Tag Politics

You Gotta Trust Somebody

Michael Leave a comment

This is local news but we’re willing to bet something similar has happened where you live provided you live in the United States of America.  Seems other countries already have this figured out.

Earlier this week the local county council that counsels those who live in the county where we live voted to not include the phrase “In God We Trust” among the other cute sayings along the walls of the room in the county courthouse where the council lives and works on the days they bother to go to work.  It seems they trotted out that old argument, the separation of church and state, once again.  (They realize that the Congress of the United States begins each session with a prayer, don’t they?)  The County Executive made it even worse by trying to explain that even if the council passed that resolution he would have vetoed it since not everyone who lives in the county is a Christian.  Now there’s one soul who needs a lot of remedial Sunday school.

We’ve tried fighting that one with the clear language of those who wrote that Constitution that they meant freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.  Since they never do listen to us we thought we’d at least help them along.  If they aren’t going to trust in God, let’s come up with someone everyone can agree is worthy of our trust.

It seems these guys like other elected officials.  They like to quote predecessors and sometimes even each other during spirited debates.  It sounds too self-serving to put up a banner that says “In County Council We Trust” so we’re going to look at some other elected ones.  School boards are supposed to be above politics and take an oath to be leaders to the children they ultimately serve.  That would be a good choice.  No, wait a minute, it was just a couple of days ago that the president of a local school board was arrested for assault stemming from a  bar fight in which an instructor in her school district was hit over the head with a beer mug by his wife – neither teacher nor board member, whew.  And just a couple days before that another school district’s board member was hauled off to jail on charges of assault and public drunkenness after a fight at a wedding reception.  “In School Boards We Trust” is out.

Judges.  They are fair, honest, impartial.  Yes, we can live with “In Judges We Trust” carved in stone.  Except for the ones who have recently been paroled for everything from taking bribes to using judicial resources to finance re-election campaigns.  Now there is that one judge who gets all the big trials and is pretty fair.  Why it was only two days ago that he wouldn’t allow a deliberating jury from reviewing an exhibit saying they have to rely on their collective memories.  We can change the carving to “In Judges’ Memories We Trust.”  No, that sounds too much like a memorial.

How about we move up the ladder.  If County Council wants to be somebody when they grow up it would be state representatives.  “In the State House We Trust” is a little wordy but it gives people enough time to not worry about the eight of them that are due to be released from prison before the end of this year.  Most of them already have their paperwork in to become registered lobbyists.  We’re certain we can get them to agree to be trustworthy if we can get their names inscribed along with the major catch phrase.  Or not.

Looks like we’re down to our last two suggestions.  There is a local bathroom remodeler whose motto is “A Company You Can Trust.”  We’ll just take a still from one of his television ads, blow it up, and post it behind the county council dais.

Our last suggestion is just to make certain the county council doesn’t ever have to deal with the phrase again and purge it from all of their records.  Once they can figure out how they’d like to get paid, since it is on all of our money, they should be happy as clams.  Or just as steamed.

Now that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you.

You thought that was politically incorrect?

Michael 1 Comment

Over the years we’ve rarely made specific observations of those people that we might feature in our posts.  There have been many of them but we’ve always spoken to what they’ve done, not who they are.

Our first mention of a real other person came in November of 2011.  We detailed the exploits of a shopper who startled She of We by screaming across a rather large store to a companion shopper.  We mentioned the shopper was screaming in a foreign tongue but we didn’t identify it and didn’t have to.  That wasn’t the story as much as the volume and not knowing the language therefore not knowing whether the scream was because Shopper #1 found a real bargain or a raging inferno.  (See “Clean Up on Aisle Ten,” November 10, 2011)

Throughout the next three years we visited waiters and waitresses that made our day (our favorite can be found at “How would you like your toast?” August 2, 2012), engaged couples becoming married couples in various culture settings (“Weddings Gone Wild…well, sort of,” July 1, 2013), and plane-mates with oversized (!) carry-ons (“We’re On Vacation, Part 1,” September 3, 2012).

In none of these stories did we consider the featured guest’s ethnic or racial background.  It didn’t seem to matter to the story. And if you speak to most people in the world, it doesn’t matter to them either.  Oh but when it comes time to complete a survey or an application for something, those authors delve into backgrounds that would be challenged as politically incorrect if they were to speak thusly in a lunch room of a company doing business with the government.

