Now is the time and a chance to become a more civilized functioning country with a government that more closely represents each and every one of you - American citizens.
As long we have the two-party stranglehold over the USA government, the average American citizen will never be truly represented by the politicians we elect. Let me explain this in several simple points.
1) When only two parties control the political landscape, you have polarizing black and white views on each side. This makes it nearly impossible to make a nuanced choice of whom to support and for whom to cast a vote, as neither side will ever represent the vast majority of the American population. As a result, most American citizens do not participate in the election process. The majority that do wind up voting are left with a terribly choice - which candidate do I dislike less? When the candidates for any office are not even close to representing your views and values, there is no meaningful choice even when you have the right to choose.
2) When either party has the majority of Senate and House of Representatives, while also having the Presidential seat, the opposing sides don't have to negotiate. The controlling party can simply pass legislation and push through its policy without any regard for the other side. In the majority of other democracies in the civilized world, there are multiple parties that more closely represent the differing views of their population. In these cases, a party may win an election with a 25% percent of the vote, sometimes as high as 35%. But it almost never results in a flat out majority. This means that the winning party needs to negotiate with other parties, form a coalition, discuss and amend their proposals to fit the desires of the majority of their population. It is a much more true to form representative democracy than what we currently have to endure.
3) It is incredibly easy for big money interest groups to control the political landscape. There are big money lobbyists that play a heavy hand in influencing our government's policies via monetary contributions to the two major political parties and their candidates. Pharmacy, Insurance, Banking, Tobacco, Gun and various other lobbies have our American government in their back pockets. It is really easy to do - just donate money to both parties. Whoever wins the controlling seats in our government, the big money contributors are guaranteed that their interests are protected no matter what. If there are multiple parties that have to negotiate with each other and be held accountable to the actual views of the people who elect them, the lobbyists will not have as much sway over the legislation.
I believe that we are living in an extraordinary time of unprecedented opportunity, on which we owe it to ourselves and future generations to capitalize. The 2016 election has exposed and opened up the fault lines in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats screwed up big league by internal collusion in favoring one candidate in the primaries over another, while the Republicans were fighting among themselves and rolling down the hill into disarray, until they miraculously emerged on top of the orange mountain.
As a result, the Democrats have internal battles that are pulling the party into Progressives, Traditional Democrats, and those who now identify as Independents. The Republicans have an even more fierce battle among them between Traditional Republicans, Tea Party, Evangelicals, Reformers and Hardcore Conservatives.
We, as American citizens, must force these political fault-lines to crack these parties apart into smaller more specific ones. How do we do this? Through putting pressure on our elected officials with our votes. We need to make each and every politician recognize that we will, from this point on, hold them accountable for their action (or inaction) as our representatives. After enough politicians realize that the status quo no longer suits their office, the polarizing methodologies of the two-party stranglehold will be left in the rear-view mirror of history. Make your vote count in every single election, no matter how small, from this point on.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Opportunity Blueprint
In modern times, we find ourselves a highly divided country with an alarming (and continuously growing) disparity in terms of income between the classes of our society. Incomes diverge, as expenses grow. It hasn't always been that way, but this is where we are and we have to resolve these issues before our nation collapses along the fault-lines of growing division.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
Monday, January 2, 2017
We are survivors!
In a year filled with widespread violence and destruction, if you have lived past midnight of 2016, you are a survivor!
Make no light of that statement. Please realize that those of us who live in the western world have a functioning government and law enforcement that protects us. These may be imperfect, and at times faulty, but they still function a lot better than in many other parts of this world.
We are not subjected to massacres at the hands of Islamic State, Boko Haram or the Houthi Rebels. We do not have to face the civil war and flee our homeland like the people of Syria. We do not have to live in fear of being gunned down while watching our favorite rock concert or being ran over by a truck while celebrating a holiday. We also do not have to attempt to live our lives under the rocket fire of Hamas, accepting these attacks as a daily routine.
Please understand that while the three hundred or so "celebrity" deaths in the past year may be painful to us because some of us identify with generational popular culture, these deaths are a part of life. Especially when you consider the cause of death in each case. Outside of several tragic accidents, like the Anton Yelchin (who was ran over by his own Jeep), majority of these deaths took people of age who either died of natural causes or accelerated their natural cause deaths through drug abuse, alcohol abuse and consequences of mental illness. Do not get hung up on these deaths, but instead use these as a reality check that drug and substance abuse are still huge contributors to early demise. Also, seek professional help for loved ones who are going through mental illness.
