We all want to know our lives have purpose, as well as to understand why certain things happen in the world, in our lives. I may have a few answers, but mostly I explore with you, finding insights based on day to day adventures, music, writings, art, health, God - anything that might help us to see our lives in new, amazing ways.
I seriously considered leaving some of the elections positions blank on my ballot - thinking
that I didn't want to be held accountable for choosing either Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton as our next president.
But beyond being a cop-out, I remembered that
an Election Volunteer in Florida was caught filling in her own choice
when opening early ballots with no vote. I realized I HAD
to choose.
There is not a way to avoid responsibility for voting,
because NOT CHOOSING was literally allowing some random person to choose
for me instead - whether it is an unethical elections volunteer or
someone else who voted when I did not.
I remembered living in Mexico and having as a hostess someone who counted ballots during their elections. Mexico requires citizens to vote, at least they did then in order to get certain privileges. But they also allowed for write in candidates - or people did it anyway. "For decades," she explained "Su mama came in first place, Mickey Mouse came in second place, then the incumbent party's candidate came in third. but the first two were never announced." I suddenly understand!
I am not suggesting you vote for a Disney character or someone's mother, but I am suggesting there are other choices...though a third party candidate or a write-in likely is a throw away vote.
So I will choose based not on the person on the presidential line of the ballot, or even for the political party, but for who I would like to be nominating the next three Supreme Court Judges, and therefore likely affecting our country's future not for four years, but for decades.
"All a person's ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the LORD." Proverbs 16:2
Why do I place this verse on this blog post? Because making good choices are NOT always easy. And not choosing IS choosing. So in every difficult situation, pray, seek what is right, and be accountable to no one but God. That, indeed, may even be harder than knowing who to vote for in this election, but we are held to a higher standard and a higher power than the President of the United States...One who is not limited in how He is able to acts...not even by the winner of an election.
Be Blessed My Purposeful People, Heather J. Kirk
Wearable Art - Heather J Kirk's VIDA Collection: http://shopvida.com/collections/heather-j-kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk http://heather-kirk.pixels.com and http://AEC.pixels.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html
Drive for Lyft and get a Bonus using this Code!
Bonus amount varies by city, but tends to be $50 -$100.
In Los Angeles LOTS more!
If it's true that a nation can suffer the consequences for the things that we
as a whole have done, we are getting what we deserve. Too many people I know feel they have not even "the lesser of two evils" as a choice for President, but no choice. And to be honest in other political positions as well. But WE DID CHOOSE, and we chose these. (Some may say they voted for someone else in the primary... then divided we fall.)
Let me say also that it is not just in the Presidential race that we have a lack of great choices, but it seems to be exaggerated there. We need to ask ourselves overall what have our votes (or the choice to not vote) brought us?
How true is this? "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked person rules, people groan"Proverbs 29:2
In our Presidential candidates we chose pridefulness. We chose those who have had both great success and great failure (though the truth is a willingness to take chances and fail often comes along with anyone who has achieved much - still a President is not the place to be taking too many chances.) We chose people with lack of facial control - and negotiations and leading a nation requires that every thought that passes through one's mind does not show up in a laugh or a smirk. We have people who shirk responsibility. We have people whose staff or supporters keep getting in trouble, being fired, or leaving of their own accord.And when I just did a spellcheck on the word pridefullness because of a red line under it, the option it gave me was 'spitefulness,' and yes, we chose that too.
And if you disagree that you chose these qualities or people, then...if we have not gotten what we have chosen, then we have gotten what we have allowed.
IF you are still saying that YOU did not choose this, others did, then oddly you are part of the problem. The solution takes accepting the situation as it is and problem solving, deciding what to do about it, what to do differently now and next time. And we can only change what we feel we have some power over!
It is not just at the voter's booth ALONE that we are responsible. We must take the blame for our own actions, and yes, also for our nation's action as a very large group of individuals. It is made up of a lot of "ME's". What have my (our) actions created in our families, in our communities? What have my (our) actions allowed to go on around us? Are we guilty of pride, deceitfulness, greed, putting our own needs above others needs, disrespecting others with our word and the looks we give, the way we roll our eyes. We often are very lenient on others guilty of the same sins as our own. And then we get what we get...in our own lives, and in our nation.
And if all else fails, we need to pray! As I write that I think that perhaps therein lies the problem - at least mine - we wait to pray until all else fails, and we have created a complete mess.
So is there any hope?
Only by humbling ourselves. Only by turning form the things we already know in our hearts are wrong, With humility
and asking forgiveness we can obtain from God a goodness and mercy that we do not
deserve but receive anyway out of love.
So late in the game, all we can count on is a MIRACLE - and I say that in full sincerity. Maybe the miracle will be that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, but that, of course, is not likely. Yet the concept of miracles does not imply 'likelihood', it implies 'impossible without supernatural intervention'. But still, the miracle we may have to count on is to be surprised that God is able to work in our nation for our individual and national good through, or in spite of, whoever WE (yes we) vote in as 45th President of the United States.
