Former GE CEO Jack Welch recently climbed out of his cave and told women who want a work-life balance to sew up their uterus as the only balance that matters is work-work. I agree and disagree with Mr. Welch and some of the people who were also quoted. Face time, in an age where many employees, including upper management, telecommute at least part of the time, is not what it used to be. Does it really matter if I'm answering emails at 6:30AM in my sweats at home or in my office 30 miles away? I can easily work and hour or two (depending when I get up) while waiting for the school bus before driving to work (with the added benefit of missing rush hour) and still make any meeting scheduled (and conversely I can attend late night meetings with the west coast office from my home too). The other thing is that a work-life balance is not just for mothers anymore. See, I'm not the mom, I'm the dad and I am fortunate enough to work for a company with a very flexible schedule. Our hours are flexible. We can work at home a few days a week. Some directors with small children are home based. It does help that my company has many offices and face to face meetings are rare even if all are in their particular office.
Of course I am aware that there is a trade-off for this flexibility. I am a highly skilled and educated employee and my compensation and career path are not what they could have been if I had devoted myself to moving up the ladder. I and those like me with young families have turned down promotions because they would have limited our work-life balance abilities. However, my hours are fairly regular and I rarely have to travel meaning we don't worry about child care or missing a school event (since I have the flexible hours and my wife doesn't I'm usually the one who goes to these type of events). I choose life over just work. So shoot me and members of my generation (Generation X for the record), but before you do, remember that this is only for a relatively short period of our career life and, at least for those of us who are highly skilled and talented, if an employer chooses not to place our skills sets back on the corporate ladder, there is usually somebody else who would
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Real Americans
Here is another wonder American who thinks anyone who does not live in rural America and swear allegiance to Jesus, Sarah Palin and their version of conservative values is not a real American. Unbelievable. Not so much that he was able to say this on TV; this is America after all and I'm not into censorship. What I find unbelievable is that these evil people have such a following. Yes, evil.
All these "conservatives" who make their living turning one group of Americans against another should be taken out back and shot for treason. It is fine to disagree but to say someone is not a real American because they don't agree with you is a bunch of bull. These terrorists, hiding under the cloak of conservatism, who are busy dividing the country on the basis of religion, urban v. rural or education by pandering to the lowest common denominator, are our real enemy. Yet we allow them to vomit their hatred with barely a peep because "uneducated, socially conservative, gun-toting, Jesus freaks" are the real Americans and the rest of us are not (although we were apparently good enough in 2001 when two of our cities were bombed by terrorists) because we decided to better ourselves in school, have a let and let live attitude regarding homosexuality, don't feel the need to bring our guns to church and are friends with those who may have different religious views then us -- you know, that whole freedom from persecution thing.
As to Sarah Palin, I just don't understand the so called conservatives' love of this woman (not to mention their sincere embrace of Joe the plumber as a party symbol). Her experience as mayor of a small town and as governor of a state with a population smaller than many major US cities has already shown her limited abilities and leaves me with no confidence that she can be anything more than eye candy on the national scene. Is there nobody who has the same general conservative beliefs with a brain and a bit of gravitas? An Alito or Roberts type who wants to run for President? Somebody who can keep Obama and the Democrats from getting too complacent. Taking anti-intellectual (Oh no! Elitists!), anti-science stances to attract a segment of voters couldn't have sidelined all the intelligent conservatives, could it?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Feeling older
I'm a member of Generation X, meaning I'm in my early 40s. There have been recent events reminding me I'm not getting younger, such as the death of my uncle, the last survivor of my father's nuclear family, meaning, at least for that part of the family, mysiblings , cousins and myself are the elders. It is times like that where I realize I'm not a 15 year old anymore and I have to acknowledge that my youth is passing and I'm an adult. This week's events felt like that all over again.
It doesn't seem that long ago when I was driving home from my after school job, listening to one of Michael Jackson's latest hits on the radio, before crashing on the couch for a few minutes, listening to Ed McMahon laughing at Johnny Carson's monologue while I wound down so I could go to sleep in my room where the Farah Fawcett Majors poster used to be (that thing fell off the wall years before). And this week, all died.
