As I was driving to work way too early this morning, the Green Day song 21st Century Breakdown was on the radio and the lyrics caught my attention, "Oh, Dream America Dream, I can't even sleep from brainstorms till dawn."
Everyone has their own brainstorms that keeps them awake at night or wakes them up way too early in the morning. In my case, my own idea of the American Dream woke me up this morning. People are counting on me to get their work done so that they can pursue their American Dream.
As such, I'm at work before 5 am on a day that most of the Country will be on vacation. Fortunately for me, my wife supports me and told me "good luck" as I went out the door this morning. Knowing that it will probably be her "brainstorms" that wake her up before dawn next time around certainly adds understanding and camaraderie to the situation.
Why? I often jokingly say that I work hard because my family cursed me with that #*!@ Midwestern work ethic. Expanding on that concept, I think I do it because I know that I can help people succeed and by helping them pursue their dreams I hope my family finds theirs too.
Too often people hide their American Dream as it seems unseemly to talk about. While it is romantic to talk conceptually about American hard work and success, those that are pursuing it too openly can be labeled. I am proud of my often awkward attempt to find it and hopefully you will be too.
Happy New Year and may you (openly) join me in stumbling (pun intended) our way to our American Dream.
______________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.htmlMake sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Best Cure for the Unemployed is a Job!
As an advocate of strengthening the social safety-net, I am troubled by the recent attempt to use unemployment payments as a poverty reduction program. The extension of unemployment insurance ("UI") benefits is the Democrat's recent rallying cry for helping those in need. Our own Congressman, Tim Walz advocates for the stimulus nature of these benefits as being the "fastest way to get money into our economy." This argument, however, relies upon the mistaken logic that we can help the poor by giving a few select individuals up to 3 1/2 years of UI benefits to find a job.
Since July of 2008, the Democrat-controlled Congress has been extending unemployment insurance ("UI") benefits -- well past the 26 weeks of regular benefits. At last count, the Federal Government has financed up to 73 weeks of additional benefits. According to the State of Minnesota, the purpose of UI is to provide temporary benefits and to provide a level of economic stability. Certainly, massive lay-offs in a community can decimate local businesses, schools and units of government. UI helps in these situations. Likewise, providing short-term help following the tragedy of a job loss provides an important cushion to help families get back on their feet.
These objectives are much different, however, than Democrats' current hijacking of the UI program for wealth redistribution. As emphasized by the 2010 Hormel Hunger Survey, there remain way too many people that are suffering from true poverty. The fact that the UI program is not means tested based on assets or other income presents a striking problem with the use of UI as a poverty reducing program. Ironically, a fat cat executives' laid off husband will receive UI benefits just like a single mom out of work from a factory closing. We can certainly find a better way to help those in need!
Last month, Congress discontinued these record breaking extension of UI benefits. Tim Walz again broke ranks with Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson in supporting the extension. This vote opened the door for a discussion of this important issue. This important debate continues today despite Democrats attempt to mute this discussion through the use of class warfare rhetoric. Consider the following "messaging" that we have been hearing from Democrats:
"UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, BUT TAX INCREASES FOR JOB CREATORS WILL CUT THE DEFICIT?
A November 30th, Star Tribune headline summarizes this mistaken argument best, "Cut-off of jobless aid would shrink economic growth and raise unemployment and poverty rates." They argue that cutting off unemployment benefits will increase unemployment rates. According to this logic, UI benefits "ripple though the economy" eventually into the hands of the job providers, allowing those businesses to "hire more people."
To avoid the wrath of the public, Democrats have perfected the argument that government spending has a stimulative factor. Under this banner, nearly every dollar of government program spending actually returns more dollars to the economy. As most of us learned from our parents, this "you need to spend money to save money" motto does work in the real world.
Since July of 2008, the Democrat-controlled Congress has been extending unemployment insurance ("UI") benefits -- well past the 26 weeks of regular benefits. At last count, the Federal Government has financed up to 73 weeks of additional benefits. According to the State of Minnesota, the purpose of UI is to provide temporary benefits and to provide a level of economic stability. Certainly, massive lay-offs in a community can decimate local businesses, schools and units of government. UI helps in these situations. Likewise, providing short-term help following the tragedy of a job loss provides an important cushion to help families get back on their feet.
These objectives are much different, however, than Democrats' current hijacking of the UI program for wealth redistribution. As emphasized by the 2010 Hormel Hunger Survey, there remain way too many people that are suffering from true poverty. The fact that the UI program is not means tested based on assets or other income presents a striking problem with the use of UI as a poverty reducing program. Ironically, a fat cat executives' laid off husband will receive UI benefits just like a single mom out of work from a factory closing. We can certainly find a better way to help those in need!
Last month, Congress discontinued these record breaking extension of UI benefits. Tim Walz again broke ranks with Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson in supporting the extension. This vote opened the door for a discussion of this important issue. This important debate continues today despite Democrats attempt to mute this discussion through the use of class warfare rhetoric. Consider the following "messaging" that we have been hearing from Democrats:
"UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, BUT TAX INCREASES FOR JOB CREATORS WILL CUT THE DEFICIT?
A November 30th, Star Tribune headline summarizes this mistaken argument best, "Cut-off of jobless aid would shrink economic growth and raise unemployment and poverty rates." They argue that cutting off unemployment benefits will increase unemployment rates. According to this logic, UI benefits "ripple though the economy" eventually into the hands of the job providers, allowing those businesses to "hire more people."
To avoid the wrath of the public, Democrats have perfected the argument that government spending has a stimulative factor. Under this banner, nearly every dollar of government program spending actually returns more dollars to the economy. As most of us learned from our parents, this "you need to spend money to save money" motto does work in the real world.
This reality, however, does not stop this maddening messaging. As argued by Progressive Think-tank, Minnesota 2020, "This (cutting UI benefits) is in sharp contrast to a tax break for the rich because higher income families typically save that money; therefore it has little economic stimulative effect." Apparently, the "ripple" effect only works in Dr. Seuss fashion when it is run through the Government's star removing machine. To believe this argument, you must accept the fact that couples who make more than $250,000 are so rich that any extra money they make will go into a vault, not back into the economy. Like Sylvester McMonkey-McBean, Nancy Pelosi and her troops capitalize on class warfare by trying to convince some that they have "stars on their bellies" that must be removed. According to Pelosi-McBean,"Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America increases the deficit, and the record shows that it does not create jobs" Yet, they argue that the money spent on UI benefits "ripples" through the economy to those same job providers, increasing employment. Like the Sketches in the Dr. Seuss book, the American public will eventually see through this charade.