"If my people, who are called
by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn
from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive
their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14
Who are "my people"? The verse implies God's people. but we are 'one nation under God" who have received favor for a long time. A perfect country? of course not, we are made up of people...but a humble nation chooses, and deserves, better than a prideful people!
Get a $20 credit when you order from the Munchery for the first time. Fresh ingredients. Big variety. Pre-measured and ready to prepare, then eat. www.munchery.com/invite/C6CCYG97
I couldn't think of another word for 'viable,' for what I wanted to say. And although I have been recently unhappy with Google search results that now seem to favor ads and 'reviews' by anyman, a surprising number of articles comes up with the search "Is a third party candidate viable for President in 2016?"
I will choose one to comment on here because it too surprised me by going more in depth into the difficulties of overcoming a two- party system, where that system comes from, and interesting psychological studies. Finally, the writer found sound changes a-brewing!
The source is Newsweek on-line: Why Third-Party Candidates Are Doomed—At Least This Year
By Emily Cadei
I know, the title doesn't exactly ooze with optimism...nor does it have my word 'viable'. And it's long, but worth finishing, as there is more and more information, instead of more and more repetition (another pet peeve of mine as of late).
One item that is an aside, but surprised me is that Democrats tend to be more urban and Republicans more rural. I guess the bias I have is where I personally come from rather than where the parties as a whole come from, but it is interesting in the context that the stances of the parties, over the long term, have 'switched' several times. The most obvious, and seemingly forgotten, that it was the Republican Party that fought for the abolition of slavery, and the Democratic Governor Wallace of Alabama who set the fire hoses and dogs on Martin Luther King and his partners in non-violence was a Democrat. And now many people of color consider it the Democratic party that speaks for and represents them. With surprising voting choices of both parties in these primaries, perhaps some kind of change is in the not so distant future.
Let me throw out another aside from PBS's American Experience - George Wallace both started out and ended as a "Liberal" embracing integration, but saw it wouldn't win during the Civil Rights era. An opportunist? A Flip flopper? Who knows,but in a history I NEVER heard about, he apologized to African Americans - after an assassination attempt and partial paralysis - and got much of their vote. WOW! People and Events: George Wallace http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande05.html
Back to the original article commentary by yours truly. Much of voter behavior decision making is tied to a combination of WINNING and SELF - ESTEEM and not what is best for the country overall. They never use the term 'voting your conscience,' possibly because, so the research goes, it rarely happens because psychologically, and especially in more polarized environments - like now - there is a fear of throwing votes away. How 'sad' that my own conscience repeatedly has tossed away votes, apparently in a psychologically aberrant manner with no regard for my own esteem, LOL!
The following paragraphs all the way near the end stood out as really saying something new and indicate and exciting movement! first a process is described that could get us at least not 'afraid' to throw away a vote, and instead vote more with what we believe, or at the very least against what makes us uncomfortable (or cringe). I confess to not being a huge consumer of news, but the following does not seem to be out there and known. In fact even in ths article it is way at the end. Yet, promising for the future.
"There are changes afoot to break down some of these barriers at the
state and local level. Cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota; San
Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley California, now select some local
officials via what’s known as “rank choice voting,”
where each voter ranks their top three choices for an office, and if no
candidate win a majority of first choice votes on the first ballot,
then the number of second and possibly third choices are added in, until
someone reaches a majority. That eliminates the concern about “wasting”
a vote on an independent candidate, because if they lose in the first
round, your votes goes to your second choice pick."
What is nice is that it is not just a 'concept" but being tried in a few places, though not enough to make a difference in 2016.
"This November, Maine will vote on a ballot initiative that would implement rank choice voting
statewide. California, meanwhile, has begun using a nonpartisan voting
system for state and congressional contests, in which the top two
finishers in the primary, regardless of party, compete in the general
election. Other states, like Louisiana, hold run-off elections for state
office if no candidate wins a majority in the first round."
The ultimate conclusion is probably true, but not to my liking (do I confess to much...this constant vote thower-wayer?). "“I think that the dam will break at a certain point,” says Ritchie. “I don’t think it will do it this year.”
Even if the change does not come about this year, perhaps the unhappiness with the results of the current two-party powerhouse, or the surprising power of the supposed outliers (Sanders and Trump), will be exactly what is needed to make the change happen in the future.
The HUGE question seems to be WHO
for a third party candidate. Here is my choice, and although she has said she
would never run, Condoleezza Rice fits, NoTrump, Bush Money (I know, not necessarily a good thing to be tied to his Presidency and policies), strong foreign
policy experience, Conservative Republican with Female and African American as
leaven in the bread of hope. How can we convince her to give up that darn “NEVER”.