As we all head out into the new and hopeful 2017, remember that you all have a responsibility to yourselves to make your lives matter. Make sure that come the end of 2017, you have a list of what you have accomplished as a testament to the celebration of a year in your life well lived.
Look at the past year and take note of the things that went well for you and the things for which you'd like to see a better result. Then, make a plan and stick to it. You can do it, as this is a new year and all the negativity of the past year is null and void.
Live your lives to the fullest - don't be just a survivor!
Make no light of that statement. Please realize that those of us who live in the western world have a functioning government and law enforcement that protects us. These may be imperfect, and at times faulty, but they still function a lot better than in many other parts of this world.
We are not subjected to massacres at the hands of Islamic State, Boko Haram or the Houthi Rebels. We do not have to face the civil war and flee our homeland like the people of Syria. We do not have to live in fear of being gunned down while watching our favorite rock concert or being ran over by a truck while celebrating a holiday. We also do not have to attempt to live our lives under the rocket fire of Hamas, accepting these attacks as a daily routine.
Please understand that while the three hundred or so "celebrity" deaths in the past year may be painful to us because some of us identify with generational popular culture, these deaths are a part of life. Especially when you consider the cause of death in each case. Outside of several tragic accidents, like the Anton Yelchin (who was ran over by his own Jeep), majority of these deaths took people of age who either died of natural causes or accelerated their natural cause deaths through drug abuse, alcohol abuse and consequences of mental illness. Do not get hung up on these deaths, but instead use these as a reality check that drug and substance abuse are still huge contributors to early demise. Also, seek professional help for loved ones who are going through mental illness.
As we all head out into the new and hopeful 2017, remember that you all have a responsibility to yourselves to make your lives matter. Make sure that come the end of 2017, you have a list of what you have accomplished as a testament to the celebration of a year in your life well lived.
Look at the past year and take note of the things that went well for you and the things for which you'd like to see a better result. Then, make a plan and stick to it. You can do it, as this is a new year and all the negativity of the past year is null and void.
Live your lives to the fullest - don't be just a survivor!
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Will The People Speak?
I hate to break it to all of you, but it's over! The people of the United States have spoken in our imperfect, geographically weighed, electorate driven system of Democracy we have accepted to be legitimate and teach the rest of the world about. The winner is Donald Trump and there is nothing you can do about that anymore.
However, that does not mean that you should limit your responses to outrage and witty posts of opposition for the next four years. It is time to take action, because this election cycle has reduced our election process into the reality television show that is viewed as a circus around the world.
What we need to do is begin to hold our politicians up to their stated agenda, opposing them where it is unconscionable and unethical. But also, supporting them where it is reasonable and beneficial. What any responsible American should do is learn what your President, Senator and Representative have on their agenda. And do not take it second-hand from the lens of polarizing media, but from the politician's own complete statements.
Let's take our president-elect as an example. One of the things he has promised to do is to curtail freedom of the press through promoting specific libel laws, which would make it very dangerous to publish any editorials and effectively silence opposition. Clearly, this is a serious violation of our nation's constitutional principles. With this kind of agenda, the citizens should fervently oppose his administration through their regional representatives in Washington.
Another item he has promised is the establishment of term limits for elected, as well as appointed, government officials. This would prevent the career politician in Congress, which is currently a person who remains in his or her post until they die, making them a consistent steady target for special interest groups and their lobbyists. Reasonably set term limits would allow these elected officials to be closer in touch with their electorate and with the reality of modern times.
We need to start seeing our politicians the same way they see us (their voters) - what can this person do for us and what should this person not do to us? What the American people can no longer afford to do is oppose a politician's entire agenda, because of certain items that we deem to be unconscionable or unethical. We have done that with George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama for the past sixteen years with the result being a Congress that can hardly get any legislation passed and a bitterly divided nation over a silly ideological boundary. Every politician has points that are good and others that are bad.