To be honest, none of their deaths surprised me. McMahon was older and had been reported in poor health for some time. Rumors of Fawcett's impending death had also been circulating for a time. And let's face it, are any of us really surprised Jackson died at a relatively young age due to a possible perscription overdose? Additionally, unlike when older relatives and friends my own age have died, their deaths don't affect me personally. Carson's Tonight Show has been gone for almost two decades and, aside from clips when he was about to lose his home, McMahon had been out of the limelight of late. Same for Fawcett, aside from occasional appearances here and there. As to Jackson, it has been almost 20 years since any of his music appealed to me and I prefer to remember him as the entertainer of the 1980s and not this weird, sick creature he morphed into in the 1990s and 2000s. So why am I feeling a little sad today?
As a child of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, my childhood was one surrounded by cultural icons. And, for better or worse, Jackson, McMahon and Fawcett were the icons of my youth (along with Prince, The Brady Bunch, Lucille Ball, the original Star Trek crew etc), even if they had drifted in from the previous generation. Though I didn't know Robert Reed or James Doohan (though I did see him once at a Star Trek convention, funny guy) I remember being sad when I heard they had died. And though I remember being interested in the coverage of Presiden's Nixon's death, I was much more affected by President Reagan's death, though it was also somewhat expected, as I recalled his presidency and barely remembered Nixon's, aside from being confused at the time as to why the President of the United States would consider breaking into our home to steal my mother's scotch tape. Still I had never met Ronald Reagan so why should I have been affected? Probably because it simply marked the passage of time.
During Reagan's presidency, my parents were young and healthy (though I thought those old farts in their 40s and 50s to be ancient) and even most of my grandparents and their generation were still around (at least in 1981). By the time of Reagan's death, my grandparents' generation was all but gone and even many of the relatives of my parents' generation were dead or ailing, including both of my parents. With children of my own and a mother suffering one health crisis after another by then, it was as if another piece of my childhood had died. So maybe that is why now, when I am at an age I remember my father being and my children are at ages I remember being, these latest deaths just remind me that I am getting older. And that's the way it is.
It doesn't seem that long ago when I was driving home from my after school job, listening to one of Michael Jackson's latest hits on the radio, before crashing on the couch for a few minutes, listening to Ed McMahon laughing at Johnny Carson's monologue while I wound down so I could go to sleep in my room where the Farah Fawcett Majors poster used to be (that thing fell off the wall years before). And this week, all died.
To be honest, none of their deaths surprised me. McMahon was older and had been reported in poor health for some time. Rumors of Fawcett's impending death had also been circulating for a time. And let's face it, are any of us really surprised Jackson died at a relatively young age due to a possible perscription overdose? Additionally, unlike when older relatives and friends my own age have died, their deaths don't affect me personally. Carson's Tonight Show has been gone for almost two decades and, aside from clips when he was about to lose his home, McMahon had been out of the limelight of late. Same for Fawcett, aside from occasional appearances here and there. As to Jackson, it has been almost 20 years since any of his music appealed to me and I prefer to remember him as the entertainer of the 1980s and not this weird, sick creature he morphed into in the 1990s and 2000s. So why am I feeling a little sad today?
As a child of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, my childhood was one surrounded by cultural icons. And, for better or worse, Jackson, McMahon and Fawcett were the icons of my youth (along with Prince, The Brady Bunch, Lucille Ball, the original Star Trek crew etc), even if they had drifted in from the previous generation. Though I didn't know Robert Reed or James Doohan (though I did see him once at a Star Trek convention, funny guy) I remember being sad when I heard they had died. And though I remember being interested in the coverage of Presiden's Nixon's death, I was much more affected by President Reagan's death, though it was also somewhat expected, as I recalled his presidency and barely remembered Nixon's, aside from being confused at the time as to why the President of the United States would consider breaking into our home to steal my mother's scotch tape. Still I had never met Ronald Reagan so why should I have been affected? Probably because it simply marked the passage of time.