And there seems to be no consistency to their descriptions.  They may ask the survey taker if he or she is African American, Hispanic, or White.  That gives us one in an uncertain familial background, one as cultural descriptor, and one that’s a race identifier.  What does the white South African who grew up in Chile answer?  Is someone from the Black Sea village of Poti in Georgia just as Asian American as someone who grew up in Da Nang overlooking the South China Sea?  There is no good way to answer.

Is the term White used for those one cannot readily discern an ethnic background?  European American brings us back to a non-descript description but how much difference is there between an Italian American, a French American, and a German American other than what side of the Alps are the coffee shops?  And do any of these people get to use the description if they themselves actually spent no time in the called upon country or is that only available for continents?

We think we have the best idea.  If one is living in America one gets to be an American.  If you’re living somewhere else please check with your country’s version of the ACLU for guidance, then ignore them and do what we say instead.   When you read one of our posts you can’t tell if of whom we are speaking has a particular color skin, speaks with a certain accent, or is good at making ravioli at home.   You can tell if of whom we are speaking makes us smile doing the things that race, color, or national origin can’t control.  Like asking, “How would you like your toast?”

Now that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you.

If not God, then who?

Michael Leave a comment

This week saw the outside Christmas display erected at He of We’s.  Display and erected may be a little ambitious for what is out there.  A few small trees and some white lights bunched behind a primitive painting of the Nativity.  Fortunately those expounding separating our state from our church haven’t wandered down He’s street where the birth of the Son of God is being celebrated en masse.

It’s the time of year for pretty trees and bright decorations, for Nativities from living to foam, for carolers and revelers.   It’s also the time of year many Americans get crazy over political correctness.  Yes there are still corporate memos distributed that say if you want to extend holiday greetings during the holiday season then those are the words you should use, “Holiday greetings.”  But exactly what holiday is it that we are celebrating…Black Friday?

This year things are looking up for those who recognize the four freedoms include freedom OF religion (versus freedom FROM religion).  A move is actually being made even by some politicians to recognize that the country was built on Judeo-Christian values and that we should start celebrating them.  This includes a push to have the country’s motto displayed at public buildings including schools right there next to the country’s flag.  It’s getting a little response from the anti-God groups but nothing like making sure we say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

The motto itself is encouraging.  It’s not from the 1700’s when everybody included God.  It actually wasn’t adopted until 1956 when the country was coming out of back to back wars, revving up for another one, and needed God.  It was about that same time, in 1954, that the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance.  It was a time that America wasn’t afraid to recognize a Supreme Being.

What is that motto, anyway?  It’s funny, we make sure it’s on our money, we just don’t talk about it much.  In God we trust.  It seems simple enough, especially at this time of year.  After all, if not God, then who?

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

(Two years ago we wrote our first controversial post, not from our perspective but some thought so.  We thought it was a very thoughtful and meaningful.  We held off publishing it for a few weeks so we wouldn’t add to the holiday fuel of Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas.  It’s still a good read.  It’s a long read but we invite you to travel back in time with us and see why some truths are still self-evident.  “We Hold These Truths,” is from January 13, 2012 in Uncategorized.)

 

Gun Wrongs

Michael Leave a comment

Today we’re sharing with you a memo to NRA President David Keene.  He is a national figure who travels worldwide hunting and shooting, meets with government leaders, is on television and in the news quite often, and does it all without a salary.  He even dresses well.  And he did it all by misrepresenting one of America’s most cherished symbols of citizenship – the Bill of Rights.

As we have posted previously, those famous first ten amendments to the United States Constitution were drafted because of ongoing debate that in remembering British violations of civil rights there might still be too much power given to the new government without adequately addressing the rights of the individual citizen.  And thus in September of 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution to address those concerns.  Two proposed amendments were not ratified but the remaining ten, the first ten, are our Bill of Rights.

With rights come responsibilities.  It’s such a shame that so many given these precious rights fail to make that connection.  They don’t even take the responsibility to read what right they are assuming.  Unlike the wordy First Amendment which weighed in at a whopping 45 words, the Second Amendment, the one David Keene, his followers and most likely even his opponents, apparently have yet to read, come in at a trim 27 words (11 of them at three letters or less).

