FEATURE ARTICLES. THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 1.

(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE

THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH

AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH

NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.

As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:

SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.

WHY?  IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF REPEATING MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS.

So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.

First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?

A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES;

THAT ARE USUALLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS, WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,

with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?

#1-  EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.-  No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition. 

That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.

#2-  WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE.-  These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

Date-  8/3/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. JUST SOME OBSERVATIONS...

The Following are Impressions that I

Have Formed Through Years of

Covering Politics in the U.S.

Rational Person-  Looks for Answers.

Irrational Person-  Looks for Excuses.

Rational Person-  Uses Religion as a Tool.

Irrational Person-  Uses Religion as a Weapon.

Rational Person-  Tries to Understand Their Opponent.

Irrational Person-  Could Care Less.

Rational Person-  Fights Prejudice.

Irrational Person-  Attempts to Justify Prejudice.

Rational Person-  Uses Critical Thinking and Logic.

Irrational Person-  Uses Rumor and Innuendo.

Rational Person-  Wants to be Understood.

Irrational person-  Wants to be Obeyed.

Rational Person-  Believes "Respect" is Earned 

Through Good Works and Honorable Intentions.

Irrational Person-  Believes "Respect" is Earned

Through Fear and Guile.

Rational Person-  Encourages Cooperation.

Irrational Person-  Encourages Hate.

FEATURE ARTICLES.

DESTROYING PLANNED PARENTHOOD-  A DESPERATE ACT BY 

THOSE WHO DON'T CARE?  PART 2.

What is exactly at the Heart of this sudden Desire to Eliminate PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

-  THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

-  SAME- SEX MARRIAGE.

-  RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

What do They all Have in Common?

Yes, They are Deeply Divisive Issues that Cause a Great of Dissension Among

Individual Politicians, Political Parties, and the Electorate.  

In Fact, During the past few years in the U.S., You could Argue that these have been the Most Relevant Topics, when Discussing the Outcome of Recent Elections.  However, They can give us a Window into the Mindset of Certain Segments of Society, and Those who Represent Them in the Halls of Congress.

THESE THREE ISSUES ARE EXAMPLES OF GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN LEGAL ACCESS TO SOCIAL AND MONETARY OPPORTUNITIES, OR HEALTHCARE SAFEGUARDS, THAT OTHERS ALREADY HAVE.

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT-  TO AID AMERICANS WHO ARE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE DUE TO COST, BY SUBSIDIZING OR OFFERING HEALTH CARE PLANS AT RATES THAT WOULD NOT CREATE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.  THIS WOULD BRING THEM IN LINE WITH MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS WHO DO RECEIVE MEDICAL SUBSIDIES EITHER THROUGH EMPLOYMENT, DISABILITY, LOW INCOME, OR AGE.

SAME- SEX MARRIAGE-  COUPLES WHO CAN NOW ENTER INTO A LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE, WHICH NOW GRANTS THEM EQUAL STATUS BEFORE THE LAW.  THIS ENTITLES THEM TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEIR HETEROSEXUAL COUNTERPARTS.

RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE-  A MOVEMENT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE ACROSS THE NATION, WHICH WOULD ALLEVIATE SYMPTOMS OF POVERTY BY BRINGING FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT PAY SCALES IN LINE WITH THE COST OF LIVING INDEX.  MANY UNION AND CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES ALREADY HAVE MANDATORY INCREASES IN PAY, SO THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE GOAL.

So what do the Above Issues have in common with PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD-  IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WHOSE AFFILIATES OPERATE HEALTH CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE U.S.

THEY ARE RUN, PRIMARILY, FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUNG AMERICANS AND/OR LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS, SO THEY CAN RECEIVE PROPER REPRODUCTIVE MEDICAL CARE.

THIS INCLUDES:

-  CONTRACEPTIVES, BIRTH CONTROL, AND

   ABORTION SERVICES.

-  PREGNANCY AND PRENATAL CARE.

-  STD TESTING AND TREATMENT.

-  CANCER RELATED SCREENINGS

   AND DIAGNOSIS.

...AMONG OTHER PATIENT SERVICES.

SO WHAT DO...

-  PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

-  THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

-  SAME- SEX MARRIAGE.

-  RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

ALL HAVE IN COMMON?