Do you call it a tax increase or a tax cut? Tim Walz and his allies want to avoid a tax increase for those that fit their definition of middle class, but wail with pain over giving tax breaks for the wealthy. Walz goes on to accuse Republicans of shedding "crocodile tears" over the budget deficit and then giving American fat cats the tax break. Yet, Walz further erodes his long-gone fiscal conservative "Blue Dog" designation by supporting nearly every spending proposal that comes his way. Apparently, worries about the deficit ebb and flow depending on which parties' objectives are in the cross hairs. Tim Walz and his spending allies pretend to be a deficit hawks only when it aligns with their agenda.
Caught in a vicious cycle, most States continue to borrow funds from the federal government in order to afford the continued payment of UI benefits. As explained in a November 20, 2010 Wall Street Journal Article, in 2009 states collected $31 billion in UI taxes, but paid out $79.4 billion in benefits. As of April, 2010, Minnesota had borrowed $638 million from the Federal Government, which puts Minnesota at number 16 in the Country. This so-called stimulus money is not a grant or "free money." Instead, these funds must be repaid by future potential job creators -- threatening to further erode our business climate.
What unemployed workers need is a job, not continued deficit spending so that they can receive only a small percentage of their earning capacity. As caring communities, we can do better. We need to target those that need help and make sure that they do not fall through the safety net.
While temporary UI benefits serve an important purpose in the helping those in need, the continued extension of these benefits has morphed this program beyond recognition. Congress should stop this shell game and focus on encouraging, not stifling economic growth. Fortunately, President Obama and the newly elected Republicans seem to have found a compromise that will hopefully not stifle any economic recovery. While Tim Walz may not be happy that his political agenda has been compromised, main street will surely appreciate the boost. In the end, a stronger main street means more jobs -- the ultimate cure for unemployment.
______________________________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
How Now, Brown Cow? What's next in D.C.?
How now, brown cow -- or what's next? Another election, another wave -- that seems to be the theme across the country. Republicans now hold 239 Congressional seats to the Democrats 185. Not since, 1948 have so many seats changed parties in a single election. In the Senate, the Democrats held onto their narrow majority.The state of the economy, general unhappiness with Obama and a conservative tilting voter base are all cited as reasons for the swing.
The head of the transition team for Congressional Republicans is certainly sending a positive message, referring to common sense as an endangered species in D.C. politics. Again, we can only hope this attitude continues as the new political normal in D.C. politics.
Some of the top issues we will be hearing about are as follows:
1. Avoiding tax increases.
This issue has been on the radar for both main street and wall street -- whether to raise income taxes across the board. John Mauldin, an economist whom I follow, had this to say,
"If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, in my opinion it is almost a lock that we go into a recession next year, unemployment goes to 12%, and underemployment gets even worse."
A recent New York Times article provides an overview of some of the political options that will be in play -- allow expiration of all tax cuts (expected to generate $260 billion per year in revenue); permanently extend all tax cuts; create a new tax bracket for those making over $1 million; or permanent extension of tax cuts under $250,000 (married) and a temporary extension of the tax cuts for incomes over $250,000. The last concept is referred to as "decoupling" and has been promoted by President Obama, although the White House recently indicated that they may be open to a broader approach.
This issue affects all working Americans as all of the tax brackets are set to increase at the end of this year -- Happy New Year! In addition, capital gains and dividend rates will increase and the marriage penalty and phase-outs will return. Read here for more.
2. Immigration reform.
Obama lobbed a bomb on this issue just prior to the election when he told Latinos to "punish our enemies" and effectively accused Republicans of being un-American. The current chatter from the new Republican leadership is that they hope to focus on "streamlined enforcement of current laws." The new Republican wave, however, is lead by a number of dynamic Hispanics, including Marco Rubio, Senator-elect from Florida, who are expected to help find a way to fix the immigration quagmire.
3. Obamacare.
Many Republicans campaigned on the "repeal Obamacare" platform. Now, there will be a push to repeal and replace Obamacare. Whether this resistance will be symbolic or actual will need to play itself out. Watch for the "defund Obamacare" motto as the initial step and repeal as hot topic for the 2012 Presidential run-up.
4. Political climate.
Another factor interjected into all of these debates is the release of the recent draft Debt Commission Report. There is enough in this report so that both sides have referred to the proposals as "dead on arrival." Deep cuts and an overdue review of the entitlement programs causes the left to bristle. The proposed tax increases are equally unacceptable by Republicans. If both sides are unhappy, that generally means its' a good compromise.
The final thing to be aware of -- the next election will be a humdinger. The Presidential election will consume reams of paper and bandwidth. Leaders in D.C. have a short window to actually address these important issues. Eventually, the politics of the Presidential election will force each side back to their respective corners.
____________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Monday, November 01, 2010
The End of Extremes... Please!
PLEASE VOTE! It is your civic duty.
Trends are funny things! In 2006, a wave swept Republicans from the four corners of the Country, leaving a "new mandate" in place. My message following that election was, "expect the same stuff, different party." Meaning that the other party would swing to the other far extreme. With the momentum that followed, the 2008 election garnered a substantially similar result.
Following the Obama win, I was quoted as follows in the Albert Lea Tribune:
Unfortunately, the party winning two successive elections with those types of numbers felt that they had been given a mandate. As a result we were given massive bailouts, staggering deficits and health-care reform no matter what the cost. Unfortunately, these extremes have done little to ease the fears that we all feel on mainstreet.
As described in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Americans see the Democrats as the party of big government and Republicans as the party of big business. The author concludes, "That leaves no party left to represent the American people."
Hopefully, both parties will realize that we need to find a new normal. The problems we face are real and affect real people in a huge way. Political bickering should not be the status quo.
It appears a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will take control of the US Congress and may take over the US Senate. In our First Congressional District, Randy Demmer certainly can win the day with the enthusiasm gap and a good tail wind from the national mood. He will be a great leader and will help eliminate the extremes. Truth Check -- it is not true that Demmer supports privatizing social security. Read Tim Penny's (former Democratic Congressman) refute here.
As for Minnesota State races, Tom Emmer is still in the hunt for Governor, despite his history of extremes. Yet, Dayton is so extreme in the other direction! It's been an odd year for the Governor's race, with our local paper even refusing to make an endorsement for Governor. Perhaps a split House = R; and Senate = D would be a good "governor" for the Governor?