During Reagan's presidency, my parents were young and healthy (though I thought those old farts in their 40s and 50s to be ancient) and even most of my grandparents and their generation were still around (at least in 1981). By the time of Reagan's death, my grandparents' generation was all but gone and even many of the relatives of my parents' generation were dead or ailing, including both of my parents. With children of my own and a mother suffering one health crisis after another by then, it was as if another piece of my childhood had died. So maybe that is why now, when I am at an age I remember my father being and my children are at ages I remember being, these latest deaths just remind me that I am getting older. And that's the way it is.
Feeling Older
I'm a member of Generation X, meaning I'm in my early 40s. There have been recent events reminding me I'm not getting younger, such as the death of my uncle, the last survivor of my father's nuclear family, meaning, at least for that part of the family, my siblings, cousins and myself are the elders. It is times like that where I realize I'm not a 15 year old anymore and I have to acknowledge that my youth is passing and I'm an adult. This week's events felt like that all over again.
It doesn't seem that long ago when I was driving home from my after school job, listening to one of Michael Jackson's latest hits on the radio, before crashing on the couch for a few minutes, listening to Ed McMahon laughing at Johnny Carson's monologue while I wound down so I could go to sleep in my room where the Farah Fawcett Majors poster used to be (that thing fell off the wall years before). And this week, all died.
To be honest, none of their deaths surprised me. McMahon was older and had been reported in poor health for some time. Rumors of Fawcett's impending death had also been circulating for a time. And let's face it, are any of us really surprised Jackson died at a relatively young age due to a possible perscription overdose? Additionally, unlike when older relatives and friends my own age have died, their deaths don't affect me personally. Carson's Tonight Show has been gone for almost two decades and, aside from clips when he was about to lose his home, McMahon had been out of the limelight of late. Same for Fawcett, aside from occasional appearances here and there. As to Jackson, it has been almost 20 years since any of his music appealed to me and I prefer to remember him as the entertainer of the 1980s and not this weird, sick creature he morphed into in the 1990s and 2000s. So why am I feeling a little sad today?
As a child of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, my childhood was one surrounded by cultural icons. And, for better or worse, Jackson, McMahon and Fawcett were the icons of my youth (along with Prince, The Brady Bunch, Lucille Ball, the original Star Trek crew etc), even if they had drifted in from the previous generation. Though I didn't know Robert Reed or James Doohan (though I did see him once at a Star Trek convention, funny guy) I remember being sad when I heard they had died. And though I remember being interested in the coverage of Presiden's Nixon's death, I was much more affected by President Reagan's death, though it was also somewhat expected, as I recalled his presidency and barely remembered Nixon's, aside from being confused at the time as to why the President of the United States would consider breaking into our home to steal my mother's scotch tape. Still I had never met Ronald Reagan so why should I have been affected? Probably because it simply marked the passage of time.
During Reagan's presidency, my parents were young and healthy (though I thought those old farts in their 40s and 50s to be ancient) and even most of my grandparents and their generation were still around (at least in 1981). By the time of Reagan's death, my grandparents' generation was all but gone and even many of the relatives of my parents' generation were dead or ailing, including both of my parents. With children of my own and a mother suffering one health crisis after another by then, it was as if another piece of my childhood had died. So maybe that is why now, when I am at an age I remember my father being and my children are at ages I remember being, these latest deaths just remind me that I am getting older. And that's the way it is.
It doesn't seem that long ago when I was driving home from my after school job, listening to one of Michael Jackson's latest hits on the radio, before crashing on the couch for a few minutes, listening to Ed McMahon laughing at Johnny Carson's monologue while I wound down so I could go to sleep in my room where the Farah Fawcett Majors poster used to be (that thing fell off the wall years before). And this week, all died.