(A quick Google search says I am not
alone in this hope!)
P.S. A resource that goes more into detail on the specifics of trying to create another valid candidate outside of the two party system, even given the green and Libertarian parties existence.
Heather J. Kirk
Art by Heather J. Kirk www.heather-kirk.artistwebsites.com
Literature by Heather J. Kirk http://www.photographicartistry.citymax.com/Books.html
CAN I BEG YOU TO READ A LONG POST? THE WHOLE THING?
Most of you know that I rarely if EVER bring up politics on my page. But I will say this: 1) NEVER vote on one or two issues alone. Especially for President, he/she had better know about (and represent you) in MANY issues. 2) DO YOUR RESEARCH! Don't believe what a politician says automatically. Increasingly, and this year especially, debates have been about PERFORMANCES and not about truth. Just because someone repeats a lie over and over, it does not make a lie true...but somehow it gets it repeated by gullible voters (and media) as if truth.
Here is one tool I found to use. Yes, on social issues, most Democrats tend to agree with each other, and most Republicans tend to agree with each other. Still a Voter's Guide can give info in other ways. Did they answer the questions at all? If not, is the info available from the Candidates Official Record and Resources.
Let me start with Democrats because there is little variance - but still you should look at the citations. 10 social issues / questions are addressed. Neither Clinton or Sanders answered the survey, but they do agree on the issues that the Guide could find documented answers for. There is no citation provided (found?) as to whether they believe in interpreting the US Constitution based on current situations or the intent of the original creators. This is important - and unknown - because one of the first acts of our next President will likely be the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice. Go to the Citation sources and learn as much as you can before voting in the Primary. Sanders sources are all his own Issues page or Senate roll call. Three of Clinton's were not on her own site but available in articles or a PAC's page.
Now for Republicans - I will go with top 3 only. Cruz and Rubio both answered all questions, and agreed. And here is where I want REPUBLICANS TO PAY ATTENTION! (Maybe I should have led with this...) Trump did not answer any of the questions. Because CAP (who puts out the voters guide) is a Conservative Agency (though they do no endorsing) Democrats tend not to answer and Republicans almost always do. So for a REPUBLICAN to not answer is a big RED FLAG. If I give him the benefit of the doubt because he has no history in politics and doesn't know better, or doesn't care, then let's look at what can be found - as is done for most Democratic candidates. The Guide could only FIND the answer to 5 OUT OF 10 questions - DISTURBING! And 3 of those 5 were found on his TWITTER page, not his website - SERIOUSLY DISTURBING! The other two sources were NBC News and Ammoland Shooting Sports News - I don't even know what to say about that... PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY! http://azvoterguide.com/ Although this is from Arizona, it's about the President so helps everyone - including Independents. (The one thing I found difficult about the Guide is that
you have to hover over the number in blue to find out the issue being cited, and then it covers the answer. But do the WORK...it's our COUNTRY's FUTURE we are talking about.)
We have "Truth in Advertising" laws. I suggest
that we create "Truth in Politicizing" laws. If a candidate or PAC
lies about a candidate during a debate or a commercial, they would have to 1)
pay for a commercial on which 2) they say they were wrong (I lied, I misquoted,
I misunderstood...) about 'x', 3) but the truth is that my opponent... Maybe then we would not have so much garbage going around
and so much spinning in a way that it could hardly be called the truth anymore.
Take it out of their campaign funds!
In a debate like tonight’s with each calling the other a
liar over and over, how can we ultimately know the truth. Do you just stick
with your Party? Do you wait and see how the media spins it? Whoever wins the
poll? Do you check on sites that pretend to tell the truth but are highly
politicized themselves, like MoveOn.org, FactCheck.com or
BarackObama.com/TruthTeam. Just a hint here - his website is going to say he
told the truth. You can't trust each candidate to check themselves.
We need outside sources. Go to statistics, to economic
indicators for more than the past 4 years. Go to newspaper reports or radio interviews -
listen to the whole thing, not just the sound bites; look at governmental records.
I bet you can look up a whole lot of things
stated in the debate that was immediately contradicted by the other, go beyond the sound
bites to the whole context; look at governmental records. I bet you can look up
Licenses for drilling on Federal Lands somewhere. The question is not should we
or should we not, but what is true about drilling there based on what these two
(angry/frustrated/contradictory) men said.
Lot's of "Talk to the Hand" going on...
Too much work? Don’t want to do all that research? Then go
ahead and vote on who is cuter, or who the news says wins the popularity
contest, vote for who is more charming. None of that will matter in the
Presidency, but what the heck. Even a straight party ticket without knowing the
parties’ platforms is pretty worthless.
Or, if doing a little research is too much for you, then please,
don’t vote.
Will Mitt Make Big Bird Disappear? Turns out cuts in federal
funding would hardly make a dent. But why do so few listeners and watchers donate?