So speak to your regional Washington representative. Voice your opposition to the politician's terrible ideas, voice your support for the politician's good ideas, discuss the details of each - you may learn something. But don't sit out the next four years because you are unhappy with the result, do not oppose 100% of any political agenda and do not support 100% of any political agenda. In my experience, almost every politician is a mix of bad ideas and good ideas.
Remember, only a certain type deals in absolutes.
However, that does not mean that you should limit your responses to outrage and witty posts of opposition for the next four years. It is time to take action, because this election cycle has reduced our election process into the reality television show that is viewed as a circus around the world.
What we need to do is begin to hold our politicians up to their stated agenda, opposing them where it is unconscionable and unethical. But also, supporting them where it is reasonable and beneficial. What any responsible American should do is learn what your President, Senator and Representative have on their agenda. And do not take it second-hand from the lens of polarizing media, but from the politician's own complete statements.
Let's take our president-elect as an example. One of the things he has promised to do is to curtail freedom of the press through promoting specific libel laws, which would make it very dangerous to publish any editorials and effectively silence opposition. Clearly, this is a serious violation of our nation's constitutional principles. With this kind of agenda, the citizens should fervently oppose his administration through their regional representatives in Washington.
Another item he has promised is the establishment of term limits for elected, as well as appointed, government officials. This would prevent the career politician in Congress, which is currently a person who remains in his or her post until they die, making them a consistent steady target for special interest groups and their lobbyists. Reasonably set term limits would allow these elected officials to be closer in touch with their electorate and with the reality of modern times.
We need to start seeing our politicians the same way they see us (their voters) - what can this person do for us and what should this person not do to us? What the American people can no longer afford to do is oppose a politician's entire agenda, because of certain items that we deem to be unconscionable or unethical. We have done that with George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama for the past sixteen years with the result being a Congress that can hardly get any legislation passed and a bitterly divided nation over a silly ideological boundary. Every politician has points that are good and others that are bad.
So speak to your regional Washington representative. Voice your opposition to the politician's terrible ideas, voice your support for the politician's good ideas, discuss the details of each - you may learn something. But don't sit out the next four years because you are unhappy with the result, do not oppose 100% of any political agenda and do not support 100% of any political agenda. In my experience, almost every politician is a mix of bad ideas and good ideas.
Remember, only a certain type deals in absolutes.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Election Takeaway
What the Trump election run has taught us, is that it doesn't matter how unfavorable the candidate is. What really matters is his/her appeal to the anti-establishment crowd. While the Clinton camp rightfully focused on Donald Trumps apparent flaws, it didn't detract from his appeal to the people who saw him as a change-up to the conventional politicians.
Just look at the number of newly registered Republicans, Democrats and Independents that voted for him. Look at the people who have never voted before - these are the people who have been apathetic towards politicians, because they believed that conventional politics did not serve their needs.
Now Trump will rightfully receive a backlash for not delivering on his outlandish promises, that is certain. But what is also certain is that the landscape of politics in the United States has changed forever. For the first time since I can remember, the politicians have been forced to consider the entire population and not just the target electorate segments. The average American, one who isn't aligned to any of the conventional segments will have to be considered in future elections.
And that is the right way to do things, for all of American people's sake. It is just a shame that we had to take the narcissist Orange Julius Caesar to the Oval Office in order to get people to care enough to get out and vote the establishment out of power.
Where do we go from here? Well that is all up to us - the people. We can either go to our opposite corners and throw feces at each other, or we can come together as a whole and build a broad consensus that moves us forward and forces our representatives to actually represent our interests.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Terence, Tulsa and Transparency
I am usually the first person to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Their job is often dangerous, thankless and lacking proper compensation. Their successes and sacrifices often do not make the news, while their failures are highly scrutinized. I always plead with people to preserve the innocent until proven guilty mentality with the police officers, as they do with any other person accused of criminal conduct.
Having said that, the evidence presented by the police department regarding the events of this past Friday night surrounding the death of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa Oklahoma is overwhelmingly damning. One simply cannot defend a team of officers that do not communicate as to who is the lead in approaching the perceived threat and who is in the role of a backup. Furthermore, the use of deadly force by a police officer should be the last resort and not a coercive instrument of compliance.
Terence Crutcher, aged 40, was returning from class at a Community College. He was attempting to educate himself and make his family proud, when his vehicle broke down. Shortly thereafter, Terence lost his life. At best, this was Police officer's incompetence and negligence. At worst, this was racial discrimination and a lack of value for a man's life.
