Agreeing To Disagree, Steps to Solve Political Polarization

Disagreement is one of the most important principles of a democracy. If everyone always agreed on the issues then we would never get a thoughtful thorough discussion on what might be the best course of action. In fact it is in our human nature to question our world and rules that we live by, some people do this more than others, but this is one of the psychological differences that separate us from other mammals. These questions have led us from believing the earth is flat, to landing on the moon, and maybe Mars someday. However, sometimes this curiosity can develop into two or more polarized differing points of view. These views can be directly opposite and so engrained in one’s mind and heart so that they choose to see the world through that perspective, and thus a belief is formed.

A belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. So for instance on a topic that tends to divide people like abortion, there are people that believe that abortion is a mothers right, and others that believe that it is wrong. While the question of abortion will maybe never have a concrete answer, each side believes their stance is the correct one, and the other stance is incorrect or false. The question differs from a question like “the snow is cold?” because everyone can agree that snow is cold. What is important for you to understand when reading this book is that to the pro-choice person, abortion is right, and to them that is just as certain as the question of whether or not snow is cold.

Many people have trouble empathizing with the alternate point of view; this is because it invariably results in us believing that snow is warm. However sometimes if you can just for a moment, assume the beliefs of others, doing this will allow you to have a reasonable discussion with someone about a topic you may absolutely disagree on. While you may not end up believing that snow is warm when you finish the conversation, you might learn something about why they believe the way they do, and even about why you believe the way you do.

Recently I had a disagreement with a friend of mine about a verdict in a court case. Because of the nature of our judicial system the result we were disagreeing about could neither be proven right or wrong, but we each believed the opposite of each other. Our discussion started off calm and intellectual, and quickly escalated to distain for one another’s point of view. Neither of us would ever be able to prove the other person wrong and neither of us would ever change our mind. We each believed our side to be true and correct, and nothing was going to change that.

Later that week, we came to discussing the case again. However this time we both approached the subject much more carefully. We started off by asking each other what we could agree on, and it turned out we agreed on more that we thought. Discussing the points of the case we felt the same about, we were able to gain an understanding of why the other person came to the judgment they did, and we concluded that each other’s judgment was in fact justified.

Unfortunately many issues that dominate today’s culture and politics have become incredibly polarizing issues in America. Some of those issues include abortion, immigration, taxes, torture, gun control and healthcare. These are all topics that involve people on both sides having strong conviction in their beliefs of what is right and wrong. TV commercials, newspaper ads, and stump speeches are not going to change people’s minds. In fact this book is not intended to change minds. However, for us to solve the tough problems that our country faces we must in some cases agree to disagree.

If you can agree with someone that you will never agree, then and only then, can you approach the subject with enough respect and caution to have a conversation about the topic. By doing this you can begin to bridge the gap by finding the places that you share common ground. Imagine a priest and an atheist sits down together to talk. They obviously believe in polar opposites, the priest believes in a higher power and the atheist believes that there is none. If they try to discuss the existence or non-existence of god, they would get no ware. Imagine however the priest says to the atheist “I cannot prove the existence of my God, however you must admit that some things cannot be explained by science as well”. Now the atheist and the priest can both agree on two things, the origin of our universe cannot be explained and the priest cannot show proof of his God’s existence. Who would have thought a priest and an atheist sitting down and agreeing on something?

The above example is just a small narrative and isn’t the end-all be-all of creating a healthy discussion. It is just a way to set up a foundation to bridge the communication gap between two opposite points of view. From this point, parties would need to be willing to delve into a discussion with one another, they would need to be respectful, and they would need to be comfortable that they are not stepping on the other parties values. From this point the priest and the atheist could go on to talk about how they feel the earth was formed, or go on to talk about why they have the beliefs they do.

Tomorrow I will discuss how this relates more into politics and our congress being so divided.

Political Media Bias, Changing Minds and Elections

Over the past decade or so our country has become increasingly divided between party lines. Instead of people really looking at the issues people identify themselves as one party IE, I am a Democrat so I believe in womans rights, I am pro gay marriage, I consider myself middle class and I am from "Main Street". With people less willing to question individual issues this allows politicians to "play politics" and not to confront issues and work together to form compromise. If you know that your party will follow you on whatever stance you take on a new issue then what does it matter if your stance will or will not benefit your constituency or not, they will agree with you no matter what.

This has been helped along by the American News media, who have divided themselves in the coverage and cometary that they provide the people. All you have to do is watch Fox News for a day, and then watch MSNBC for a day and you will see portrayal of two totally different Americas. One where the Evil Democrats are trying to spend our country into bankruptcy and one where the Greedy republicans are trying to make corporations richer. Unfortunately, the answer really lies somewhere in between, but it would take someone with a PHD to figure out where it really is. This should not be the case, the American people should not have to put so much effort into finding out the truth from watching the news, and this is not only dangerous, but it undermines our democracy.