Let's hope this prediction by commentator, Micheal Lewitt does not come true, "... bad ideas are likely to gain ascendancy and provide political cover for American politicians trying to avoid making the tough choices needed to right the American economy."
Hopefully, this will be the year where the swing will not be as extreme and government can roll up its collective sleeves and get some work done.
Remember -- VOTE!!
______________________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Trends are funny things! In 2006, a wave swept Republicans from the four corners of the Country, leaving a "new mandate" in place. My message following that election was, "expect the same stuff, different party." Meaning that the other party would swing to the other far extreme. With the momentum that followed, the 2008 election garnered a substantially similar result.
Following the Obama win, I was quoted as follows in the Albert Lea Tribune:
Matt Benda, former Republican candidate for the state House District 27A seat, said recently politics have been so dramatic from one extreme to the next that he fears the country will again have a president who does not govern from the middle.
Unfortunately, the party winning two successive elections with those types of numbers felt that they had been given a mandate. As a result we were given massive bailouts, staggering deficits and health-care reform no matter what the cost. Unfortunately, these extremes have done little to ease the fears that we all feel on mainstreet.
As described in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Americans see the Democrats as the party of big government and Republicans as the party of big business. The author concludes, "That leaves no party left to represent the American people."
Hopefully, both parties will realize that we need to find a new normal. The problems we face are real and affect real people in a huge way. Political bickering should not be the status quo.
It appears a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will take control of the US Congress and may take over the US Senate. In our First Congressional District, Randy Demmer certainly can win the day with the enthusiasm gap and a good tail wind from the national mood. He will be a great leader and will help eliminate the extremes. Truth Check -- it is not true that Demmer supports privatizing social security. Read Tim Penny's (former Democratic Congressman) refute here.
As for Minnesota State races, Tom Emmer is still in the hunt for Governor, despite his history of extremes. Yet, Dayton is so extreme in the other direction! It's been an odd year for the Governor's race, with our local paper even refusing to make an endorsement for Governor. Perhaps a split House = R; and Senate = D would be a good "governor" for the Governor?
Let's hope this prediction by commentator, Micheal Lewitt does not come true, "... bad ideas are likely to gain ascendancy and provide political cover for American politicians trying to avoid making the tough choices needed to right the American economy."
Hopefully, this will be the year where the swing will not be as extreme and government can roll up its collective sleeves and get some work done.
Remember -- VOTE!!
______________________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Growing Debt Poses National Security Threat!
Approximately one year ago, we were honored at our annual Chamber of Commerce banquet to hear from Albert Lea Native son, Major Gen. Thomas Anderson. A symbol of hard work and dedication, Major Gen. Anderson provided an inspirational touch to this event designed to promote the connection between community success and quality education. What struck me most that night, was one of his answers during the Q&A portion of the speech. From the audience, the question was presented: "What is the greatest security threat to the United States?" Without missing a beat, he answered, "The Economy." I felt disappointed that we didn't get a situation room briefing on the latest Al Queda activities. While I found myself feeling unsettled about his answer, I really gave it no more than the fleeting thought.
Recently, while reading the rounds of newspapers, an article quoting Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff renewed my concern, "I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt." At this point I decided that if a hometown hero and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were concerned, I probably should be as well.
After pealing back a few layers of my Midwestern naivety, I discovered a fundamental debate raging at the national level. The concern explained by these military minds is driven by the idea that the best fight is the one you win without fighting. Clearly, our own Congressman Tim Walz and his spending allies in D.C. are creating a situation that threatens this basic premise. Their unsustainable spending spree seriously threatens our Nations' ability to promote world-wide stability.
The Obama Administration released its new National Security Strategy in May. This document continues the Obama trajectory moving America away from the so-called "hard power" of the military. The Administration fundamentally prefers the "soft power" of the outstretched hand to the cliched fist. This trend towards less military strength is emphasized in a recent headline, "Pentagon faces growing pressure to trim budgets." It appears that the push to soften the fist will continue. In fact, in Obama's recent budget proposal, Defense is being targeted with 80% of the proposed cuts. While Obama articulately states, "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem" these words were clearly directed heavily at defense spending.
On non-defense items, Tim Walz and his fellow Democrats continue to follow Obama's lead in voting for enormous spending bills. The recent extension of programs without finding offsetting cuts and following their own Pay-go rules is the latest example. In one breath Walz states, "deficits matter" and in the next his political ambitions (a/k/a "maybe I will be one of them" mentality) take over and he votes to increase the deficit (click here to see the current debt clock). When questions about the criticisms to Obama's "soft power" initiatives, Walz responded that he doesn't "buy" the critics' arguments. While Congressman Walz is the highest ranking retired enlisted solder to serve in Congress, his military credentials cannot shield his voting record.
While the increased use of soft power is a laudible goal, we can go too soft. Reliance on "soft" diplomacy cannot be effective if we whittle away at the big stick with unsustained spending. As explained by T. Roosevelt, "Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it." A recent article in Foreign Affairs brings this concept into modern context, "For the United States' enemies in Iran and Iraq, it must be consoling to know that U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead."
Our allies have even brazenly undermined our attempts at diplomacy and sanctions. In a finger in the eye to US policy, Brazil and Turkey met with Iran and opened substantial economic ties with our sworn enemy. These allies surely sense a shift in the balance of power by openly support a renegade regime.
Others may be forced to follow suit if U.S. clout continues to wane. As boldly articulated recently by the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran."
America carries an obligation to actively promote stability and freedom around the world. We cannot fulfill this obligation with empty words. Unsustainable spending and ballooning deficits threaten to make our words a mere symbolic gesture in world politics. That is a national security threat.
__________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Recently, while reading the rounds of newspapers, an article quoting Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff renewed my concern, "I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt." At this point I decided that if a hometown hero and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were concerned, I probably should be as well.
After pealing back a few layers of my Midwestern naivety, I discovered a fundamental debate raging at the national level. The concern explained by these military minds is driven by the idea that the best fight is the one you win without fighting. Clearly, our own Congressman Tim Walz and his spending allies in D.C. are creating a situation that threatens this basic premise. Their unsustainable spending spree seriously threatens our Nations' ability to promote world-wide stability.
