I
am concerned that we are fast approaching a "no win" situation.
For
those of us (such as myself) who simply disagree philosophically with
most positions to which the Democrats generally hold (i.e., larger government, abortion on demand, "spreading the wealth", political
correctness, just to name a few), the November elections--should Mr.
Trump be the Republican nominee (which at this point seems more and more
likely)--will provide us with no choice at all. For those of us (such
as myself) who would normally vote for the Republican nominee in the
general election, voting for the Democrat candidate would be a vote
against the governmental principles which I support. A vote for Mr.
Trump would be pretty much as bad. A vote for a third party candidate
(for a person such as myself, who would generally otherwise vote for the
Republican nominee) would in essence be akin to casting 1/2 a vote for
the Democrat nominee, since it will almost certainly be the case that
either the Democrat or the Republican nominee will win the general
election. Simply not voting would have the same "1/2 vote effect" as
voting third party.
This is a difficult ethical position in which I find myself. If I withhold a vote from Mr. Trump, it is in essence helping the Democrat, with whose philosophies I highly disagree.
Sometimes I wonder if people recall that before Mr. Trump announced his candidacy, he contacted the Clintons to discuss the situation with them. Could this have been what they wanted all along? Let's face it: Mr. Trump's political history is such that he has been on both conservative and liberal sides of many issues. He (in theory) could have run for the nomination of either the Democrats or the Republicans. And before Democrats start the "There's no way I would ever vote for Trump" objections, let me draw from history.
Prior to the 1952 election, both the Democrats and the Republicans were courting the same person to be their nominee in the 1952 Presidential elections. The person had no political history, but had great name recognition (for reasons other than those of Mr. Trump). No less than the then-President of the United States, Harry S Truman, tried to recruit this person to run for President on the Democrat ticket. President Truman was very supportive of this potential candidate--until the candidate chose to run as a Republican. It was only after that point that President Truman had basically only negative things to say about that person, General Dwight Eisenhower--who indeed was elected President as a Republican, and served in that position honorably.
As for the 2016 election, what if Mr. Trump had decided to run as a Democrat? It is my opinion that his candidacy for the nomination would likely have been much more of a threat to the candidacy of Secretary Clinton than has been the candidacy of Senator Sanders. In fact, had all three of these people been running for the Democrat nomination, a similar splintering of the primary votes as is currently happening in the Republican field would likely have happened in the Democrat field. As it is, Secretary Clinton seems poised to far outdistance Senator Sanders for the Democrat nomination.
And it currently appears as though Mr. Trump is headed for the Republican nomination.
Maybe this is what the Clintons hoped for all along. After all, to this point, Mr. Trump hasn't ever topped 50% of Republican support. If only half of the Republicans support the Republican candidate, things heavily favor the Democrat candidate in the general election.
And for people such as myself, if Mr. Trump indeed does secure the Republican nomination, we will be faced with an election year quandary as to how--or if--to vote in the general election.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
Reluctantly Accepting the Aging Process
I write this as I am looking out of the window of my home office, watching someone shovel snow off of my driveway and sidewalks. I have an ongoing agreement with this person that when it snows enough to require snow removal, he will do it--for a price. Just two years ago, I would have personally done the shoveling hours earlier--possibly even last night--before anyone had to get out of the garage and driveway this morning. But that changed on a summer day about a year and a half ago. That was the day I was pitching a Whiffle ball to my then 4-year-old grandson in his back yard. He hit a pop fly over my head, and as I turned around to track and catch it, keeping my eye on the ball, I did catch it--about one step before my foot caught the side of a stone/brick fire pit. I fell, landing on my right arm, and felt two distinct pops in my shoulder. At that point I could no longer lift my arm to my head without considerable pain. Doctor's appointments, X-rays, physical therapy, and regular shoulder exercises ensued. My goal was to be able to swing a golf club and play golf by the Spring of 2015, and I was successful in my goal.
The problem was that the shoulder was never "normal" again. I could not throw a ball overhand without pain. But the truth is that I rarely needed to do that, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. I was able to play golf virtually shoulder-pain free when my schedule permitted me to do so throughout 2015.