Based on the information given by the Tulsa police department, officer Betty Shelby arrived at the scene first and found Terence looking intoxicated and unresponsive to her questions. After questioning Terence regarding his ownership of the vehicle and receiving no response, Terence raised his hands high in the air and proceeded to walk away from officer Shelby's vehicle toward his own. By this time, the police team responding to the dispatch call arrived at the scene and Terence continued to walk toward his SUV with his hands still in the air. When he arrived at his vehicle, Terence was seen to either lean against his vehicle or put his hands on the vehicle. Because of his unresponsive, and allegedly unpredictable behavior, officer Tyler Turnbough deployed his taser. At the same time, officer Betty Shelby discharged her firearm and fatally shot Terence.
While officer Tyler Turnbough correctly deployed his taser, in accordance with a non-compliant individual who is perceived as a threat, officer Betty Shelby acted irrationally by using deadly force. The released video and audio can confirm Terence's and the police movements as described by the Tulsa police department. The released video and audio cannot confirm whether or not Terence was intoxicated or unresponsive. What we know for certain is that he did not have a weapon on him or in his vehicle, he did not move toward officers in a threatening manner and he was killed in the process. The video also disproves Shelby's attorney defense that Terence was reaching into the vehicle, because the window on the driver's side of the vehicle is clearly seen as rolled up from the helicopter camera. Lastly, the audio from the helicopter contains a female voice saying 'that looks like a bad dude', which shows that Terence's appearance played into the assessment of at least one officer.
In the name of transparency, the Tulsa police department released video from the dash cam of the second police cruiser, as well as video and audio from the helicopter. I applaud the Tulsa police department for transparency in doing so. However, if you really want to uphold transparency, do so in prosecuting officer Betty Shelby to the fullest extent of the law. You have the responsibility to the people whom you serve - the people of Tulsa Oklahoma.
Having said that, the evidence presented by the police department regarding the events of this past Friday night surrounding the death of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa Oklahoma is overwhelmingly damning. One simply cannot defend a team of officers that do not communicate as to who is the lead in approaching the perceived threat and who is in the role of a backup. Furthermore, the use of deadly force by a police officer should be the last resort and not a coercive instrument of compliance.
Terence Crutcher, aged 40, was returning from class at a Community College. He was attempting to educate himself and make his family proud, when his vehicle broke down. Shortly thereafter, Terence lost his life. At best, this was Police officer's incompetence and negligence. At worst, this was racial discrimination and a lack of value for a man's life.
Based on the information given by the Tulsa police department, officer Betty Shelby arrived at the scene first and found Terence looking intoxicated and unresponsive to her questions. After questioning Terence regarding his ownership of the vehicle and receiving no response, Terence raised his hands high in the air and proceeded to walk away from officer Shelby's vehicle toward his own. By this time, the police team responding to the dispatch call arrived at the scene and Terence continued to walk toward his SUV with his hands still in the air. When he arrived at his vehicle, Terence was seen to either lean against his vehicle or put his hands on the vehicle. Because of his unresponsive, and allegedly unpredictable behavior, officer Tyler Turnbough deployed his taser. At the same time, officer Betty Shelby discharged her firearm and fatally shot Terence.
While officer Tyler Turnbough correctly deployed his taser, in accordance with a non-compliant individual who is perceived as a threat, officer Betty Shelby acted irrationally by using deadly force. The released video and audio can confirm Terence's and the police movements as described by the Tulsa police department. The released video and audio cannot confirm whether or not Terence was intoxicated or unresponsive. What we know for certain is that he did not have a weapon on him or in his vehicle, he did not move toward officers in a threatening manner and he was killed in the process. The video also disproves Shelby's attorney defense that Terence was reaching into the vehicle, because the window on the driver's side of the vehicle is clearly seen as rolled up from the helicopter camera. Lastly, the audio from the helicopter contains a female voice saying 'that looks like a bad dude', which shows that Terence's appearance played into the assessment of at least one officer.