THEIR EXISTENCE IS AN ATTEMPT TO REMEDY OR CREATE PROGRAMS

ADDRESSING FINANCIAL, MEDICAL, AND SOCIAL  INADEQUACIES AND/OR INEQUALITIES IN THE U.S., ALLOWING ALL AMERICANS AN OPPORTUNITY

TO;

1)  WORK FULL TIME, AND RECEIVE WAGES THAT TAKE THEM OUT OF POVERTY.

2)  THE ABILITY TO ATTAIN ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE, WITHOUT BEING

SUBJECT TO ECONOMIC CRIPPLING COSTS IN MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS, OR THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AFFORDABLE AND PRIVATE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY.

3)  A LAW RECOGNIZING THAT ALL MENTALLY COMPETENT CONSENTING ADULTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE LEGALLY MARRIED TO THE PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE.

THE ABOVE ARE NOT EXAMPLES OF CREATING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR

A CHOSEN SEGMENT OF SOCIETY, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT CERTAIN BASIC SAFEGUARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE SOMETHING THAT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD EXPECT, THAT WILL ALLOW EVERYONE A CHANCE TO LIVE A HAPPY AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE.

Yet, Time and Time Again, the TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, (AMONG OTHERS), HAVE TRIED TO DISMANTLE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH PROGRAMS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PUSHING FOR TAX CUTS THAT BENEFIT THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS. THIS IS DONE, WHILE DEMANDING THAT ALL AMERICANS ACCEPT SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS GUIDELINES IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

IT SEEMS THEY ARE SET ON KEEPING THE UNITED STATES A COUNTRY OF THE "HAVES AND HAVE NOTS", OR THE "PRIVILEGED CLASS VS THE FACELESS MASSES."

Yeah, THEIR LOOKING OUT FOR ALL OF US...

Date-  9/29/2016.

FEATURE ARTICLES. DESTROYING PLANNED PARENTHOOD- A DESPERATE ACT BY THOSE WHO DON'T CARE? PART 1.

Why is it so difficult to Understand the Motivations that Drive some of the Decisions Made 

by Certain Public Officials?  Sometimes it Appears that Opinions on Particular Issues:

-  ARE COMPLETELY MOTIVATED BY SELF -INTEREST.

-  REFLECT IRRATIONAL PREJUDICES AND HATREDS.

-  WANT TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS OR

THEOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BINDING ON ALL

AMERICANS.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE

PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE TO TEST

THE REAL MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THOSE WHO EITHER SUPPORT

THE PROGRAM, OR WISH TO END IT. 

PART 1.- A PRACTICAL APPROACH.

Here is a RATIONAL STEP-BY-STEP WAY TO EVALUATE PLANNED

PARENTHOOD, AS IT IS ADMINISTERED BY GOVERNMENT.

Examine and Analyze the Mission Statement.

Why was it Created?

What was the Reasoning that led to it Being

Started?

What Problems was it Meant to Address?

Was it a Moral Decision, Practical Decision, or Both,

that led to it becoming a Government Program?

Administrating the Program.

What are it's Goals or Objectives?

Do They Mirror its Mission Statement?

Are These Goals Best Served by 

a Government Program?

How does the Funding Accomplish 

These Goals?

Continuing the Program.

Has it been Effective in Accomplishing ALL, SOME,

OR NONE of its Objectives?

Should the Budget be Increased, Decreased or the

Program Eliminated Altogether?  Under what Set of

Guidelines should we consider ALL OR PART OF

THE PROGRAM A SUCCESS?

What are the Consequences of Keeping or Eliminating

all or part of the Program?

THESE POINTS MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED.

-  If the GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM 

ARE CONSIDERED MORALLY "GOOD", HOW WOULD THEY 

BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT THE PROGRAMS EXISTENCE?

-  IS DESTROYING A PROGRAM IN ITS ENTIRETY, 

THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH ANY PROBLEMS 

IT HAS IN BEING ADMINISTERED?

IN ADDITION,

IF THERE ARE ACCUSATIONS BEING LEVELED AGAINST 

THOSE RUNNING THE PROGRAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF

CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW, WHY SHOULD ANY NEGATIVE 

ACTION BE TAKEN UNTIL THE TRUTH OF THESE ASSERTIONS

IS PROPERLY INVESTIGATED?

...TO BE CONTINUED.

Date-  9/26/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.