad for the country. Beholden to the money machines that put them into power and keep them there, these elected officials are not serving the people, they are serving themselves.
Only with a Constitutional Amendment that provides for a two term limit can we begin to wrest control from the political class and return control to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)