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Any English teacher worth his or her salt can tell you that if you remove the dependent clauses the intention of the sentence is maintained.  Let’s look at this sentence.  There are two dependent clauses.  One is “being necessary to the security of a free State.”  You really don’t need this part of the sentence at all.  All it is there for is to clarify why we need a Militia.  The next dependent clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is only there to tell us how that Militia might be armed since the government then hadn’t yet come up with the novel concept of spending a couple trillion dollars more than it has to buy things like rifles.  They were willing to let the people who would be drafted into the Militia bring their own rifles.  Sort of like if you were to enlist into the military today you’d bring your own Hummer or submarine. 

So we are left with, “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”  And darned if it isn’t.  We have a great little Army in spite of what so many generals are being caught doing, a pretty good Navy in spite of what so many admirals had been caught doing, a high flying Air Force, well trained Marines, and a full Coast Guard.  All armed forces that make up our well regulated Militia. 

Maybe Mr. Keene doesn’t understand the word Militia.  It’s not something we use very much today unless the Second Amendment is being quoted.  That would be, “an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies.”  We probably are more used to hearing it called the Reserves or National Guard.  They get their guns issued to them just like the full time military.

Now we understand Amendment Number Two says nothing about sport and hunting.  The framers of the Bill of Rights where understandably more interested in preserving the new country, not in either creating or limiting the first indoor shooting range.  Then hunting wasn’t sport, it was shopping.  And it was efficient.  One pellet, one shot, one rabbit, dinner.  The 18t century hunter hardly wanted to pump more than one shot into dinner.  They were all for getting more iron in their diet but that’s what the vegetables were for.So now that we have cleared all that up, here is our memo.

 

To:         David Keene, President, NRA
From:     The Real Reality Show Blog people
Subj:      On the “right” to own guns that shoot 600 bullets a minute, launching them about 30,000 yards or the equivalent of 30 football fields, driving each over 2 feet through a solid wood target and/or human being, from magazines that hold 30 bullets at a time.

Are you nuts?

 

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

Welcome to 2013. Now Go Away

Michael Leave a comment

Just because we don’t make resolutions until Spring is upon us (See Resolving to Keep it Real, Dec. 31, 2012) doesn’t mean we can’t be urged into encouraging others to change their behavior post haste.  We’ve gotten to experience some horrible behavior that could fill an entire year in only the first week.  And that behavior must stop.

We encountered the one that put us over the edge while we were coming out of the store and walking to our car, some 150 feet from the entrance.  As we approached it, the anything but a gentleman sitting in the car parked next to ours, started beeping his horn.  And then again.  Longer.  And then we saw why.  His certainly long-suffering wife was behind us trudging through the cold and the slush with their packages.  Apparently he felt it more prudent that he stay in the warm car while she goes into the store and buys his wares.  He also felt it more prudent that he sit in the warm car rather than picking her up at the entrance.  He knew she was done with their shopping.  He was honking the horn at her.  There was the extent of his chivalry.  He honked the horn so she didn’t have to wander throughout the lot looking for him.  Then to top things off, he let that car continue to sit in the parking space.  The one that had a snow bank just outside the passenger door.  When She of We said a bit too out loud, “He won’t even back out for her so she doesn’t have to climb through the snow,” the long-suffering wife said, “It’s ok. I’m used to it.”  She shouldn’t have to ever become used to such rude behavior.  So for 2013 he should resolve to figure out how to get along without her because eventually she’ll realize that also.

Other behavior we’d like to see not continued in 2013 is the media fascination with having to title all the news.  No longer are they happy reporting it.  Now they have to make up catch phrases to go along with it.  So please, take your fiscal cliff and go jump off of it.  Otherwise let’s at least have a little fun with it.  Since we’ve either avoided it or fallen off of it depending on what analyst is babbling, it should no longer be part of the evening news’ scripts.  But just in case it should sneak back into common parlance we propose the Fiscal Cliff Drinking Game.  Every time you hear that phrase you must drink a shot then call your congressman. 

