Social Agenda, Helping or Hurting America?

Follow @aaronrtbass on Twitter


Who to vote for?  What is this politician's platform, and what is that politicians platform?  In a world where money essentially buys an election there are few real choices to be the voice of reason.  What we lack in our political process is the common sense reasoning to what government should really be about. The best interests of the people, and how does the nation sustain itself in the world theater.
Instead of debating policy issues over how to efficiently run the economy the United States is fighting social issues that take up precious time in heated debates.
I conducted a poll from April 5th to April 7th regarding economic issues versus social issues with some interesting results.  It is no secret that the U.S. economy is gaining some steam albeit at a slower pace than anyone would like.  I believe social issues are diverting the ability of the nation, and politicians to legislate effectively in the best interest of the economy.  A strong, self sustaining economy is the best way for a country to exhibit it's influence on the world stage thus allowing individuals of that country to prosper beyond their current economic status.
Granted, if everyone in the U.S. were millionaires inflation would run rampant.  I don't believe that everyone needs to be a millionaire rather they need the ability to rise above their current situation into a better one.  A strong economy provides that ability, and allows for the creation of small business along with a chance for people to become independent.
Social issues however keep sidetracking what should be our main issue, the economy.  There are no secrets here, my political tendencies lean to the left especially on social issues.  However, I find myself agreeing with the right on retrospects to the right.  The main problem I have with the right is the firm, extreme stance on social issues.  I cannot bring myself to support a platform that does not believe in equal rights for all.  The right bestows upon themselves to be the defenders of the constitution but the complete context of the constitution was to initiate the platform by which our government was created.  The constitution was not created to widen gaps between society.  The first amendment to the constitution is generally called "Free Speech Amendment."  The founding fathers could not have imagined the cases being taken up today in regard to freedom of speech.  The first amendment also constitutes religion.  In particular the interpretation that government shall not promote a preference to one religion over another.  If we take the interpretation of the religious clause to it's literal sense then the question becomes why are we debating laws and social issues in the name of God?  Most all religions claim a higher being with the general name for that higher being "God."  If you are Muslim the name is Allah, and if you are Mormon the name is Elohim.  Returning to the main point, if the first amendment dictates zero preference over a single religion and "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" then social issues related to religion should not be debated on the floor of congress in the first place.
However, voters are pushing for social issues more and more every year.  For example the push to ban, or allow gay marriage is always brought up in legislation discussion.  To set the record straight I do support the equality of all including the right to marry no matter the sex.  That right should be with the people though and not with the government.  The same can be said for the reverse, the right to choose if a church or establishment decides to wed a gay couple should be up to that establishment without recourse from government interference.  Simply put, if you want to marry someone of the same sex then that is your decision, if you are an establishment that chooses not to accept couples of the same sex there will be plenty of other places that will.  The gay community needs to understand that there will be places who do not wish to honor their business.  Forcing legal action against those establishments does nothing but harm both sides.  Ultra conservative groups create hate campaigns towards the LGBT community, and liberal groups keep creating campaigns to promote the other side as bigots.  However, speaking in economic terms the best thing the gay community can do to push for all establishments to accept them is bring their business to places that will conduct business with them.  Soon enough those places that once denied services such as weddings will be forced to accept it or economically find other ways to keep an edge over the competition.  Nothing creates acceptance faster than economic results.
Where all of this becomes a problem in the best interest of the country is outlined in the poll results.
In a question asking about the importance of social issues to a respondents vote, 1 being the least important, and 10 being the most important, the mean response was 7 with 9 being the most commonly used response.  In a question that asked about the importance of economic issues to a respondents vote the mean response was 8 with 8 as the most commonly used response.  In a question that asked if a candidate supported a respondents social agenda but not their economic agenda, would the respondent still vote for that politician, 54% said they would vote for that candidate, while 46% said they would not.  When the question was reversed and asked if the candidate supported their economic agenda but not the respondents social agenda, only 31% said they would vote for that candidate while 69% said they would not.
What the data tells us is that the public has a fixation on social issues over economic agenda.  Politicians are sent to Washington to do a job and they keep their jobs only by winning elections.  Accordingly, if the public is more worried about social issues rather than economic issues then politicians are going to fight over social issues to keep winning elections.
If the United States is to keep prospering, and maintain its viability on the world stage the first thing that needs to happen is the mindset.  Citizens really need to start getting over themselves and realize that your beliefs are not everyone else's beliefs.  Attempting to legislate your belief diverts attention from real economic issues.  Congratulations to you for believing marriage is between a man and a women.  Happy?  Now, did that solve the issues with your company expanding so that you could gain a promotion, and move into either A) a better neighborhood, or B) a better financial position?  No, marriage between a gay couple or straight couple probably did not solve those economic problems for you now did it.
Allow our government to debate the real issues that affect American lives.  Leave out the social issues for your own home preference and choose to associate with individuals that reflect your beliefs whatever they may be.  The economy should be our main American focus.

Extremism, America is not Excluded.