But as the the winter of 2015 set in and became 2016, the pain in my shoulder became more consistent, to the point where even reaching for something on a shelf had become painful. So it was back to the doctor, who gave me the news that it appears to be a shoulder impingement--combined with arthritis. He said he could give me a shot if my shoulder is really painful, but I think I'd rather deal with the shoulder pain than a needle. For the record, I hate needles when they are to be stuck into me. The doctor told me to keep taking the arthritis-formula acetaminophen daily. I also hate taking pills, but since I hate needles more (and hate the thought of surgery even more than the thought of needles), I have continued to take the acetaminophen daily--along with several other vitamins and minerals the doctor has suggested I take.
The pain is still there, but it's more of a nuisance than anything disabling. I just have to be careful not to try to do certain things that might really aggravate the situation and make the pain much worse--such as throwing a ball. I miss that.
But then I look out the window and see that in the time it's taken me to write this, the snow has been shoveled off my sidewalks and driveway--and I didn't have to leave the inside where it's warm and dry. And I am thinking that the $12 charged to me by the person who shovels the snow for me is worth it--especially because shoveling snow would almost certainly aggravate my shoulder.
At the same time, there is a part of me that has to admit that because I hate being in the snow and cold so much, even if my shoulder was "normal," I might be tempted to hire this person to clear the snow from my driveway and sidewalks and consider the $12 fee well spent. But then I would deal with my conscience questioning if I should save the $12 and just not be so lazy.
The truth is that, while I would rather have a "normal" shoulder and deal with the struggle between saving the money to have someone remove the snow and saving the money by removing the snow myself, there is indeed a part of me that is glad I don't have to feel guilty about not shoveling the snow myself. I guess that the development of the arthritis in my shoulder that keeps me from being able to shovel the snow is just part of my reluctantly accepting the aging process.
The problem was that the shoulder was never "normal" again. I could not throw a ball overhand without pain. But the truth is that I rarely needed to do that, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. I was able to play golf virtually shoulder-pain free when my schedule permitted me to do so throughout 2015.
But as the the winter of 2015 set in and became 2016, the pain in my shoulder became more consistent, to the point where even reaching for something on a shelf had become painful. So it was back to the doctor, who gave me the news that it appears to be a shoulder impingement--combined with arthritis. He said he could give me a shot if my shoulder is really painful, but I think I'd rather deal with the shoulder pain than a needle. For the record, I hate needles when they are to be stuck into me. The doctor told me to keep taking the arthritis-formula acetaminophen daily. I also hate taking pills, but since I hate needles more (and hate the thought of surgery even more than the thought of needles), I have continued to take the acetaminophen daily--along with several other vitamins and minerals the doctor has suggested I take.
The pain is still there, but it's more of a nuisance than anything disabling. I just have to be careful not to try to do certain things that might really aggravate the situation and make the pain much worse--such as throwing a ball. I miss that.
But then I look out the window and see that in the time it's taken me to write this, the snow has been shoveled off my sidewalks and driveway--and I didn't have to leave the inside where it's warm and dry. And I am thinking that the $12 charged to me by the person who shovels the snow for me is worth it--especially because shoveling snow would almost certainly aggravate my shoulder.
At the same time, there is a part of me that has to admit that because I hate being in the snow and cold so much, even if my shoulder was "normal," I might be tempted to hire this person to clear the snow from my driveway and sidewalks and consider the $12 fee well spent. But then I would deal with my conscience questioning if I should save the $12 and just not be so lazy.
The truth is that, while I would rather have a "normal" shoulder and deal with the struggle between saving the money to have someone remove the snow and saving the money by removing the snow myself, there is indeed a part of me that is glad I don't have to feel guilty about not shoveling the snow myself. I guess that the development of the arthritis in my shoulder that keeps me from being able to shovel the snow is just part of my reluctantly accepting the aging process.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Causes
It seems that there's no shortage of important causes for people to support. It also seems that there's no shortage of people wanting to stand up for various causes. It further seems that there's no shortage of people who want to get other people to stand up for the various causes.
