Dee Perez-Scott

Recently Dee asked if I read my own posts. And, of course I do and I just re-read my last one on her site again but not with the same jaundiced view that she reads them. Perhaps it is she who should re-read them and then just take them at face value without her usual negative spin. Is it any wonder we have so much difficulty in agreeing on anything when Dee insists on twisting every word that I and others post on her site solely on the basis that she disagrees with them. The following is an attempt to help Dee overcome her cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling Dee gets when she encounters and holds conflicting ideas or knowledge simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. So when Dee encounters such conflicting ideas she must either change her attitudes, beliefs, and actions or twist the ideas that are in conflict with hers to fit her attitudes and beliefs she also likes to reduce her dissonance by justifying, blaming, spinning and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology and is clearly apparent in the great lengths Dee goes to deny, spin, twist, and distort the posts of others to fit her own predilections without giving them any positive consideration. This leads to gross misinterpretations and misunderstandings.
Dee desperately needs to take a course in empathetic listening and reading. It would be a big help to her in relieving her cognitive dissonance.
Dee wrote, "The Republican agenda! They want to END Social Security, END Medicare, END Freedom of Religion, End Freedom of Choice, End Freedom of Sexual Preference, End Unemployment Compensation, and End Public Education."

If this was the true Republican agenda, there would not be enough Republicans to make a difference or worry about.
(Moreover, if this is the true Republican agenda, how do you explain the fact that there are so many of us? How many politicians does Dee think could run for office successfully on the platform she identifies? How many adherents could be attracted to a party with that agenda?)
I wrote, “Many Conservative Republicans are hung up on their opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. I believe there is significant merit in their position but my Republicanism does not revolve around those two litmus tests.”
(What I am saying is that my support for candidates does not hinge on whether the candidate can pass those two tests.
Population stabilization, border security in depth, and fiscal responsibility are the critical issues to me.
(I won’t support any candidate who is not strong on all three.)

Public Education will always exist but Republicans favor a second alternative because the public schools are failing despite the tons of money we put into them.
(Dee’s business experience should have taught her that a little competition can result in improved performance. Public education system needs more competition to give it an incentive to improve.)

The other so-called freedoms Dee’s list are not in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily make them bad ideas, just a little less sacrosanct then Dee makes them. The only threat to the Freedom of Religion comes from the Left, the ACLU and from those who don't comprehend what a Muslim America would be like under Sharia Law -- women in particular.

(Freedom of religion in my mind does not include practices that are contrary to human rights and civil law. In spite of some very damning evidence to the contrary, some people still want to believe that Islam is a benign religion that should be welcomed in the U.S. I suspect those who support Islam and Sharia law have never had to live under its strictures, have never had to witness a stoning or the cutting off of the hand of a thief. We can be complacent about Islam because we consider any possibility of the imposition of Sharia to be extremely remote. Yet, those conversant with Islam have made clear its long range goals. Soon we will be hearing more about efforts to impose Sharia law in the Muslim communities in America. It seems unreasonable to have one set of laws for Muslims and another for everyone else. Religious law should never supersede civil law in a democracy even in the narrowest of contexts).()

Re: Social Security. The GOP seems to be the only party that recognizes the long term unfunded liabilities of the trust fund. The use of private accounts for younger workers is one approach the GOP has suggested. Personally, I believe that the ceiling on taxable wages should be removed with the maximum benefit left at the present level as adjusted annually for inflation. This would be a huge tax increase for those earning over the current ceiling so probably would have to be phased in over 5 years. The taxable base for those who are still working, as opposed to those who are already retired, should include their compensation from stock options, interest, dividends, bonuses, etc. to the extent that they have not been previously taxed because those income streams may be substitutes for wages subject to the social security tax.

(Does that sound like ending social security and Medicare? Hell, no! I, as a Republican, am interested foremost in preserving them by assuring their solvency for our children. How any rational person could read my comment to be a suggestion that we should do away with either program is unfathomable. If there are Republicans or Democrats who want to do so, they will never get elected and can be discounted entirely as irrelevant.)

Freedom of choice or pro-abortion ideas should be anathema to religious Latinos. Many Catholics make common cause with the GOP on this issue.
(This is not of paramount importance to me but should be to Catholics and others who object to the disposal of viable fetuses. I do believe that abortion should not be considered a primary method of family planning or birth control.)
Sexual preference: I say let the combat arms of the military decide regarding “don't ask, don't tell” what is acceptable in combat situations not politicians who sit comfortably in their townhouses in Washington.
(Nevertheless, the die is cast, and eventually gays will be able to serve openly in the armed forces as soon as the DOD can figure out the logistics and the rules.)

Unemployment compensation is a good thing but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. When our policies encourage indolence instead of the willingness to accept any kind of work those policies will be counterproductive in the long run.
(i)(Maybe a few more people should read or view the Grapes of Wrath again so they can come down off their high horses and take whatever work is available until they can do better instead of insisting on another increase in the national debt and budget deficit. The question we should all be asking ourselves is, “What conditions would we impose if the money was coming directly out of our personal wallets -- because it is?)