Speaking of, and to, Congress, we’d like to see you go away.  You’re not doing anybody any good.  Make you’re next point of business for this session abandonment.  If you don’t have the decency to put yourself out of work, have the decency not to lie to the American people about the work you’re doing.  The “heroic” first vote to avoid the “fiscal cliff” saved the American worker about 20 cents for every $1,000 he or she makes in salary in what was supposed to be the temporary income tax increase.  It did not address the $2 per $1,000 increase in social security and other federal taxes and fees that will be withheld per month in 2013.  That means about $50 less per paycheck if your one of the average Americans getting paid every other week and if all those paychecks up add to $50,000 by the end of the year.

Finally for the fine men, women, and undecided in Washington please do not use 2013 to tell us how many jobs you’ve created.  Unless you also own a company that employs legal American workers you can’t create any.  Leave creating jobs to the business that actually hire, and pay, employees.  Intern and housekeeper positions don’t count.

Something else we’d like to see go away are all those special parking spaces around stores and restaurants.  We love our elder friends and neighbors.  We’ve often said that anybody over 80 can do whatever they feel like.  By then, they’ve earned it.  (See Entitlement Program, March 29, 2012.)  We’d like to see some of those parking spaces reserved for “Mothers to be and mothers of young children,” and for those picking up dinner to go, and even for those with Handicapped placards, turned into spaces for our Older Friends and Neighbors.  The eighty-somethings who are still driving do it well, and they aren’t the ones cajoling their doctors into signing HP applications for their high blood pressure.  Why should they have to walk 300 feet from the lot to the lobby?   Let’s face it, if you’re just running in for dinner, you can afford to run from a few yards away, or bring one of the kids to run inside while you circle the block.  So you’re a mother of young children.  Being parents of former young children from the days when there were no such preferred spots we can tell you our best shopping trips were those with the kids left at home.  Leave them at home.

Now that we are well into the 21st century, a time of unprecedented public protection against ourselves, we want to see the sale of sleds that cannot be steered or stopped stopped.  You can’t by an extra-large, sugary soft drink in New York City but you can put four 7-year-olds on a plastic sleeve, push them down a hill, and wish them luck knowing at the bottom is a 4 lane roadway separated from the top by a dozen 45 year old oak trees.  You can’t buy a lighter that takes at least three steps to ignite to start your grill for the safety of a child who may not understand that it isn’t a candy stick but you can buy an oversized Frisbee that sets the same child spinning uncontrollably on its downhill voyage over the same tree lined hillside.  We love winter sports.  Sledding, skiing, and skating make January and February bearable.  But let’s do it safely.  Nobody would ever put children on bicycles without brakes or a wheel that steers in April.  Let’s say goodbye to the winter version and stop making children headlines on the evening news.

Do we seem a little cranky today?  We’re sorry.  Usually we are quite upbeat and make the most of what we have.   Sometimes you have to take away to have better.  These are some things we like to see taken away.  Do you have others?  Would you like to see Black Friday not start on Thursday?  Is it time to make the baggage, premium seating, and boarding priority fees go away even if it does mean airfares go up?  Can we stop with gas prices that end in tenths of a cent per gallon?  Let us know.  We can be cranky together.  And then, that can go away too.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

It’s Not the End of the World

Michael Leave a comment

If you lived to see Christmas then you know the world did not come to an end on December 20.  Or even December 21.  Probably there are just as many now a week later who are saying they never did believe in that stuff as there were a week ago who were convinced that this was the month to skip the mortgage payment.  As much as we would have loved to skip a payment or two, we were pretty much certain that the time to say we’ll never see another day wasn’t going to be determined by when the Mayans ran out of rock to carve their time in stone.

But it did get us to thinking.  Were there things this year that we’ll never see again.  We’ll not see another repeating date like we did on 12/12/12.  The next one will be 01/01/01 and January of 2101 is pretty far off.  But we could still be around for 2/2/22 or even 3/3/33.  Purists will say that those are not true repeating dates but since we’re talking life or death here, 2/2/22 is pretty close.

We saw lots of celebrities go in 2012.  Dick Clark, Andy Williams, Andy Griffith.  Whitney Houston, Donna Summer.  Etta James. Dave Brubeck.  Big names.  And many other big names.  And there could be a voice we’ll never hear again or a presence on the stage we’ll never see again.  But others will come.  Others will make us laugh and sing and snap our fingers and hum along.