To be honest, none of their deaths surprised me. McMahon was older and had been reported in poor health for some time. Rumors of Fawcett's impending death had also been circulating for a time. And let's face it, are any of us really surprised Jackson died at a relatively young age due to a possible perscription overdose? Additionally, unlike when older relatives and friends my own age have died, their deaths don't affect me personally. Carson's Tonight Show has been gone for almost two decades and, aside from clips when he was about to lose his home, McMahon had been out of the limelight of late. Same for Fawcett, aside from occasional appearances here and there. As to Jackson, it has been almost 20 years since any of his music appealed to me and I prefer to remember him as the entertainer of the 1980s and not this weird, sick creature he morphed into in the 1990s and 2000s. So why am I feeling a little sad today?
As a child of the late 1960s to mid 1980s, my childhood was one surrounded by cultural icons. And, for better or worse, Jackson, McMahon and Fawcett were the icons of my youth (along with Prince, The Brady Bunch, Lucille Ball, the original Star Trek crew etc), even if they had drifted in from the previous generation. Though I didn't know Robert Reed or James Doohan (though I did see him once at a Star Trek convention, funny guy) I remember being sad when I heard they had died. And though I remember being interested in the coverage of Presiden's Nixon's death, I was much more affected by President Reagan's death, though it was also somewhat expected, as I recalled his presidency and barely remembered Nixon's, aside from being confused at the time as to why the President of the United States would consider breaking into our home to steal my mother's scotch tape. Still I had never met Ronald Reagan so why should I have been affected? Probably because it simply marked the passage of time.
During Reagan's presidency, my parents were young and healthy (though I thought those old farts in their 40s and 50s to be ancient) and even most of my grandparents and their generation were still around (at least in 1981). By the time of Reagan's death, my grandparents' generation was all but gone and even many of the relatives of my parents' generation were dead or ailing, including both of my parents. With children of my own and a mother suffering one health crisis after another by then, it was as if another piece of my childhood had died. So maybe that is why now, when I am at an age I remember my father being and my children are at ages I remember being, these latest deaths just remind me that I am getting older. And that's the way it is.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Blame Canada
We can blame our lovely weather of late on Canada, or more specifically a stubborn high pressure system over Canada. It is not so much that we've gotten a lot of rain, but that we've had a lot of cloudy, cool days with some rain. This whole spring has been nasty. I lost count of the number of little league games and practices that got rained out this year.
More recently, it has rained 18 out of the last 21 days (and I think the last week of May was cool and rainy too). In June we're usually cooking on the grill, eating outside, wearing shorts and going to the pool. This month I've cooked on the grill once, have not bothered to take the chair cushions out of the deck boxes since May, am still wearing a jacket and haven't been to the pool club in weeks.
I'm tired of being cold. Last Monday evening I mistakenly wore only a light wind breaker to my son's little league game and froze. My car has a feature where you set the internal temperature and a few days the heat has gone on instead of the AC. I guess the only bright spot is I haven't really had to use the AC in the house (it pops on now and then but not like a normal June). Bring on summer!
More recently, it has rained 18 out of the last 21 days (and I think the last week of May was cool and rainy too). In June we're usually cooking on the grill, eating outside, wearing shorts and going to the pool. This month I've cooked on the grill once, have not bothered to take the chair cushions out of the deck boxes since May, am still wearing a jacket and haven't been to the pool club in weeks.
I'm tired of being cold. Last Monday evening I mistakenly wore only a light wind breaker to my son's little league game and froze. My car has a feature where you set the internal temperature and a few days the heat has gone on instead of the AC. I guess the only bright spot is I haven't really had to use the AC in the house (it pops on now and then but not like a normal June). Bring on summer!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Thought control?
I can always tell when it is June, the weather warms up (usually), our day lilies bloom (a little late this year from all the rain) and school graduations seem to rule the day (last night our youngest had her pre-school graduation -- theceremony was mostly the children singing and eating cake, the kids gowns were their dads' white dress shirts backwards). So, of course, along with the ceremonies comes the annual article that college is a waste and our little snowflakes should enter the workforce right away so they can start contributing to increase our leaders worth.