Recently, over approximately a 24-hour period of time, posts came across my Facebook News Feed having to do with the following causes (listed in no particular order except more or less the order in which they appeared in the News Feed):
Staying in good physical shape
Alternative energy
Support the troops
Heart Disease Awareness
The plight of Shelter Animals
How to be a Good Parent
Education reform
Preventing the spread of the Zika Virus
Orphans
Homeless Teenagers
Spousal Abuse
Banning Beyonce from future Super Bowl performances
Alternative Medicine
Healthy Relationships
Protecting Pets
Addiction
Again, those were just things that showed up within about a 24-hour period of time. Some are more important than others. Some are more controversial than others. All of them were important enough to someone to post about them. And those do not include numerous posts that were overtly about politics and religion.
For the record, I have no problem with people posting these things--including posting about politics and religion; I have the tendency to post those types of things too. But let's be realistic for a moment. While many (if not all) of the causes for which I saw posts over a 24-hour period are indeed worthy of consideration, I do not have the time, energy, or money to contribute to all of them (or maybe even any of them).
There are simply a lot of "good causes" in this world. The ones I specifically saw and mentioned from that 24-hour period on my Facebook News Feed didn't even include a number of causes for which I see posting fairly often. These include...
...GMO Foods
...Vaccines (both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine)
...Sexual Exploitation/Sex Trade
...Clothing Manufactured by Child/Slave-like Labor
...Disaster Relief
...Various Health Issues/"Epidemics"
...Texting while Driving
...Impaired Driving
...Money Management
...Visual and Fine Arts
The list could go on, and again, it does not include (at least overtly) religious or political issues. But now it's time to come to the point.
There are many different issues which deserve people's support, but every person is different. Some issues will hit "closer to home" for some people, while other people will find different issues more important. It's fine for people to make their opinions known, and to offer information that is intended to educate others about the various issues. But when doing so, my advice is to not be insulting or condescending. Give the people information, but don't get bent out of shape about it if someone disagrees or doesn't place as high of a priority on the issue as you do. Don't act like or believe that you are superior to someone else if you place higher priorities on things than they do. The truth is that there are too many issues for everyone to be interested in all of them.
Educate people, sure. Be condescending towards them, no. Insult them, absolutely not. A great principle that can certainly apply here is found in the Bible in Romans 14, which tells us not to judge other people because of what they believe, because they have to answer not to us, but to God.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if we would let God deal with people about the issues He lays upon their hearts according to His timing, instead of our pushing our personal agendas on other people and expecting them to follow our beliefs and our timing with the issues.
The bottom line is that we are ultimately answerable to God, and God alone.
Recently, over approximately a 24-hour period of time, posts came across my Facebook News Feed having to do with the following causes (listed in no particular order except more or less the order in which they appeared in the News Feed):
Staying in good physical shape
Alternative energy
Support the troops
Heart Disease Awareness
The plight of Shelter Animals
How to be a Good Parent
Education reform
Preventing the spread of the Zika Virus
Orphans
Homeless Teenagers
Spousal Abuse
Banning Beyonce from future Super Bowl performances
Alternative Medicine
Healthy Relationships
Protecting Pets
Addiction
Again, those were just things that showed up within about a 24-hour period of time. Some are more important than others. Some are more controversial than others. All of them were important enough to someone to post about them. And those do not include numerous posts that were overtly about politics and religion.
For the record, I have no problem with people posting these things--including posting about politics and religion; I have the tendency to post those types of things too. But let's be realistic for a moment. While many (if not all) of the causes for which I saw posts over a 24-hour period are indeed worthy of consideration, I do not have the time, energy, or money to contribute to all of them (or maybe even any of them).
There are simply a lot of "good causes" in this world. The ones I specifically saw and mentioned from that 24-hour period on my Facebook News Feed didn't even include a number of causes for which I see posting fairly often. These include...
...GMO Foods
...Vaccines (both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine)
...Sexual Exploitation/Sex Trade
...Clothing Manufactured by Child/Slave-like Labor
...Disaster Relief
...Various Health Issues/"Epidemics"
...Texting while Driving
...Impaired Driving
...Money Management
...Visual and Fine Arts
The list could go on, and again, it does not include (at least overtly) religious or political issues. But now it's time to come to the point.