The Obama Administration released its new National Security Strategy in May. This document continues the Obama trajectory moving America away from the so-called "hard power" of the military. The Administration fundamentally prefers the "soft power" of the outstretched hand to the cliched fist. This trend towards less military strength is emphasized in a recent headline, "Pentagon faces growing pressure to trim budgets." It appears that the push to soften the fist will continue. In fact, in Obama's recent budget proposal, Defense is being targeted with 80% of the proposed cuts. While Obama articulately states, "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem" these words were clearly directed heavily at defense spending.
On non-defense items, Tim Walz and his fellow Democrats continue to follow Obama's lead in voting for enormous spending bills. The recent extension of programs without finding offsetting cuts and following their own Pay-go rules is the latest example. In one breath Walz states, "deficits matter" and in the next his political ambitions (a/k/a "maybe I will be one of them" mentality) take over and he votes to increase the deficit (click here to see the current debt clock). When questions about the criticisms to Obama's "soft power" initiatives, Walz responded that he doesn't "buy" the critics' arguments. While Congressman Walz is the highest ranking retired enlisted solder to serve in Congress, his military credentials cannot shield his voting record.
While the increased use of soft power is a laudible goal, we can go too soft. Reliance on "soft" diplomacy cannot be effective if we whittle away at the big stick with unsustained spending. As explained by T. Roosevelt, "Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it." A recent article in Foreign Affairs brings this concept into modern context, "For the United States' enemies in Iran and Iraq, it must be consoling to know that U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead."
Our allies have even brazenly undermined our attempts at diplomacy and sanctions. In a finger in the eye to US policy, Brazil and Turkey met with Iran and opened substantial economic ties with our sworn enemy. These allies surely sense a shift in the balance of power by openly support a renegade regime.
Others may be forced to follow suit if U.S. clout continues to wane. As boldly articulated recently by the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran."
America carries an obligation to actively promote stability and freedom around the world. We cannot fulfill this obligation with empty words. Unsustainable spending and ballooning deficits threaten to make our words a mere symbolic gesture in world politics. That is a national security threat.
__________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Promoting Happiness!
I recently finished a good book: "The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World". In this book, the Dalai Lama articulates a simple, yet understandable philosophy in finding a positive path through life. He promotes taking a realistic, yet positive approach towards our own problems; and the world’s challenges. While he certainly uses a lot of sugar, he does not over sugar coat every problem.
Unlike some “peace mongers,” the Lama encourages us to be proactive (yet realistic) in addressing negativity (and evil). He does not believe that all the world needs is a big hug, just a large dose of reality.
In the book, he lays out a process for addressing prejudice, racism or the destructive “us versus them” attitude. First, attempt to increase awareness of the disadvantages of the negative attitude. Especially in our local communities, an “us versus them” attitude is unhealthy for our own self and families, not to mention holding back our community spirit or ethos. Next, the Lama challenges the beliefs that the negative attitude is based upon. The Lama believes that these attitudes are a result of conditioning – or picked up from our cultures, upbringing and surroundings. As in “happiness”, the Lama believes that these negative perceptions can be changed or reconditioned. Think of people moving to different parts of the world or even kids going off to college. Their world can be turned upside down, but so can their perception on life.
I often tell the story of my college experience, leaving the safe haven of rural Minnesota for the University of Minnesota. To learn that people from different religions and parts of the world were so similar to me was a real eye opener. Going to bed at night discussing the similarities between the Bible and Koran was a priceless exercise in what the Lama is explaining. Likewise, I had the same experience with my Jewish friends, whom all I knew previously is that their ancestors were responsible for killing Jesus.
In addition, I would add a third step to the Lama’s recipe for fighting the “us versus them” forces of the world: Actively challenging our own inherent prejudices and negative feelings and discussing them openly. If we don’t teach our children and neighbors how to talk about these issues, someone else will. Unfortunately, most of the current discussion is negative, which is then parroted by others. It is crazy when I hear my children mimic back comments that either I or other adults have made. Knowing this fact, we should coach our children by positive example.
To his further credit, the Lama identifies excessive political correctness as a deterrent to addressing prejudice, or unhappiness. We should not allow societal pressure to shun us from discussing these important topics openly. Having personal contact with others and discussing and understanding each other’s lives will have the effect of us seeing each other as individuals – not us versus them. Likewise, it is important to remember that prejudice can be a two way street – we must be aware that others may have prejudices or preconceived views making us the “them” in their lives.
I am a firm believer that promoting more “community” connections can help overall happiness. A community can be a neighborhood, church, sports team, coffee group, or just a line of random people at the grocery store. Try it some time at the Wal Mart check out line. In Minnesota, talking about the weather, the Twins or the Vikings is always a simple community unifier that breaks the bonds of individualism and creates and impromptu community. If you are visiting another community, try the same thing with a topic of local interest. Showing an interest in their personal or community unifier often sparks their spirit of connectivity and changes the entire interaction.
I recall the story of when I was in high school working at Schultz’ full-service gas station on I-90 in Jackson. One night, a truck and trailer from out of State broke down and had to be towed into the station. They were pulling a load of cattle, which of course needed to be taken care of. The out-of-towners asked me if I knew anywhere that would allow the cattle to be bedded while they fixed the problem. My community instincts kicked in and I realized that my own family farm would be the perfect solution. A quick call home, and my family cleared out a pen, put down some straw, hooked up the trailer and these foreign cattle were treated better than us kids. A simple story, but one that illicits the feeling the Lama describes.
If we view each of our interactions as an opportunity to build a positive community, no matter how small, we will have made made a huge contribution in making the world a better place. We don’t have to change the world to change our world.
I have often marveled at how broad one’s sense of community can expand as you travel further from home. The two summers I spent in Washington, D.C., I would have an immediate connection with anyone from the Midwest – we felt commonality. Anyone with actual connections to Minnesota was like a long lost family member. There was actual pride, and instant trust between us. Travelling overseas is similar – American’s, or in some cases, anyone who speaks English is a worthy dinner companion.
On a simplistic level, the Lama asks us to visualize this sense of community and use it as a model to help ourselves, our neighbors and our human neighborhood. While reading this book, I had a dream and woke up with these words in my head, “commonality is the greatest equalizer” (3/21/2010). If we look beyond just our differences, we may find that we have more in common with others than we expect. This also means being self-aware of our circumstances and helping others see challenges as an opportunity to overcome or solve– rather than as a roadblock or dead-end to a life objective or happiness.