In the name of transparency, the Tulsa police department released video from the dash cam of the second police cruiser, as well as video and audio from the helicopter. I applaud the Tulsa police department for transparency in doing so. However, if you really want to uphold transparency, do so in prosecuting officer Betty Shelby to the fullest extent of the law. You have the responsibility to the people whom you serve - the people of Tulsa Oklahoma.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
In Defense of the Anthem
Today we celebrate the 15th anniversary of a terrible act of terrorism on American soil - the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives, because a group of Islamic Extremists took action based on a hateful intolerant ideology and their lack of respect for life.
One of the most memorable and enduring images in the aftermath of those attacks was the torn flag that remained at Ground Zero. The entire nation came together and mourned with symbols of remembrance and American patriotism front and center. We recognized, that despite our differences, we were all Americans and all share in the road to healing from this tragedy.
That message was not lost in the world of sports. The teams of usually hated rivals came together in a show of solidarity with sports teams singing the Star Spangled Banner and America The Beautiful together. They didn't merely 'go through the motions', they showed solidarity with all Americans who recognized and mourned the loss.
This level of solidarity is more important than ever today, with certain groups in our society more entrenched than ever. These groups show layers of division that cannot conceive of a point of view other than their own righteous cause. Furthermore, anyone who dares challenge those views is vilified to the greatest extent of their fact-stretched under-informed opinions. Fifteen year later, we stand more divided than I ever recall in recent history.
So while these groups may see the Anthem or the Flag as a symbol of oppression, many others see them as a sign of hope and memory for those we have lost. Immigrants, such as myself, see these as a symbol of a new life within the adopted country. Servicemen and women see them as a means of pride and paying homage to their fallen friends and those who came to serve before them.
When a protest is made against the Anthem or the Flag, the individuals who do this drive the divisions between the people who respect and honor these patriotic tenets and themselves. If you are serious about bringing awareness to your cause and swaying the opinion of others, your primary purpose is to attract support for your cause. When you protest the Anthem or the Flag, you are automatically driving a significant portion of American people away from the cause you are promoting, before anyone has a chance to hear the message.
In essence, you are defeating your own cause from the very beginning. People tend to confuse popularity for effectiveness in this era of social media and hype. While this campaign has enjoyed great popularity, it's effectiveness has been negligible and even counter-productive for the aforementioned reasons.
Just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. In the words of Henry DeSalvo from Big Trouble: "There isn't any rule that says I can't come over here and fart on your entree. But I don't do it. And do you know why? Because it would be bad manners"
One of the most memorable and enduring images in the aftermath of those attacks was the torn flag that remained at Ground Zero. The entire nation came together and mourned with symbols of remembrance and American patriotism front and center. We recognized, that despite our differences, we were all Americans and all share in the road to healing from this tragedy.
That message was not lost in the world of sports. The teams of usually hated rivals came together in a show of solidarity with sports teams singing the Star Spangled Banner and America The Beautiful together. They didn't merely 'go through the motions', they showed solidarity with all Americans who recognized and mourned the loss.
This level of solidarity is more important than ever today, with certain groups in our society more entrenched than ever. These groups show layers of division that cannot conceive of a point of view other than their own righteous cause. Furthermore, anyone who dares challenge those views is vilified to the greatest extent of their fact-stretched under-informed opinions. Fifteen year later, we stand more divided than I ever recall in recent history.
So while these groups may see the Anthem or the Flag as a symbol of oppression, many others see them as a sign of hope and memory for those we have lost. Immigrants, such as myself, see these as a symbol of a new life within the adopted country. Servicemen and women see them as a means of pride and paying homage to their fallen friends and those who came to serve before them.
When a protest is made against the Anthem or the Flag, the individuals who do this drive the divisions between the people who respect and honor these patriotic tenets and themselves. If you are serious about bringing awareness to your cause and swaying the opinion of others, your primary purpose is to attract support for your cause. When you protest the Anthem or the Flag, you are automatically driving a significant portion of American people away from the cause you are promoting, before anyone has a chance to hear the message.
In essence, you are defeating your own cause from the very beginning. People tend to confuse popularity for effectiveness in this era of social media and hype. While this campaign has enjoyed great popularity, it's effectiveness has been negligible and even counter-productive for the aforementioned reasons.
Just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean it is a good idea. In the words of Henry DeSalvo from Big Trouble: "There isn't any rule that says I can't come over here and fart on your entree. But I don't do it. And do you know why? Because it would be bad manners"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)