Follow @aaronrtbass on twitter

When we think of the term "extremist" the average American automatically assumes the discussion is around Islam, or Muslims.  After all, extremism is regulated only to the Middle East countries and America is free of this ideology, right?
If you think extremism is only a Muslim problem than you have another thing coming.  American extremist actions are gaining more ground every day.  Pat Dollard a former talent agent turned war correspondent tweets tonight "if 1 more act of Muslim terrorism, its time for Americans to slaughter Muslims in the streets, all of them."  If a Muslim says it's time to kill Americans we are ready to go to war but if an American says it's time to kill Muslims we call it free speech?  Calling for a blatant genocide over a terrorist act is about as extreme as you can get.
What Dollard fails to realize is that extremists exist in every religious sect, heck any sect for that matter have had extremists for thousands of years to deal with.  Lest we forget the KKK claimed their actions in the name of Christianity persecuting any religion, creed, or race that was not the same as theirs.  I don't recall Americans calling for the death of all Christians if another act of violence was committed by the group. German Nazi's in war torn Europe marched millions of Jew's to their deaths in a real genocide yet Jewish Americans didn't go out and mass murder Germans in the streets of New York.
Another Man in Florida burned down his neighbors home tonight because "they are lesbians."  Two adults, and 8 children were in the home he ignited all over his "beliefs."  I don't see LGBT groups sacrificing straight people in the courtyards tonight over the incident.
Dollard and any of his followers who condone these types of actions are no better than the extremists they also condemn.  Muslims are bound to have some bad apples, in fact any sizable religion is going to have a few.  If you need a reminder of this we can look much closer to home, Timothy Mcveigh.  Mcveigh as we all know detonated a fertilizer bomb at the Federal Building in Oklahoma over the government actions in Waco, Texas and general American Policy.  Prior to learning that an American committed this horrific act of terror, Ibrahim Ahmad a Jordanian who resided in Oklahoma was the prime suspect, albeit falsely accused out of the media jumping the gun and pure coincidence. America has become so "Islamaphobic" that even the media goes to extremes when reporting suspected terror acts.  Glenn Beck is now being sued by Abdulrahman Alharbi for falsely identifying Alharbi as a prime suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings.  Beck accused Alharbi of funding the attacks even after it was proven Alharbi was merely a witness to the attack.  Glenn Beck destroyed this mans name over the airwaves even after he was cleared by authorities.  There is no accountability in modern media.  Speculation reporting is doing more damage to our societal norms all in the name of ratings.  What's worse is the speculation fuels a growing fire within our sharply divided country spewing hate to those who do not understand what they are hating.  Instead, people are blindly following the speculation as if it were truth encouraging others to hate along with them.  
John McCain famously corrected a "supporter" whom stated to Senator McCain during the 2008 campaign "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's not uh — he's an Arab. He's not — "  McCain quickly took the microphone back stating "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."  If you followed the 2008 campaign you would find it easy to see how this supporter gained her facts.  Extreme right wing organizations were trying to drive fear toward the Obama campaign almost daily.  Birther's were attempting to prove Obama was born in Kenya thus ineligible to take the oath of office, and Fox News was inferring he was a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein and his Father was Muslim.  Obama is a Christian.
Extremism takes many forms, and no one is safe from extremist people or extremist views.  However, extremism only takes shape when those who are being extreme do not, or are unwilling to understand the world outside of their own.

Judges and Party Affiliation

Something that has always perplexed me are judges claiming party affiliation.  Call me crazy but isn't a "judge" supposed to be an impartial party to the judicial process that makes decisions based on the facts, and laws at hand?
Of course this is election season and the various campaigns are in full force.  In the particular district I reside in there is a heated campaign for an appellate court seat.  Both the Republican and Democratic candidate are using all forms of media to promote their worthiness to sit on the throne.  The good news is the candidates are not using attack ad's against each other.  However, I still find it ridiculous that someone who is supposed to pass an unbiased judgement against another will do so under a party affiliation.  Granted the Supreme Court houses conservative individuals and liberal ones.  The difference being each one does not identify themselves with a party.  
This how the judicial system is supposed to be, unaffiliated.  Law enforcement even gets involved when it elects the top sheriff running as one party or another.  
When you run under party affiliation for positions such as a Judge, or Sheriff you are typically accepting support from that party.  When it comes time to pay the piper in your courtroom, or even the jailhouse, how can the public be assured that an unbiased decision is being made in accordance with the law?  Running under a party flag doesn't give you that ability especially when one of your supporters finds themselves across from you in a legal proceeding.  
When it comes to the judicial system all candidates should be unaffiliated and run on merit only.  Running under any party status does not fully allow for due process to complete its course.

Tolerance

Lets talk about tolerance.  Actually, I have a better idea, lets define it first.

tol·er·ance  noun \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\

: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own

: the ability to accept, experience, or survive something harmful or unpleasant

Now that we know what it actually means lets take a look at how politics is using the term today.  Conservative pundits are trying to make a case that liberals are the intolerant party, and liberals have been stating for decades that conservatives are the intolerant party.  