I don’t have the answer, but let’s take a look at a few of the facts and a real
life example.
Mitt Romney “threatened” to cut funding for Jim Lehr and Big
Bird – or actually for PBS, but Big Bird has been used as the mascot to upset
children around the country.
A silly example:
Would we really lose PBS if it did not get federal funding? (Note: there is a difference between federal and “public” funding)
National Public Radio (NPR) faced a similar situation not
too long ago...and it is still going strong, because people who listen (the
'public' in ‘public radio’ and ‘public broadcasting’) are the largest portion
of donors, and there are many other sources of funding.
I even heard Republican David Schweikert (Arizona
Congressional District 6) say in an interview on KJZZ (our local NPR station)
say that while he voted to cut national spending, he gives personally to KJZZ.
I was impressed, especially since only 8% of listeners do.
I think people should look at and understand the way funding
works before they fall for the gimmick (lie) that a lack of federal funding
will put public broadcasting under. Government funds only account for 4.6% of
NPR funs -real life example -down from 6% in 2009 - which means that 1.4% constitutes
the reduction in NPR’s total budget by the cuts in federal funding).
Here’s a great visual: http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.htmlIf we want Public Broadcasting so badly,
we should be willing to pay for it - and in fact we do! At least 8% of us do -
providing 39% of the budget. And by the way, "big bad
corporations" also donate a good-sized chunk to National Public Radio
(17%) - much more than the government in fact.
“Disclaimer: I do listen and I do give to public radio. I do
not watch PBS – because I can’t receive it with my rabbit ear antennae. Which
means I don’t “give” to cable either. Interesting that ao many people are up
in arms about cutting federal funding to PBS, but don’t give to PBS, while they do give
LOTS to commercial cable or satellite companies. Go figure…
Politics in the Dominican Republic are just as complicated as in the US, perhaps even more so as a non-superpower; an island somewhere between major drug producers and major drug consumers; with a history of corruption and bribery as a way of making a political office into a profitable business; and great efforts to change as much of this as possible (except for the "island" part).
Someone recently asked me what the economy of Arizona was based on - what were our resources. I thought about the irony then answered, "It's a dry Dominican Republic: tourism, agriculture and technology." (The DR has been growing as a Caribbean Silicon Valley, attracting techies and companies from US and Europe.) We could probably add major Call Centers to both Arizona and DR as well.
While historically Americans have only been 15% of visitors, in the past month they were 60% (maybe a good sign that our own economy is improving!) DR depends on the US for Aid as well as a good part of its economy in the form of both imports and exports. Money from Dominicans living in the States (mostly New York City and Miami, it seems) provides an infusion of cash into the island (which has decreased greatly in the last few years and dramatically affected the lives of the poor here).
The economy of the Dominican Republic has maintained positive growth, while much of the rest of the world has had losses. But like the recent growth in the US stock market, the DR's economic growth has not yet translated to income for tourist industry workers who lost jobs in the worldwide downturn. Still, the word "depends" on the United States is not correct. The economy is diversified, as well as the regions that tourists come from.
As we have already learned, traffic congestion (specifically here in Santo Domingo, not throughout the island) is comparable to Manila - so fuel consumption is just about the highest in Latin America. Since we are not even providing our own oil for our own needs, then we obviously are not providing oil to the Dominican Republic. SO, they are getting it from our Venezuelan nemesis, Hugo Chavez. It is interesting to see how carefully and successfully President Leonel Fernandez finds that balance - keeping friendships with both countries. And how different the Venezuelan President seems when he visits here - smiling, laughing, friendly, happy.
But of course he is happy. He was here in DR today to sign an agreement to take over 49% of the DR government owned oil refineries here. He then hopes to help DR provide gasoline to the rest of the Caribbean. The US should take note for many reasons.
• His persona makes him appear like a great guy.
• Venezuela is providing something the DR is highly dependent on (like us): oil.
• Venezuela is providing a way for the DR to become a major exporter in gasoline, and therefore income.
• He will one day try to put a wedge between the DR and the US. He will have great power and own 49% of a government company and resource.
• Venezuela has taken what is not theirs before.
Heather J. Kirk, Owner of PhotoGraphic Artistry, is a fine art photographer, graphic designer and author. She grew up in suburban Chicago, spent over 20 years in Phoenix/Scottsdale, Arizona, and now has returned from the Dominican Republic. Heather wonders, "How do you find what you aren't even sure you are looking for?" And the answer she has chosen, "Write..."
I seriously considered leaving some of the elections positions blank on my ballot - thinking
that I didn't want to be held accountable for choosing either Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton as our next president.
I am not suggesting you vote for a Disney character or someone's mother, but I am suggesting there are other choices...though a third party candidate or a write-in likely is a throw away vote.
Posts