There are many different issues which deserve people's support, but every person is different. Some issues will hit "closer to home" for some people, while other people will find different issues more important. It's fine for people to make their opinions known, and to offer information that is intended to educate others about the various issues. But when doing so, my advice is to not be insulting or condescending. Give the people information, but don't get bent out of shape about it if someone disagrees or doesn't place as high of a priority on the issue as you do. Don't act like or believe that you are superior to someone else if you place higher priorities on things than they do. The truth is that there are too many issues for everyone to be interested in all of them.
Educate people, sure. Be condescending towards them, no. Insult them, absolutely not. A great principle that can certainly apply here is found in the Bible in Romans 14, which tells us not to judge other people because of what they believe, because they have to answer not to us, but to God.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if we would let God deal with people about the issues He lays upon their hearts according to His timing, instead of our pushing our personal agendas on other people and expecting them to follow our beliefs and our timing with the issues.
The bottom line is that we are ultimately answerable to God, and God alone.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Some Free Political Advice
I’d like to offer some free political advice as we today (February 1, 2016) are set to see the first official balloting of the 2016 Presidential campaign--the Iowa Caucus for both major political parties.
My advice is this: Look at the overall situation and don’t focus too much on minute details of one or two issues--unless those issues are far more important to you than anything else. The reality is that no candidate has been, is now, or ever will be perfect. The reality is that it is almost certain that you will not be in 100% agreement with any candidate. The reality is that the next person elected President of the United States will almost certainly be the nominee of either the Democrat or Republican Party.
I have elsewhere (http://peteshodgepodge.blogspot.com/2016/01/at-this-point-my-preferred-candidate-is.html) stated my preferred candidate (at least as of this point in time), but this writing isn’t about that. This writing is about encouraging people to make the best choices according to their own personal preferences and understandings as to what the United States of America should be, and what each person believes that the President of the United States should represent.
While issues and principles are indeed important, they should not necessarily be the “end all” aspect of supporting a Presidential candidate. Some people might align perfectly with your views on the issues, while at the same time making a bad President. Let me give this example: The person with whom I almost certainly agree most closely on political issues is the author of this writing (yes, that would be me). But I would not make a good President of the United States; there are too many characteristics and traits which I possess that would make me personally ineffective as the President of the United States. There are many, many people far more qualified to hold that office.
Accordingly, the best way for me to choose a candidate to support must include not only the candidate’s stance on the issues, but also on intangibles--such as how effectively I believe the candidate would perform the duties of President of the United States. This includes taking into consideration matters of personality, leadership, trustworthiness, and the ability to inspire people (to name a few).
When it comes to the candidate whom I am personally (thus far) supporting, I have found -- at least according to one test found this site: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/... -- that on the issues alone, I side more with one candidate than the one whom I am currently supporting. However, it is the intangibles that play an important part in my decision-making process. According to the test I mentioned, I actually agree 95% with a particular candidate (in the interest of full disclosure, I am indeed a registered Republican, so it makes sense that I personally would generally be in highest agreement with Republican rather than Democrat candidates, but for Democrats, the opposite would likely be true, and that is as it should be). However, although I agree 95% with a particular candidate on the issues (and on the importance I give to the issues), that person is not my preferred candidate. The candidate I prefer is one with whom I agree (again, according to the test) 91% of the time.
In my opinion (and according to my personal political views), the overall “candidate package” makes siding with the candidate with whom I agree 91% on the issues preferable to the candidate with whom I agree on 95% of the issues.
For the record, the test reveals that the agreement I have with the stated views on the issues ranges on the Republican side from a high of 95% to a low of 71%. As to the candidates on Democrat side, my range of agreement goes from a high of 24% to a low of 7%. I would expect that for people who generally support Democrat issues and policies, those numbers would be pretty much reversed. But that’s the way it should be.
The bottom line is this: vote according to your conscience, taking into consideration policy issues, but also giving credence to intangibles. That’s my free advice, and it’s worth every penny you’ve paid for it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)