There will never be another Twinkie or another Pontiac GTO, two brands that disappeared in 2012.  But somebody will eventually buy the Twinkie name and start baking vanilla sponge cakes with creamy centers and somebody will tell you that the last GTO wasn’t the same as the mid-60’s muscle car that made those three letters the monogram every teenage boy wanted in his garage anyway.

Some stuff we’ve missed but we know will be back.  Hockey hasn’t made a permanent exit even though some of the people whose livelihoods have been imperiled may feel it has.  No, not the players or the owners.  Especially not the league office or the players’ union.  We mean the ticket takers, ushers, vendors, and parking attendants.  Those who rely on 41 home games – plus playoffs – for a good chunk of their annual income.

And some stuff we really hope will stay away.  Do we have to hear one more time about “the biggest sale of the season!” Does every story have to be “Breaking news!”  Does every game have to have the “Play of the century!” in it?  And for good, bad, or otherwise, once January comes can we please retire “Fiscal Cliff” or at the very least make the Washington geniuses jump off of it?

All in all we have to say that 2012 wasn’t a banner year for things going away.  We should all get together and say, “Come on 2013, let’s see what you got but don’t expect us to just roll over and play dead.”  After all, it’s not the end of the world.   

Now, that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you?

 

 

Things We Learned On Election Day

Michael Leave a comment

The election is over.  According to the news coverage of this year’s Presidential election, we learned that candidates through social media were able to go directly to the voters and skip the traditional news outlet thus creating excitement in getting out and voting in numbers we’ve not seen before.  Worldwide there was more interest in our election by some people than in the elections in their own countries.  It came after a campaign that stretched over 17 months and $8 billion.  Anything that big must have some lasting lessons learned.  Here are ours.

When Election Day falls on the first really cold day of the year, people get to break out their winterwear for the first time.  This means that many of them will end up wearing lift tickets from last ski season on their jackets like either a) a medal attesting to their prowess on the beginners’ slope, b) visible proof that they are of the means to take ski vacations even if it was 8 months ago, or c) equally visible proof that they don’t have a mirror handy to the front door.

There will be at least one person within 15 feet of you who is at the wrong precinct and will do his darnedest to try convincing the judge of elections to let him vote where he already is.

Even though at the primaries people were very obvious about who they were supporting for a variety of offices by wearing buttons, carrying signs, or having their favorite candidate’s name carved into their hairstyle, when the general election rolls around it is very obvious that nobody wants to admit who they are supporting by the complete lack or signs, cards, signs, placards and buttons, or the unexplained presence of hair extensions.

Somebody is going to have a hat that will make others want to laugh out loud.  Somebody else will be wearing gloves that don’t match.

Speaking of signs, campaign signs on public roadsides, intersections, and highway exit ramps will remain there forever next to the Humphrey/Muskie signs behind the guide rail.

People who want their first graders to experience democracy in action should do it after school because doing it before on an election day that is supposed to bring out 115% of registered voters will cause the child to steam and scream when he and/or she figures out that school started 10 minutes ago.

Newscasters really do believe states are either red or blue.

If you’re standing in a line outside a polling place there will be somebody behind you who wants to talk to somebody in front of you and the somebody in front of you will always invite the somebody behind you to come up and join him but never the other way around.

It doesn’t matter who won, who lost, or who got a write-in vote, but it matters very much that the campaigns are over and we can now go back to watching television ads for the magic ear wax vacuum.

Now, that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you?

 

 

Wordsmithing

Michael Leave a comment

On the eve of the Presidential election, as Americans ponder the future of the country, while candidates’ supporters prepare to campaign right at the voting places, and as poll workers prepare voting machines, we were wondering, can people be victimized by a hurricane?

It started during a television news program that detailed the current conditions of the victims of Hurricane Sandy.  Isn’t a victim more one who is the receiver of a planned, illicit or improper action?  People are victims of crime.  People are victims of corrupt investment schemes.  Natural disasters might grow from specific conditions but they aren’t planned.  They may be dangerous but they aren’t corrupt.  They are inopportune but aren’t improper.  We got to thinking that the “victims” of Hurricane Sandy aren’t victims but are casualties.  The media may want to use victim to personify the physical, mental, emotional, and financial injuries of those whose paths were crossed by the storm.  The injuries are personal.  Making the cause of them so doesn’t make them more or less severe.  Calling those whose lives have been disrupted by Sandy victims minimizes what they truly are, casualties. 