The Chapter captioned, “Hope, Optimism and Resilience” is probably my favorite chapter in the whole book. My favorite quote is as follows: “Optimism does not mean that you are blind to the actual reality of the situation. It means that you always maintain a positive spirit so that you remain motivated to seek a solution to any given problem.”
When I recently went shopping to buy this book as a present, I was intrigued by how difficult it was to categorize. My unsuccessful attempt to find this book in Albert Lea led me through the self-help and inspirational sections. At the Barnes and Noble at the MOA, I eventually found the book in the “Eastern Religion” section – an odd location for a book on changing the world.
Yet, I struggled with how to categorize this book as well -- "Promoting Happiness" is the best I came up with. A little flowery? Yes. Accurate and probably necessary in today's confused world? Definitely.
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Unlike some “peace mongers,” the Lama encourages us to be proactive (yet realistic) in addressing negativity (and evil). He does not believe that all the world needs is a big hug, just a large dose of reality.
In the book, he lays out a process for addressing prejudice, racism or the destructive “us versus them” attitude. First, attempt to increase awareness of the disadvantages of the negative attitude. Especially in our local communities, an “us versus them” attitude is unhealthy for our own self and families, not to mention holding back our community spirit or ethos. Next, the Lama challenges the beliefs that the negative attitude is based upon. The Lama believes that these attitudes are a result of conditioning – or picked up from our cultures, upbringing and surroundings. As in “happiness”, the Lama believes that these negative perceptions can be changed or reconditioned. Think of people moving to different parts of the world or even kids going off to college. Their world can be turned upside down, but so can their perception on life.
I often tell the story of my college experience, leaving the safe haven of rural Minnesota for the University of Minnesota. To learn that people from different religions and parts of the world were so similar to me was a real eye opener. Going to bed at night discussing the similarities between the Bible and Koran was a priceless exercise in what the Lama is explaining. Likewise, I had the same experience with my Jewish friends, whom all I knew previously is that their ancestors were responsible for killing Jesus.
In addition, I would add a third step to the Lama’s recipe for fighting the “us versus them” forces of the world: Actively challenging our own inherent prejudices and negative feelings and discussing them openly. If we don’t teach our children and neighbors how to talk about these issues, someone else will. Unfortunately, most of the current discussion is negative, which is then parroted by others. It is crazy when I hear my children mimic back comments that either I or other adults have made. Knowing this fact, we should coach our children by positive example.
To his further credit, the Lama identifies excessive political correctness as a deterrent to addressing prejudice, or unhappiness. We should not allow societal pressure to shun us from discussing these important topics openly. Having personal contact with others and discussing and understanding each other’s lives will have the effect of us seeing each other as individuals – not us versus them. Likewise, it is important to remember that prejudice can be a two way street – we must be aware that others may have prejudices or preconceived views making us the “them” in their lives.
I am a firm believer that promoting more “community” connections can help overall happiness. A community can be a neighborhood, church, sports team, coffee group, or just a line of random people at the grocery store. Try it some time at the Wal Mart check out line. In Minnesota, talking about the weather, the Twins or the Vikings is always a simple community unifier that breaks the bonds of individualism and creates and impromptu community. If you are visiting another community, try the same thing with a topic of local interest. Showing an interest in their personal or community unifier often sparks their spirit of connectivity and changes the entire interaction.
I recall the story of when I was in high school working at Schultz’ full-service gas station on I-90 in Jackson. One night, a truck and trailer from out of State broke down and had to be towed into the station. They were pulling a load of cattle, which of course needed to be taken care of. The out-of-towners asked me if I knew anywhere that would allow the cattle to be bedded while they fixed the problem. My community instincts kicked in and I realized that my own family farm would be the perfect solution. A quick call home, and my family cleared out a pen, put down some straw, hooked up the trailer and these foreign cattle were treated better than us kids. A simple story, but one that illicits the feeling the Lama describes.
If we view each of our interactions as an opportunity to build a positive community, no matter how small, we will have made made a huge contribution in making the world a better place. We don’t have to change the world to change our world.
I have often marveled at how broad one’s sense of community can expand as you travel further from home. The two summers I spent in Washington, D.C., I would have an immediate connection with anyone from the Midwest – we felt commonality. Anyone with actual connections to Minnesota was like a long lost family member. There was actual pride, and instant trust between us. Travelling overseas is similar – American’s, or in some cases, anyone who speaks English is a worthy dinner companion.
On a simplistic level, the Lama asks us to visualize this sense of community and use it as a model to help ourselves, our neighbors and our human neighborhood. While reading this book, I had a dream and woke up with these words in my head, “commonality is the greatest equalizer” (3/21/2010). If we look beyond just our differences, we may find that we have more in common with others than we expect. This also means being self-aware of our circumstances and helping others see challenges as an opportunity to overcome or solve– rather than as a roadblock or dead-end to a life objective or happiness.
The Chapter captioned, “Hope, Optimism and Resilience” is probably my favorite chapter in the whole book. My favorite quote is as follows: “Optimism does not mean that you are blind to the actual reality of the situation. It means that you always maintain a positive spirit so that you remain motivated to seek a solution to any given problem.”
When I recently went shopping to buy this book as a present, I was intrigued by how difficult it was to categorize. My unsuccessful attempt to find this book in Albert Lea led me through the self-help and inspirational sections. At the Barnes and Noble at the MOA, I eventually found the book in the “Eastern Religion” section – an odd location for a book on changing the world.
Yet, I struggled with how to categorize this book as well -- "Promoting Happiness" is the best I came up with. A little flowery? Yes. Accurate and probably necessary in today's confused world? Definitely.
____________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.htmlMake sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Greater Minnesota GOP Delegates need to support balanced ticket
Dear Republican Delegate or Alternate,
I am writing to explain why I am an avid supporter of Marty Seifert for Governor. Marty is the candidate best positioned to keep the Republican firewall intact at the Governor’s Office in St. Paul. We need a candidate that will protect our Greater Minnesota values and understands our unique economic issues. Eight years ago, in my hometown of Albert Lea, we gathered together at the First District Convention and gave the Pawlenty Campaign a huge straw poll victory. Through many aggressive attacks against our candidate, we kept our momentum intact and refused to budge at the state endorsing convention. I wrote a letter in support of candidate Pawlenty eight years ago that is very similar to the one you are reading today. Below you can read a copy.
Regardless of who you may have supported eight years ago, the same can be said for Marty Seifert, except not only does he “get it” he has “lived it.”