When you take people who have learned what is happening from TV News for decades, and then introduce a constant flood of political spin, those people are led like lemmings to believe whatever they are being told. This allows major news producing companies such as General Electric an enormous influence on our political future as a country.

Flying under the banner of "news commentary" shows like Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, and Cris Matthews put their own spin on the news and say things like "The Republicans are out to kill grandma with their Medicare proposal". This is not news, this is editorial opinion, and to be honest, I doubt that the commentator really thought that. However they put it out there for people to hear to get their message across, to vote against the Republican.

One or two comments here and there wouldn't be a problem and would not have any effect on a election. However, over the past several weeks, nearly the entire lineup on the major news networks from 3:00 - 10:00 EST has been political propaganda. With this sheer amount of persuasive media, and propaganda, its no wonder our country is so divided.

I might be a conservative but I blame BOTH Fox and MSNBC for their coverage. I believe that it takes a weak news reporter or commentator to perform this way, and a very strong skilled one to be able to present both sides fairly and accurately. Anyone can graduate college and go on the news with a nice smile and say what they believe, but what they believe is their opinion, and not news. I do understand where news commentary has its place, and I am not against it, however when both major news networks devote 7+ hours a day to it, our country is in trouble.

This is a Video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamine Netanyaho calling out the UN for not standing up to the Iranian President. It is a really good speech, and I am sure some of it is directed at Barak Obama, due to his lack of support for Israel and his continued support for peace with IRan.

The begining of Benjamine Netanyaho's speach is about the Holocost, but the last half or so is directed at having countries stand up against terrorism. He sais that so many countries stood by while Iran President stole the election, and that We did not give any support to the protestors that were being sloughtered in the streets while they "drowned on thier own blood".

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=9979007&referralPlaylistId=playlist

What is a Czar, and Why Does Obama Have 16 of Them?

Czar – noun

1. An Emperor or king
2. An Autocratic ruler or leader
3. Any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field

(source dictionary.com)

Before you get worked up over the definition of a Czar, it should be known that we have used them in our history before. Roosevelt was the first president to use Czars in his administration, they were, at the time called Dictators. They were in place to regulate certain parts of commerce, similar to the Obama administration. Nixon used Czars as well but calling them “Dictators” would be a bad political move, so he named them Czars. They have been used by a few presidents since, rarely and in cases of Emergency because of the power they hold.

The power Czars have is the reason they are used. Like the president, they are part of the Executive branch, and do NOT answer to the congress. They are not appointed by congress and go through no vetting process. They can claim executive power if they are asked to testify before congress, and do not have to answer questions to congress, or the American people. Obviously they are not elected officials so the American people have no say in who gets the job, and if they do a poor job, only the President can remove them.

Under the Obama administration, Czar Usage has been taken to a whole new level. In the few months that Obama has been in office he has appointed 16 Czars, they include,

· Energy Czar, Carol Browner
· Border Czar, Alan Berstein
· Pay Czar, Kenneth Feinberg
· Car Czar (Leader of small taskforce), Steve Rattner
· Urban Czar, Adolfo Carrion Jr
· Infotech Czar Vivek Kundra
· Faith Czar, Joshua DuBois
· Health Reforme Czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle
· TARP Czar, Herb Allison
· Stimulus Accountability Czar, Earl Devaney
· Non-Proliferation Czar, Gary Samore
· Terrorism Czar, John Brennan
· Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein
· Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske
· Guantanamo Closure Czar, Damiel Fried
· Great Lakes Czar, Cameron Davis

Credit to David J Rothkopf for is Article on ForeignPolicy.com for many on the list!

Together this List of Czars oversee Billions of US Tax Dollars and they don’t have to answer to Congress or anyone. Obama doesn’t have to go before Congress to get approval to spend he just appoints another Czar. The Irony behind these Czars, most of them mirror current administrations in our Government. There is a Department of Homeland Security, and Border and Terror Czars, a FDA and a Drug Czar, a Securities and Exchange Committee, and US Treasury, but also Pay Czar, and Regulatory Czar, the list goes on. Why would be the incentive to use Czars over current branches of Government to get the Job done?

That is where Regulation, Power and Control fit into the big picture. The current forms of Administrations all answer to the Congress, they Report to the President but Answer to Congress. They get all their funding from Congress and Congress has the power over them. This has been part of our government’s “checks and balances” for hundreds of years, and is Vital to our Country’s freedom. With this significant entourage of Dictators, oops I mean Czars, the Obama administration gets to exert MORE Executive power over other Agencies of the Government. Who knows how long this List of Czars will get, it seems at this rate Obama will fufil his promise to create 100K jobs this summer by appointing 100K Czars to his Administration.