On the eve of the Presidential election, She of We starts a new job.  She had been at her old one for over a decade and was a key player for her now former employer.  She often received offers from others and one finally came that was harder to refuse than not.  The stages of employee loss are not unlike the stages of grief.  You disbelieve, you question, you bargain, you express anger, you accept.  Her boss went straight to angry and hung out there, giving up anger only when he exhibited selfishness.  “You’re disrupting my life,” he told her upon hearing the news.  Having your house underwater, on fire, in small pieces after an explosion, or just not there is a disruption of life.

On the eve of the Presidential election, instead of sportscasters pondering whether the ultimate winner of the New York City Marathon could have been caught in the last quarter mile they are instead reduced to discussing football games that were and hockey games that weren’t.  That’s because after days of interminable announcements about how good it would be for the city to hold the marathon as scheduled, somebody spoke sense to the mayor to give up the selfish view that nothing is going to stop the famed run and declare it inappropriate to hold while others in New York City have no home to go to after running their own personal marathons.

On the eve of the Presidential election, people are still calling into talk shows and posting comments on line in response to Conan O’Brien’s remarks that “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” is too mean for today’s children.  Today’s children can’t handle the cruel reality of life that while some children will grow up to be famous television personalities, some will get rocks in their treat bags of life.  It’s inappropriate that Lucy is allowed to say the things she says to Charlie Brown but it’s not too mean for television news to show over a hundred houses burn to the ground where children once lived.  The cruel reality is that television networks see the potential for huge ratings and awards of excellence for their stark presentation of a natural disaster.

On the eve of the Presidential election, millions of dollars are still being spent on television, radio, electronic, print, and direct mail advertising.  Candidates selfishly tell us lies about their opponents and themselves while being inappropriately excluded from the prohibition against automated phone sales.  It’s mean that they would rather continue to spend the money on telling us how much we will be victimized by their opponents instead of spending it on reducing the real suffering from the cruelty of life that Sandy wrought.  Just think each time you see or hear a political ad today about how much good could have been done had that money been donated to the millions whose lives have been disrupted. 

We don’t want to be mean about it.  We’re just saying is that what you really meant to say?

Now, that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you?

 

 

Joe for President

Michael Leave a comment

We were talking the morning after the most recent Presidential Debate and came up with this question.  What would it be like if somebody ran for President who really wanted the job for the sake of the job.  Just a regular folk who decided to run for office.  No party affiliation, no special interest backing, no family legacy, no cultural impetus.  Just somebody who wants to be President.

You’d have to go back to the Washington/Adams election of 1788 to find someone who had to be talked into running for the office.  You certainly have to go back that far to find an election not controlled by political parties.  And then it was only one of the candidates, one G. Washington, who did not declare allegiance with a party.  That would be one out of 12 candidates.  All eleven others were affiliated with a political party.    

Back to our question though, what would it be like if the people who were running for President were just regular folks who decided to run for office?  Even back in 1788 you could hardly have called any of the candidates “just regular folk.”  Of the twelve there were 3 governors, 2 former governors, the U. S. Secretary of War, the U. S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the former Minister to Great Britain (Adams) and the former Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (Washington). 

Perhaps our backyards will give us a taste of what it would be like.  Although the United States is home to some of the largest cities in the world, there are many, many much smaller municipalities, all with municipal governments.  Some of the smallest might have only a single elected official, a mayor or an executive.  Some of the larger but still small communities have 3, 5, or 9 member boards of supervisors or commissioners.  Most of these officials serve for 4 or 6 year terms and if paid at all might consider their pay handsome if it makes it into three digits.  That’s for the entire year.  They decided to run because a road was bad, a sewer didn’t exist, a street light was ill-placed, or a developer was going to chop down a tree.  Their plights were real, their concerns legitimate, their opposition often fierce, and their recognition often absent.  But week after week, after working their 40 hours at a full time job they spend another 12 or 20 hours balancing the decision to buy the new police car against bargaining the new municipal tax service contract.  They have to appoint neighbors to the planning commission while explaining to other neighbors that they appointed someone else.  They spend hours deciphering the language to the ordinance restricting on-street parking during the winter so the snow plow can get through sufficient to explain it in 5 words or less on a too small and still too expensive sign.  They are just regular folks.  Working an irregular job. 