Now the article itself, written by a college graduate of course, while making some valid points about some of the waste of college, has a whole lot of fail. The writer obviously wants to keep more surfs out of college because the uneducated are easier to control. Yes, not every job requires a college degree and there are plenty of skills that can be learned without it. And there are many people without a college degree that are able to think for themselves and learn on their own. I also agree that not every student is cut out for college and would do better to focus on where their talents lie (for example, a 4 year degree may not help a plumber, but a series of course related to his or her career in a 2 year school, such as business and writing so they have enough skills to control their fate might be better). However, the author's points missed out on many things.
The author uses two men as examples, Ernie, who went to work right out of school, and Bill who went to college. The author argues that at retirement Ernie will have more money because he will have been working longer, meaning he could invest longer, and not have the college loans to pay off that could delay Bill's investing start. However, the author glosses over many little troublesome facts.
Even during this recession, where more college grads are being laid off, high school graduates don't get promoted as fast as their college educated colleagues and usually suffer layoffs in greater numbers (For sake of argument, I'm going to exclude those not in the corporate world, such as smallbushiness people or other skilled workers). The lack of a college degree also hinders their ability to land another job for various reasons. High school graduates are typically paid lower wages, meaning they have less discretionary income to invest so Ernie may not be able to invest as the author suggested. Also, there is no law that says Bill must go away to a private school without a scholarship. Perhaps he stays at the public university and lives at the MommaPapaSister dorms and has less debt. Finally, there is more to life than money. Perhaps Bill takes a class that enriches his life in many ways that one would be hard pressed to put a dollar amount on.
I think philosophy was one of the best classes I ever took. It opened my mind to things I had not considered before and that has helped me more in life over the last 20 years then anything else I learned in college (and as to law school, it teaches you to think like a lawyer but you don't really learn to be a lawyer until you're out in the real world). That was the one college class that I think enabled me to learn how to learn. Perhaps I could have learned what I learned in that class on my own, but I suspect it would have been much later in life and not done me as much good as it did when I was 18 or 19. Though I'd be hard pressed to answer if someone asked me what business skills I learned in philosophy class (I can still remember the precise moment, when the professor was describing faith as how else can you believe someone walked on water 2,000 years ago), I feel that the ability to learn how to open my mind has paid dividends.
The college experience is simply the foundation for what a person will be. The college degree, for better or worse, has become the price of admission to the better jobs with, hopefully, evidence that your foundation is sound. And as to the sales clerk the author points to who still hasn't started college 18 months after he decided to go -- well, that clerk is still going to be 18 months older anyway by then anyway. If that clerk looks at the long term that 18 month wait is nothing. And if he or she is so eager to learn, there are plenty of online options, not to mention the good old public library, that the clerk can review to prepare for his or her formal education in the meantime.
Not everything you learn in college is for the furtherance of work. Much of the work I do now didn't even exist when I was in school and I learned the new skills as I needed to. Though my job title is the same, much of what I do today I wasn't doing even a decade ago. Sometimes there is a love of learning that is fulfilled in college that is not as easily fulfilled on your own. Perhaps you take a course that enables you to learn how history repeats yourself or heaven forbid, why the other side has a point in their argument that you never done on your own. Other times you learn something that opens your mind to new possibilities or allows you to see how you may be manipulated by those with an ulterior motive. Not all of that can be found by reading a book or searching the internet on your own.
While I agree that the current educational system that leaves graduates in heavy debt upon graduation leaves much to be desired, we live in a post-industrial world. Our greatest tool is the one in our head. Knowledge is power but, unless properly trained, may not live up to its potential. Properly focused knowledge is real power. A college degree is not worthless.
Now the article itself, written by a college graduate of course, while making some valid points about some of the waste of college, has a whole lot of fail. The writer obviously wants to keep more surfs out of college because the uneducated are easier to control. Yes, not every job requires a college degree and there are plenty of skills that can be learned without it. And there are many people without a college degree that are able to think for themselves and learn on their own. I also agree that not every student is cut out for college and would do better to focus on where their talents lie (for example, a 4 year degree may not help a plumber, but a series of course related to his or her career in a 2 year school, such as business and writing so they have enough skills to control their fate might be better). However, the author's points missed out on many things.