Make no mistake, “purple” matters in Minnesota. Like my own district, much of the State leans Democrat. As a lifelong Republican, I am ecstatic that our base is clearly motivated to action leading up to this November election. We cannot win a statewide election, however, with only our base. We must be willing to attract independent and unaffiliated voters. We need a gubernatorial candidate on top of the ticket that will bring success to all of our candidates and our agenda.
It is easy to preach to the choir. The mark of a great leader, however, is to stick to your principals AND be open-minded and accessible to independent ideas. Success is not judged by sound bites and token votes; success is judged by results. Marty has proven that he can take tough votes and move our Republican agenda forward.
Marty Seifert is the best candidate to win the election and legislate for results, not gridlock.
Sincerely, Matt
_________________________________________________________
MATT BENDA
FREEBORN COUNTY
Albert Lea, Minnesota
June 13, 2002
Dear Republican Delegate:
Please consider the importance of having a Governor who has an intimate understanding of the unique issues we face outside the metropolitan area.As a delegate from Greater Minnesota, I believe we need a candidate that has a history of supporting issues important to rural Minnesota. Our candidate must take our Republican message statewide. Roger Moe is from rural Minnesota and if we don’t have a candidate who has a strong history of supporting these important issues, we will lose. There is only one candidate running for the Republican endorsement for Governor who can counter Moe on rural issues. Tim Pawlenty is that candidate.Tim’s actions speak louder than words.Tim has shown through his leadership that he strongly supports value added agriculture and that he understands the differing economies throughout Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the only candidate for Governor with a plan to spur economic development in Greater Minnesota. Tim has proposed creating tax-free zones for certain areas of the state that are having trouble creating jobs. Tim has fought (successfully) to lower taxes on farms and our local businesses. A quality rural infrastructure is crucial to our continued economic viability. Tim has fought to increase funding for our bridge and highway projects. He has show true creativity in advocating for this important economic issue.Finally, those of us from rural Minnesota know all to well about declining enrollment. Tim knows that if jobs are created, people will stay.I ask you to join me in supporting Tim Pawlenty because rural Minnesota needs a Governor who will fight with us.
Sincerely, Matt Benda
__________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
I am writing to explain why I am an avid supporter of Marty Seifert for Governor. Marty is the candidate best positioned to keep the Republican firewall intact at the Governor’s Office in St. Paul. We need a candidate that will protect our Greater Minnesota values and understands our unique economic issues. Eight years ago, in my hometown of Albert Lea, we gathered together at the First District Convention and gave the Pawlenty Campaign a huge straw poll victory. Through many aggressive attacks against our candidate, we kept our momentum intact and refused to budge at the state endorsing convention. I wrote a letter in support of candidate Pawlenty eight years ago that is very similar to the one you are reading today. Below you can read a copy.
Regardless of who you may have supported eight years ago, the same can be said for Marty Seifert, except not only does he “get it” he has “lived it.”
Make no mistake, “purple” matters in Minnesota. Like my own district, much of the State leans Democrat. As a lifelong Republican, I am ecstatic that our base is clearly motivated to action leading up to this November election. We cannot win a statewide election, however, with only our base. We must be willing to attract independent and unaffiliated voters. We need a gubernatorial candidate on top of the ticket that will bring success to all of our candidates and our agenda.
It is easy to preach to the choir. The mark of a great leader, however, is to stick to your principals AND be open-minded and accessible to independent ideas. Success is not judged by sound bites and token votes; success is judged by results. Marty has proven that he can take tough votes and move our Republican agenda forward.
Marty Seifert is the best candidate to win the election and legislate for results, not gridlock.
Sincerely, Matt
_________________________________________________________
MATT BENDA
FREEBORN COUNTY
Albert Lea, Minnesota
June 13, 2002
Dear Republican Delegate:
Please consider the importance of having a Governor who has an intimate understanding of the unique issues we face outside the metropolitan area.As a delegate from Greater Minnesota, I believe we need a candidate that has a history of supporting issues important to rural Minnesota. Our candidate must take our Republican message statewide. Roger Moe is from rural Minnesota and if we don’t have a candidate who has a strong history of supporting these important issues, we will lose. There is only one candidate running for the Republican endorsement for Governor who can counter Moe on rural issues. Tim Pawlenty is that candidate.Tim’s actions speak louder than words.Tim has shown through his leadership that he strongly supports value added agriculture and that he understands the differing economies throughout Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty is the only candidate for Governor with a plan to spur economic development in Greater Minnesota. Tim has proposed creating tax-free zones for certain areas of the state that are having trouble creating jobs. Tim has fought (successfully) to lower taxes on farms and our local businesses. A quality rural infrastructure is crucial to our continued economic viability. Tim has fought to increase funding for our bridge and highway projects. He has show true creativity in advocating for this important economic issue.Finally, those of us from rural Minnesota know all to well about declining enrollment. Tim knows that if jobs are created, people will stay.I ask you to join me in supporting Tim Pawlenty because rural Minnesota needs a Governor who will fight with us.
Sincerely, Matt Benda
__________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
I have a confession to make!
I know that the "Smart People" in the world are telling me that I shouldn't affiliate with her:
"She's unpredictable and makes the party look silly..." Garrison Keillhor thinks she's "perky", but not legitimate. Many are not quite as eloquent as the old scout, calling her stupid and a liar -- or a moron. On the View, even her gender counterparts questioned her intelligence.
Still others think that she is a "conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality." Yet, I couldn't help myself... and thus my confession: I attended the Sarah Palin event this week in Minneapolis. Wait, there's more: I enjoyed it, my wife came with me, we cheered, and I .... (swallow... long dramatic pause).....like Sarah Palin.
What the Smart People don't get is that the more they jest Palin's pedigree, the clearer it becomes that she is just like the rest of us. Early in her speech, she won over her crowd with one simple truism, "what I like about you folks in Minnesota is that you sound like me." Of course, she meant her accent (which has also been criticized).
Yet, the look in people's eyes told more -- Palin made them fell that a normal person (like them) could make a difference. In one more sentence -- "Washington is addicted to OPM (sounds like opium) Other People's Money" -- she summarized one of the greatest concerns on people's minds. She is likeable, speaks straight and is able to touch people's hearts -- the "Palin Effect" as explained in one recent article.