While many on this list of Czars were appointed more as figureheads to fulfill promises during his campaign, they still oversee Billion of US Tax Dollars and are completely unregulated. For instance the Great Lakes Czar to, “Oversee the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to clean up the Great Lakes,” is not really a big deal, I mean they only have 5 Billion to spend (Obama was praised by the Media having a task force appointed to save 100 million from the budget over the course of 90 Days). Some of these Czars oversee Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, and in the example of the Pay Czar, will be pushing for controversial private sector regulations on the Salaries of executives. Regulations like this should be going through Congress and the US Treasury, not a person who answers to “no one except the president”.

Voters polled fail to identify leaders in the Republican Party

If the republicans are going to emerge as a viable political party, they need a leader. On today’s front page of the USA Today an article shows the results of a recent poll. This poll was conducted to see who people thought the “Voice” of the Republican Party is. The results show Rush Limbaugh in 1st place with 13% of the vote, followed by Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Newt, 52% had no clue. I guess the Irony behind the results are the fact that despite the poll showing all of the leaders being, “Old White Balding Males”, as the article put it, in truth the leader of the RNC is a Younger (then them) African American Male.

After seeing the article featured on MSNBC, with both the anchors eating up every opportunity to criticize and get a laugh out of the reality of the RNC challenges, I figured it was important to shed some light on the matter. Yes there are Old Republicans, but in life older generally meets with wiser. When voters were polled during the 2008 Election, they overwhelmingly said that McCain had the Experience, but Barak Obama won on “Change”.

When it comes down to it, if you can’t win on your weaknesses you have to play to your strengths. The older Republicans should be using their experience in politics to turn things over on the media and the Democrats. It seems all too often the younger Republicans will not come forward and step up to be a voice, because they are afraid of the Obama Popularity and his following. Look at what happened with the Arlen Specter, he was so worried his district would switch parties, essentially because of the popularity of Obama, for which he has been a republican in for years, would switch on him. To save reelection he flopped parties.

In contrast to what the party IS doing, what they SHOULD be doing is playing to the real base that is out there. Many studies have been done to show that the Country, as a whole, is a Center Right country. Just look at the flip Abortion has done in the last year, more people now consider themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice. People WANT a leader that can compromise to get things done, that can cut spending without making it harder on Americans, and a leader that doesn’t make radical points just to get media attention.

Rush Limbaugh has not emerged as a “Voice for republicans” but as a “Voice for Liberals to Label Republicans with”. Rush IS the voice of talk radio, and he makes allot of good points, but sometimes he takes it a little too far, and when in the spotlight, that just leads to talking points on Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann Shows. Allot of people on the Right, and people that really understand Washington and Politics, understand rush, but be is alienating the Center Right people, because of controversial comments.

Bill O’reilly on Fox News has toned down somewhat lately and is a good voice for the older Generation, and Glenn Beck in the Afternoon is a good voice for Younger Republicans, but hardly anyone sees him because he is on at 5:00. I know my wife has become a big Glenn Beck fan because he really explains things in a down to earth straightforward laid out kind of way, a way that normal people can understand and say “Wow I never looked at the spending that way.” That is what Conservatives need more of, leaders that point out, in quick 2 minute economics lessons, the true consequences of Liberal Ideals.

Lastly I will conclude with a couple Videos from “10000Pennies” They are incredibly informative example on Jobs and the Stimulus plan, and how the Stimulus money is being spent.

This one is on the Budget cuts Obama Promised

North Korea, A Weak Man, A Madman, and A Bomb and you get a BOOM

N. Korea Arms Parade

The politics that our President is using with North Korea are showing the World that we do not mean business when it comes to Terror. North Korea has always done what they can to get into the headlines, either by threatening other countries or their public desire to obtain Nuclear power. Under President Bush, N. Korea agreed to stop their nuclear program in exchange for getting taken off the list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism”. Being off the terror list allows them to have access to financial resources and United Nations money and food aid. President Bush got them to disarm by being firm with them, you have to show us you’re willing to work with us and then we will do the same for you.



Now starting with the long range missile that they fired over the coast of Alaska earlier this year, they are testing the Obama Administration to see how far they can go. The line was drawn in the sand by the Bush administration, No Missiles, and no nukes or your back on the list. Since Obama has taken office N. Korea has tested a long range missile, which is capable of reaching its nearby countries in Asia as well as Alaska. They have also tested countless short range missiles that can reach South Korea AND have started up the nuclear refining facility that they closed under Bush. Each of these things independently would get them back on the list, let alone all three.

Recent Satellite Images of N. Korea Nuke Plant

The Obama administration has responded by first asking them politely to stop what they are doing. Then once N. Korea publicly admitted they detonated a Nuclear Bomb underground and started up their refining plant, Obama asked the United Nations, to ask N. Korea, to please stop. After the UN asked N. Korea to stop they began testing short range missiles that they could use in an offensive against S Korea, or sell to other countries or terrorists. To this day, Weeks after the Nuke Test was confirmed and Months after the Long Range Missile test, N. Korea is still NOT on the Terror List. The only thing the Obama Administration has done right through all of this is to put US Navy ships off their shore to inspect vessels leaving N. Korea for Weapons.