The author uses two men as examples, Ernie, who went to work right out of school, and Bill who went to college. The author argues that at retirement Ernie will have more money because he will have been working longer, meaning he could invest longer, and not have the college loans to pay off that could delay Bill's investing start. However, the author glosses over many little troublesome facts.
Even during this recession, where more college grads are being laid off, high school graduates don't get promoted as fast as their college educated colleagues and usually suffer layoffs in greater numbers (For sake of argument, I'm going to exclude those not in the corporate world, such as smallbushiness people or other skilled workers). The lack of a college degree also hinders their ability to land another job for various reasons. High school graduates are typically paid lower wages, meaning they have less discretionary income to invest so Ernie may not be able to invest as the author suggested. Also, there is no law that says Bill must go away to a private school without a scholarship. Perhaps he stays at the public university and lives at the MommaPapaSister dorms and has less debt. Finally, there is more to life than money. Perhaps Bill takes a class that enriches his life in many ways that one would be hard pressed to put a dollar amount on.
I think philosophy was one of the best classes I ever took. It opened my mind to things I had not considered before and that has helped me more in life over the last 20 years then anything else I learned in college (and as to law school, it teaches you to think like a lawyer but you don't really learn to be a lawyer until you're out in the real world). That was the one college class that I think enabled me to learn how to learn. Perhaps I could have learned what I learned in that class on my own, but I suspect it would have been much later in life and not done me as much good as it did when I was 18 or 19. Though I'd be hard pressed to answer if someone asked me what business skills I learned in philosophy class (I can still remember the precise moment, when the professor was describing faith as how else can you believe someone walked on water 2,000 years ago), I feel that the ability to learn how to open my mind has paid dividends.
The college experience is simply the foundation for what a person will be. The college degree, for better or worse, has become the price of admission to the better jobs with, hopefully, evidence that your foundation is sound. And as to the sales clerk the author points to who still hasn't started college 18 months after he decided to go -- well, that clerk is still going to be 18 months older anyway by then anyway. If that clerk looks at the long term that 18 month wait is nothing. And if he or she is so eager to learn, there are plenty of online options, not to mention the good old public library, that the clerk can review to prepare for his or her formal education in the meantime.
Not everything you learn in college is for the furtherance of work. Much of the work I do now didn't even exist when I was in school and I learned the new skills as I needed to. Though my job title is the same, much of what I do today I wasn't doing even a decade ago. Sometimes there is a love of learning that is fulfilled in college that is not as easily fulfilled on your own. Perhaps you take a course that enables you to learn how history repeats yourself or heaven forbid, why the other side has a point in their argument that you never done on your own. Other times you learn something that opens your mind to new possibilities or allows you to see how you may be manipulated by those with an ulterior motive. Not all of that can be found by reading a book or searching the internet on your own.
While I agree that the current educational system that leaves graduates in heavy debt upon graduation leaves much to be desired, we live in a post-industrial world. Our greatest tool is the one in our head. Knowledge is power but, unless properly trained, may not live up to its potential. Properly focused knowledge is real power. A college degree is not worthless.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Goodbye Old Party?
An analysis by the PewResearch center shows that Americans are abandoning the GOP in droves. I disagree with that. Those people didn't abandon the GOP, the GOP abandoned them or out right kicked them out as were done to Colin Powell and Arlen Specter.
As a white middle aged professionals with a 6 figure income (both mine and my wife) tired of paying high taxes & generally conservative, my wife and I should be smack in their demographic. Yet, as we've aged, become parents and a tad more conservative, we look at them and see nothing that appeals to us. We feel we would not be welcomed because we don't pray to Jesus, have a live and let live attitude to homosexuality (it's none of the government's business), refuse to force our views on abortion on those who disagree with us, support affordable higher education and health care for all and ... gasp ... don't think every tax or government regulation is evil. 30 years ago, I probably would have been classified as a Reagan Democrat (with the exception of my live and live attitude about homosexuality). Today, for holding these views, I would probably be called a bleeding heart liberal by the "true conservatives."
