One more politically-themed thought, and THEN, I'll get into a more jolly holiday spirit...
Imagine a PTA at a school with one member being an especially wealthy person who quite often gave a good deal of money to the school. Let's call him, Donald Pettydick. An issue comes up and the PTA votes for idea A. Mr. Pettydick is outraged because he wanted idea B.
Pettydick then says, in a bit of a huff, "You're going to regret this! I'll just have to remember this when it comes time to give money to the school again! I'm taking names!!!"
Now it is, of course, within his rights to give money or not to give money. But it is an extremely jerk-y move to threaten to withhold money to the poorer people in the school to try to bully them into getting your way and force people to go along with you.
The current administration is being that jerk in its reaction to the UN this week. It's a very petty and un-classy thing to do. Not to mention, a blow to the ideals of democracy and liberty.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/nikki-haley-taking-names-on-jerusalem/index.html
"You say we're all equal sisters and brothers
Then why are the rich more equal than others...?" (Larry Norman, give or take...)
I guess what I'm saying is, in this season of Grace and Community, don't be a Pettydick.
1 comment:
Given your behavior over the last several months, you should have named the fictional character, "Daniel Pettydan".
Trump's response to the petulant nations of the UN is long past due by an American president and the American government in general. Most of the nations that signed on to the resolution to condemn the U.S. for moving our embassy to Jerusalem, Israel's capital, constantly act against the interests of both the United States and Israel. True allies support each other. Trump rightly sees Israel as an ally.
I suppose you constantly donate to causes that act in opposition to your strongly held beliefs. Normal people do not. Withholding funding is not "petty". It is an act that should promote reflection on the part of the party previously funded. "Why did they stop? What can we do to compel them to begin again? Do we care about the money more than our principles?" That last question is the...uh...money question. Those that will no longer get our tax dollars...those who shouldn't have been getting it in the first place...will decide if they want our bread badly enough to change their ways. It's as it should be.
But you hate Trump so much that funding those who would do us harm is preferable, if it means you can use the withholding of that funding to further demonize Trump. How petty!
Post a Comment