It’s clear that N. Korea wants Nukes, and they have admitted they are looking for buyers for the technology. One of those buyers is potentially Iran, who has been pursuing Nuclear power for the past 4 years. Not only is Obama letting N. Korea slide on this issue but he has also PUBLICLY stated Iran should be free to pursue Nuclear power, if they intend to use it for the right reasons, despite saying they want to “Wipe Israel off the map” (Our one and only ally in the middle east).

It seems like our President thinks that if he is “nice” to all of our enemies then they will turn into our allies. In theory that might be a good principal, but in reality, this is a big nasty world with people that absolutely hate us and our way of life. Simply being nice to them and letting them have their way will NOT make them our friend, and on top of that, in this process they are becoming more powerful every day.

Why is California in such a Financial Crisis?

California is one of the most Liberal states in the country. Whether is it the Gay Marriage Debate, Illegal Immigration, or Women’s Rights, they have always been leading the way. Part of these more “liberal” principals is higher taxes on everyone, but mostly on the rich, used to pay for a large state government with many social programs. They have VERY high property taxes and very high state and local taxes. They also use a more progressive system then most states do. (The higher your income the higher the percentage of taxes you pay). With a top income tax rate (Including Payroll tax) on a Small Business owner in California of 61%, this system is opening the door for people to move Away from California and into other states that have lower taxes.

Texas is a good example of one of the states that is “taking” taxpayers from California. They have had little to no job losses in many metropolitan areas throughout this recent recession. By contrast to California’s 10.5% State Tax, Texas has No State income tax, so a family making $1,000,000 a year in California, saves $105,000 a year to move to Texas. Other states that have No State income tax are Washington Wyoming Nevada Florida North Dakota and Alaska.
On top of the problem of many high income taxpayers moving away, many of California’s cities advertise as “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants. They have been vocal with their unwillingness to seek out and send back immigrants that have not yet obtained legal status. This includes not only expired visas but immigrants that have just hopped over the border fence. The Sanctuary Cities do not deport immigrants even if they have been convicted of nonviolent crimes, and in some cases release, on bail, criminals awaiting trial of violent crimes including rape and murder.

An Idaho illegal offered $250,000 bail after being arrested for rape, after the victim, A 10 YEAR OLD GIRL gave birth to his baby.

All of the illegal immigrants in California and any other state they reside in are allowed full access to public schools and public welfare programs. The public school system in Arizona was SUED (and lost) because they reported a family of Illegal Immigrants to customs when one of their kids was caught dealing drugs in middle school. The Supreme Court determined that Education is a right for Anyone residing in the US, and it is Illegal for the school system to report anyone to Immigration Officials. On top of that the immigrants that do work are taking jobs that could potentially be filled by the millions currently on the welfare rolls. While those jobs are Low Paying they are generally the type of job that many on our welfare system would be qualified for.

What Californians face are High Taxes, Overpopulated Schools, undocumented Illegal immigrants filling up the Jail and Court system, and now with the recession, a jam packed unemployment system. On top of all that, as more and more people get fed up and leave, the budget deficit grows and more social programs are cut, leading to LESS overall benefit from the high taxes that are being paid. The only solution now is for the Obama Administration to give California a bailout with Federal Tax dollars. That means that everyone in the country, even those not residing in CA, or receiving any benefit from CA overspending have to pay their bill.

Over time, policy like this will hurt states like Texas and Florida, because Federal taxes will be raised to even out the state taxes. The Liberal states will not make it if people keep moving away, and they need to reduce that incentive, by forcing the raising of taxes in low tax states. Sometime in the future if things continue on this path I could see the state taxes becoming controlled by the Federal Government instead of the individual states. It’s a long shot, and maybe a conspiracy theory, but I see no other way for California to keep taxpayers from moving away and NOT lowering their own taxes.

On a side note I do give credit to California for some of the best state park in the nation, they have done a AMAZING job of keeping the pristine beauty of California preserved for generations. I lived there for 9 years and I absolutely loved it there in that sense. I also would like to say that I have nothing against Hispanic Immigrants, I am not a racist, but I believe in LEGAL immigration being the best way to move here. I wholeheartedly support anyone that wants to move to this country if they apply for visa, live here and apply for citizenship the right way. I even support them if they get a worker visa and leave or reapply when it expires. I do NOT support the migration of ILLEGAL Immigrants, or the renaming of ILLEGAL immigrants “Migrant workers” because “migrant workers” get VISAS.

Thanks for reading your comments are welcome and encouraged.