When I look at what the GOP stands for, I don't see my views reflected in theirs. I have no problem with diversity. I think an educated society with a relatively healthy population that is free from worrying about the most basic needs is an overall good thing for the nation as a whole. I think some government regulation is a necessary evil, especially after recent events where the players took out innocent bystanders, but don't want the government telling me what to do when the only person harmed by my actions is me (if I choose to be an idiot and ride a motorcycle without a helmet than that should be between me, Darwin and whoever receives my organs). Much of this used to fit squarely within the GOP, but not today.
Instead the GOP is obsessed with sex and religion, particularly homosexual sex and those who don't accept Jesus as their Savior. The sex obsession, particularly their insistence that people don't have it, is kind of ironic considering the amount of conservatives caught in sex scandals. The religionobsession is the same one governments have been using for centuries. They use religion as justification to hold back free thought, free expression, sex, scientific discovery, and even potentially life saving research.
Worse, the GOP doesn't seem to have the nation's best interests in their hearts anymore as they try to make sure their friends get theirs and yours and mine as they try to return us to the boom and bust robberbaron economy of the 19 th century, ignoring all the prosperity the maturation of our capitalism brought to all because it contained a little socialism and regulation. They have forgotten what they used to stand for: fiscal responsibility and reasonable government.
Do I think there is too much government with their hands out? Yes (but then I live in NJ). Do I think government can solve all problems? No. This used to be the GOP's mantra but now it seems their mantra is to follow what the least educated want no matter if it is bad for our nation as a whole. The GOP has become the party of no and has run out of ideas. They have abandoned us.
As a white middle aged professionals with a 6 figure income (both mine and my wife) tired of paying high taxes & generally conservative, my wife and I should be smack in their demographic. Yet, as we've aged, become parents and a tad more conservative, we look at them and see nothing that appeals to us. We feel we would not be welcomed because we don't pray to Jesus, have a live and let live attitude to homosexuality (it's none of the government's business), refuse to force our views on abortion on those who disagree with us, support affordable higher education and health care for all and ... gasp ... don't think every tax or government regulation is evil. 30 years ago, I probably would have been classified as a Reagan Democrat (with the exception of my live and live attitude about homosexuality). Today, for holding these views, I would probably be called a bleeding heart liberal by the "true conservatives."
When I look at what the GOP stands for, I don't see my views reflected in theirs. I have no problem with diversity. I think an educated society with a relatively healthy population that is free from worrying about the most basic needs is an overall good thing for the nation as a whole. I think some government regulation is a necessary evil, especially after recent events where the players took out innocent bystanders, but don't want the government telling me what to do when the only person harmed by my actions is me (if I choose to be an idiot and ride a motorcycle without a helmet than that should be between me, Darwin and whoever receives my organs). Much of this used to fit squarely within the GOP, but not today.
Instead the GOP is obsessed with sex and religion, particularly homosexual sex and those who don't accept Jesus as their Savior. The sex obsession, particularly their insistence that people don't have it, is kind of ironic considering the amount of conservatives caught in sex scandals. The religionobsession is the same one governments have been using for centuries. They use religion as justification to hold back free thought, free expression, sex, scientific discovery, and even potentially life saving research.
Worse, the GOP doesn't seem to have the nation's best interests in their hearts anymore as they try to make sure their friends get theirs and yours and mine as they try to return us to the boom and bust robberbaron economy of the 19 th century, ignoring all the prosperity the maturation of our capitalism brought to all because it contained a little socialism and regulation. They have forgotten what they used to stand for: fiscal responsibility and reasonable government.
Do I think there is too much government with their hands out? Yes (but then I live in NJ). Do I think government can solve all problems? No. This used to be the GOP's mantra but now it seems their mantra is to follow what the least educated want no matter if it is bad for our nation as a whole. The GOP has become the party of no and has run out of ideas. They have abandoned us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)