She also instinctively understood the implications of the huge policy shift Obama recently took (from deterrence to appeasement) on national defense. Obama recently removed nuclear retaliation as an option against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us. While Obama has not abandoned the American "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach, he has indicated that he feels that we should carry a smaller stick. This is a legitimate policy discussion that we should be having as a country, not some crackpot idea dreamed up by Palin. As explained in the USA today, this was a "major shift in the nation's security policy."
What the Smart People don't like is that Sarah Palin quickly framed this discussion in terms we all understand -- standing up to the play ground bully. I don't have to agree or disagree on every issue, but I do appreciate her ability to initiate and simplify the dialogue.
If you're curious, attached are the video links to the Palin and Obama exchange:
1. Palin in Minneapolis (I was there, but turned down Hannity's request for an interview);
2. Obama response -- notice how he says he is not going to respond and then does respond by saying that the Smart People know better than us simple folk;
3. Palin strikes back questioning his record of success in N. Korea and Iran.
"She's unpredictable and makes the party look silly..." Garrison Keillhor thinks she's "perky", but not legitimate. Many are not quite as eloquent as the old scout, calling her stupid and a liar -- or a moron. On the View, even her gender counterparts questioned her intelligence.
Still others think that she is a "conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality." Yet, I couldn't help myself... and thus my confession: I attended the Sarah Palin event this week in Minneapolis. Wait, there's more: I enjoyed it, my wife came with me, we cheered, and I .... (swallow... long dramatic pause).....like Sarah Palin.
What the Smart People don't get is that the more they jest Palin's pedigree, the clearer it becomes that she is just like the rest of us. Early in her speech, she won over her crowd with one simple truism, "what I like about you folks in Minnesota is that you sound like me." Of course, she meant her accent (which has also been criticized).
Yet, the look in people's eyes told more -- Palin made them fell that a normal person (like them) could make a difference. In one more sentence -- "Washington is addicted to OPM (sounds like opium) Other People's Money" -- she summarized one of the greatest concerns on people's minds. She is likeable, speaks straight and is able to touch people's hearts -- the "Palin Effect" as explained in one recent article.
She also instinctively understood the implications of the huge policy shift Obama recently took (from deterrence to appeasement) on national defense. Obama recently removed nuclear retaliation as an option against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us. While Obama has not abandoned the American "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach, he has indicated that he feels that we should carry a smaller stick. This is a legitimate policy discussion that we should be having as a country, not some crackpot idea dreamed up by Palin. As explained in the USA today, this was a "major shift in the nation's security policy."
What the Smart People don't like is that Sarah Palin quickly framed this discussion in terms we all understand -- standing up to the play ground bully. I don't have to agree or disagree on every issue, but I do appreciate her ability to initiate and simplify the dialogue.
If you're curious, attached are the video links to the Palin and Obama exchange:
1. Palin in Minneapolis (I was there, but turned down Hannity's request for an interview);
2. Obama response -- notice how he says he is not going to respond and then does respond by saying that the Smart People know better than us simple folk;
3. Palin strikes back questioning his record of success in N. Korea and Iran.
I for one will keep listening to Sarah Palin as she seems a like lot of us here in Minnesota -- just trying to make the world a better place.
Thanks for listening. I feel much better having come clean on this one... although true bloggers would discover that I previously admitted to liking the Palin Label.
______________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.Saturday, March 13, 2010
Reform for the people, not for the votes.
We are overwhelmed by it: health-care reform, welfare reform, government reform. A political revolution in the making? Maybe for some. Politics as usual? Probably for most.
It is understandable that reform efforts need to have political winds behind them to reach the legislative finish line. Reform for purely political reasons, however, will not "fix" anything. Reform should be for the people, not for their votes.
As explained recently by Pope Benedict XVI, "The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding the the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. . . . When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have."
We should question the sincerity of the national health-care reform initiative of the left, just like we should question the motivation behind welfare reform initiatives of the hard right.
Economically and socially, we need to find a better way to do things. Reform efforts should be judged through the lens of effectively helping people, not merely re-election efforts.
____________________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
It is understandable that reform efforts need to have political winds behind them to reach the legislative finish line. Reform for purely political reasons, however, will not "fix" anything. Reform should be for the people, not for their votes.
As explained recently by Pope Benedict XVI, "The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding the the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. . . . When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have."
We should question the sincerity of the national health-care reform initiative of the left, just like we should question the motivation behind welfare reform initiatives of the hard right.
Economically and socially, we need to find a better way to do things. Reform efforts should be judged through the lens of effectively helping people, not merely re-election efforts.
____________________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Focus on the Common Good: A case for ending our obsession with State and Federal funding
A recent nation-wide study conducted by the University of Illinois, found that many "rural" communities are well above the national average in prosperity. Rather than focus just on growth, this study identified specific outcomes and tackled the question, "Why some rural places prosper and others do not." The final conclusion of the report identified educated populations, a diverse economy -- mix of farm and non-farm jobs, creative class occupations and balanced income distributions. This study further identified civic and religious engagement and community interconnectedness as key factors in success.
While I am clearly biased, this sounds a lot like Southern Minnesota! Let's face it, we have a pretty darn good place to call home. Our small-town networks of charity, faith, education and friendship are a priceless commodity. The Illinois report gives a glimpse of hope in otherwise dark times. As a community, we should elevate the importance of our community networks in promoting community prosperity. Whether these networks are referred to as the living church, Blue Zone "moais", social networks, Tibetan "camps" or just neighborhoods, government programs cannot compete with the human touch.
Community support and prosperity should not be driven exclusively by government solutions. Instead, our government institutions should provide the important infrastructure base that allows these networks to prosper-- the foothold at the base of the pyramid. We cannot expect our government to be everything for everybody.
Too often lately, it seem our community ethos and energy has been spent chasing state and federal money -- stimulus funds, "jobs" bills, bonding bills called jobs bills and other pork projects. Make no mistake, I strongly support parochialism and protecting our turf, especially in regards to funding formula inequities. Yet, the wedge politics and hand-wringing committed to gaining these entitlements does little to promote pride and the common good. We should get off the treadmill that bribes us into chasing institutional money, fueled with the demand that the institutions take more of our money -- and our children's money. Why should we demand that they take another dollar when all they send us back is a quarter?
Government certainly can do good, but it cannot always do the most good. Institution building should not be confused with community building. We should place more confidence in our local networks and end our obsession with gaming the treadmill system. The on-going effects of the great recession will certainly threaten the social and economic fabric as we know it. As a community, we must think long term, not rely on the short-term models currently being offered by the state and federal government.