It is easy to see how most people can look at the conservative agenda and see intolerance at it's finest.  I mean when you claim that religion is the reason for attempting legislation that denies human's the choice to marry, no matter the sex, you have to consider that less than tolerant.  Liberals are no better off as we would have to agree that we are fairly intolerant of the conservative agenda but the claim is because of the conservative intolerance in the first place.

The number of conservatives in America has not changed.  Rather, it is the growing number of liberal minded people who have been rising as a result of the social exposure media allows.  The changing demographics of this country also plays a huge role in changing mindsets.  Social issues such as gay rights are front page news whereas in decades past it was an afterthought of an underground society.  Social media such as this very page you are reading allows for everyone to speak their mind, open their hearts, and bring together vast segments of the population to gain confidence that there are like minded individuals out there ready to speak the same to the values they hold.  

Social media though has also given voice to the extreme right wing conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin and they are using it to attack back.  Conservative pundits are claiming that there is a war on religion in this country.  To an extent lets go ahead and agree with that statement.  There is a war on religion but not one that they could have not otherwise seen coming.  You cannot suppress a group of people for too long before they begin to fight back against that which they are being oppressed for.  For instance religion had made being gay a social stigma to a point where being gay could result in you being killed in some states.  Homosexuality was considered, and in some respects still considered a disease, or unnatural all because of religious beliefs.  Religion and the will of god has been the driving force behind this stigma since the beginning.  The bible states that homosexuality is wrong.  The bible also states that we must stone adulterers, and cursing out our parents is cause for death.  Don't get me wrong, I felt like I was going to die the first time I cussed out my parents but alas I am still here.  If we aren't killing hormonal teenagers in the streets over a few choice words then why are we waging a war on homosexuality in the name of the bible?  It seems to me if we are going to take the literal word of God that something is or is not right then why not take all the words of god and live them to the full virtue as intended? 

The reason we don't is because the relevance of stoning someone in a public square over sleeping with their assistant instead of their spouse is such common place that there is not enough reality TV airtime in this world to publicly display such a spectacle.  It is the same reason we aren't picking off teenagers for dropping f-bombs at the dinner table, there would be no teenagers left to snipe after the first day.  Conservatives say liberals are the intolerant ones for attacking religion but it was never a problem when religion attacked others.

Tolerance is a two way street.  If you want tolerance towards your beliefs you need to show tolerance to other peoples beliefs.  Hey look at that, sounds like something your parents probably taught you as a kid but somehow we have all forgotten.

A good friend of mine stated this quote the other day; "If you feel the need to legislate your faith, you have completely missed the mark on what religious freedom is to begin with."  - Tayyib Rashid.  

Religion holds a place in the world but as ideas.  In America religion should not be the governance to the land of the free because if it is then the other 4,199 other religions that do not fit in within your belief system are not exactly free.  Tolerance begins within everyone, either you have the ability to do it or not.  Claiming intolerance when you cannot tolerate is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Russian Ultimatum to Ukraine Military Personnel In Crimea

Russia is playing the international stage by stating it only has it's citizens interests in mind while at the same time invading a sovereign nation with military force.  When the Syrian crisis was about to spiral out of control Russia stepped in and called for cooler heads to prevail.  Urging the United States to work with the international community to come to peaceful terms with Assad.  
Fast forward to Ukraine and now Russia has taken the opposite stance on the situation, and to larger extents than the U.S. was willing to do in Syria.  By invading the Crimean Peninsula Russia has set the precedent that it is in their best interest to protect Russian citizens there.  It is no secret that the Ukraine was experiencing political upheaval over the corruption from within the government.  The bulk of the corruption was fueled by Russian interests in the first place.  The ousted president fled to Moscow and is now under Russian protection.  How is that any different than a gang member running back to the other side of town only to return with 50 of his hardest hitting friends?  I applauded Putin during the Syrian crisis as I believed that the international community was overreacting and could have found diplomatic solutions.  Now, Putin has gone off the reservation and begun preparations for another full scale invasion, a-la Georgia 2008.
A sovereign nation such as Ukraine is allowed to experience political upheaval.  When the people believe their government is not working for them they should, and by all rights, be able to rise against such government.  Clearly there was enough support to oppose Viktor Yanukovich or it would never have happened.  This is called democracy.  The same democracy that Putin called for in Syria is now one that he is tossing aside and intervening militarily in the Ukraine.
If Putin really had the best interest of Russian citizens in the Ukraine in mind he would allow the U.N. to intervene instead of taking action on his own.  This is a political move to annex a portion of a country that houses his Black Sea Fleet and forgo future payments to lease the ports.  Issuing an ultimatum of "Leave by 5am or face a storm" is not looking out for the best interest of your people in a region, especially when you are telling this to unarmed guards.
Putin is making a clear play to annex the Crimean Peninsula and for all purposes he does hold the upper hand here.  He has been playing chess with the world while everyone has been focused on the middle east.  He saw his opportunity in the Ukraine, and grabbed it.
Twenty three years after the cold war ended, it took less than a week to spark international tensions again, and could spiral out of control.  I for one hope cooler heads do prevail, and it starts with Putin.