A lot of ink has been used analyzing the "no new taxes' theory of the right. This pledge certainly has many downsides and is easily perceived as anti-good government. Yet, no ink is spilled on the "no new reform" pledge of the left. The public correctly fears that any new taxes would be spent on new programs, not strengthening existing programs. Government programs are not inherently good or right. They must efficiently promote the common good, not just promote "good."
In the pursuit of prosperity and the common good, we should have more confidence in, and strengthen our local networks. We should demand that our government institutions serve our communities, not let government institutions demand that our communities service them. The first step towards this goal is to recognize and minimize our obsession with government funding.
Welcome to Tilting Against!
While I am clearly biased, this sounds a lot like Southern Minnesota! Let's face it, we have a pretty darn good place to call home. Our small-town networks of charity, faith, education and friendship are a priceless commodity. The Illinois report gives a glimpse of hope in otherwise dark times. As a community, we should elevate the importance of our community networks in promoting community prosperity. Whether these networks are referred to as the living church, Blue Zone "moais", social networks, Tibetan "camps" or just neighborhoods, government programs cannot compete with the human touch.
Community support and prosperity should not be driven exclusively by government solutions. Instead, our government institutions should provide the important infrastructure base that allows these networks to prosper-- the foothold at the base of the pyramid. We cannot expect our government to be everything for everybody.
Too often lately, it seem our community ethos and energy has been spent chasing state and federal money -- stimulus funds, "jobs" bills, bonding bills called jobs bills and other pork projects. Make no mistake, I strongly support parochialism and protecting our turf, especially in regards to funding formula inequities. Yet, the wedge politics and hand-wringing committed to gaining these entitlements does little to promote pride and the common good. We should get off the treadmill that bribes us into chasing institutional money, fueled with the demand that the institutions take more of our money -- and our children's money. Why should we demand that they take another dollar when all they send us back is a quarter?
Government certainly can do good, but it cannot always do the most good. Institution building should not be confused with community building. We should place more confidence in our local networks and end our obsession with gaming the treadmill system. The on-going effects of the great recession will certainly threaten the social and economic fabric as we know it. As a community, we must think long term, not rely on the short-term models currently being offered by the state and federal government.
A lot of ink has been used analyzing the "no new taxes' theory of the right. This pledge certainly has many downsides and is easily perceived as anti-good government. Yet, no ink is spilled on the "no new reform" pledge of the left. The public correctly fears that any new taxes would be spent on new programs, not strengthening existing programs. Government programs are not inherently good or right. They must efficiently promote the common good, not just promote "good."
In the pursuit of prosperity and the common good, we should have more confidence in, and strengthen our local networks. We should demand that our government institutions serve our communities, not let government institutions demand that our communities service them. The first step towards this goal is to recognize and minimize our obsession with government funding.
Welcome to Tilting Against!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Why we live in Minnesota: The Silver Lining
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail -- it may show up in your junk email.
Friday, February 05, 2010
The Great Unifier: Obama Photo Parade
A picture (and a YouTube video) are worth a thousand words:
Click here for YouTube video:
v. Obama Bows to the Saudi King
and the Japenese Emperor
Click here for YouTube video: v. Obama Bows to the Saudi King
and the Japenese Emperor
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The GreatestGift
"The greatest gifts my parents gave to me were their unconditional love and set of values. Values that they lived and didn't just lecture about.
Values that included an understanding of the simple difference between right and wrong, a belief in God, the importance of hard work and education, self-respect and a belief in America."
Colin Powell
_________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Values that included an understanding of the simple difference between right and wrong, a belief in God, the importance of hard work and education, self-respect and a belief in America."
Colin Powell
_________________________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Exploring Free Will
The past month, my five year old daughter has been learning the concept of making choices. One day, she asked her mother, "do you know why I don't behave when I get home at night?" Probably thinking that she can solve all of world's problems if she can solve this one, mom answered, "yes dear." Avery answered, "It is so hard being good at school all day that sometimes I need to be bad at home."
Having heard this story from my wife, the next week I get the question, "Does God control us?" [Oh boy, I'm in trouble -- deep breath] "No honey, God gave us choices on how we behave." Our good catholic school son (Age 8) then chimes in, "Like Adam and Eve." I jumped on this one "Yes, like Adam and Eve, we can choose whether to be good or bad."
Not quite satisfied, Avery goes on, "How do we know how to be good or bad." [sweat dripping down my forehead -- deep breath -- pause]. "That's our job as parents to teach you what is right and what is wrong. My parents taught me and now I have to teach you." Seemingly making the connection, Avery asks, "Do I need to teach my children?" [sigh of relief and mental high-five] "Yes, you will need to teach your children."
Back to being five again, she says "and they will teach their children and they will teach their children...... [on and on annoyingly for about five minutes].
Since then, it has been amazing to watch her work through this issue. Last night, she was ready to "blow her top" and said so, but seemed to calm herself down. She also told me recently that if she blows her top to turn on the lullaby CD in her room.
This parenting thing is scary business -- I often struggle with right and wrong and keeping my own perspective. Yet, I'm expected to teach life skills to a couple of little human sponges? I guess I need to keep exploring my own free will? Thanks to my daughter for teaching me this lesson.
_____________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Having heard this story from my wife, the next week I get the question, "Does God control us?" [Oh boy, I'm in trouble -- deep breath] "No honey, God gave us choices on how we behave." Our good catholic school son (Age 8) then chimes in, "Like Adam and Eve." I jumped on this one "Yes, like Adam and Eve, we can choose whether to be good or bad."
Not quite satisfied, Avery goes on, "How do we know how to be good or bad." [sweat dripping down my forehead -- deep breath -- pause]. "That's our job as parents to teach you what is right and what is wrong. My parents taught me and now I have to teach you." Seemingly making the connection, Avery asks, "Do I need to teach my children?" [sigh of relief and mental high-five] "Yes, you will need to teach your children."
Back to being five again, she says "and they will teach their children and they will teach their children...... [on and on annoyingly for about five minutes].
Since then, it has been amazing to watch her work through this issue. Last night, she was ready to "blow her top" and said so, but seemed to calm herself down. She also told me recently that if she blows her top to turn on the lullaby CD in her room.
This parenting thing is scary business -- I often struggle with right and wrong and keeping my own perspective. Yet, I'm expected to teach life skills to a couple of little human sponges? I guess I need to keep exploring my own free will? Thanks to my daughter for teaching me this lesson.
_____________________
Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