Perhaps if these men and women would ever want to run for President we might be able to elect a Chief Executive who understands taxes both from paying and spending.  Perhaps we can send someone to Washington whose new salary would mean a pay raise.  Instead these fine people want to stay local and help local issues.  The regular folks want to stay home.  With the folks.  Instead we get the people whose idea of an entry level political job is a term or two in the Senate or having been appointed Secretary of Something Useless by the President from two terms ago.

In 1788 George Washington agreed to run for President but would declare no party affiliation.  In fact, he hoped there would not be the formation of, or influence by political parties because it would lead to another thing to divide the people.  He took an office that came with the very large for the eighteenth century salary of $25,000.  Washington was already a very rich man and was going to refuse the salary.  He was convinced by members of Congress to take his pay so there would not be a precedent set that only the rich could become President.  It’s a shame that neither his hope that there would not be battling political parties nor that those other than the very rich could become President ever came true.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a Leader who understands the difference between surplus food sent to countries who support violence against Americans and surplus food sent to schools for breakfast and lunch so the schools can still afford gym and music classes.  Maybe they would understand that you can’t appoint your brother in law the Secretary of Everything Outdoors when somebody else really understands that preservation, conservation, and recreation are more than words that rhyme.  Maybe we would have a President who isn’t afraid to tell the people when we’re in some pretty big financial trouble and all of us have to tighten our belts and include people whose work address ends in Washington, DC among the belt tighteners.

If just regular folks were to become President maybe we’d have a leader who knows you can’t be loyal to the people who voted for you and still answer to the party who picked you to be voted for.  If just regular folks were to become President we’d not have to legislate term limits.  They would be satisfied with the job they did after one or two rounds and would know it’s time to go back home with the other folks and get back to being just regular.

Maybe we did have a Just Regular Folk become President.  It was a while ago but the more we read about George Washington the more we’d like to have dinner with him.  And isn’t that the best judge of who’s just a regular Joe?  We mean George.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

 

Party Planning

Michael Leave a comment

Now that the conventions are over, the tickets are official, the platforms are assembled, the debates have begun, the candidates have spoken, the has-beens have spoken, the wannabes have spoken, the wives have spoken, the television pundits have spoken, — not much has been said.  We’re still sure we don’t like either of these unwise men.  And we’re still convinced our best choice is not between them (see None of the Above, August 13, 2012).  But we have a bit more clarity of the why we don’t like either of these party-ites.

It’s because they are party-ites.  They are the stereotypes of what we’ve come to imagine the parties are actually about. 

Willard Mitt Romney is the ultimate rich man.  Named for the family friend Willard Marriott of “The” Marriotts  and the famous don’t-tell-me-you-didn’t-know-him relative Milton Romney who played quarterback for the Chicago Bears in the 1920’s, is undoubtedly a rich man.  With or without tax returns this is a guy who bought entire companies like normal people buy entire kitchen knife sets.  He owns multiple houses, is alternately referred to as a “consultant” and a “venture capitalist,” and went to Harvard.  Even Republicans can’t identify with him because most Republicans aren’t rich.  He may have come off winning the debate but mostly because he was debating a real loser.

Barrack Hussain Obama, II is the quintessential Democrat mostly because the Democrats told us so. He is African American born of a Kenyan father and a white lady from Kansas (ok, so part African American), he has one house other than the White House, his religion is simply Christian, and he began his law career as a civil rights lawyer.  They don’t always mention that he received his undergraduate degree from Columbia and his law degree also from Harvard and if they do, then it’s in the context of isn’t it great that a black man can go to Ivy League Universities too.  He has also worked as a consultant, and is a published author.  In fact, he’s made about $6 million from his and his wife’s book sales and that one house they live in (other than the White House) is worth $1.65 million.  His performance at the debate was more of one being forced to a book signing rather than one who understood what he wrote.

Neither of these puppies is what the politicos want you to think of them.  The Republicans have got to stop nominating people who flaunt their millions of dollars in the public’s face.  The Democrats have got to stop nominating people who have so many millions they can’t hide them all and often meet the Republican stereotype better than most of the Republicans. 

Less than an hour after the conclusion of the debate, as close to what we have as “legitimate news outlets” were pointing out the misleading statements, almost-truths, half-truths, and “just plain not right” uttered between the banter and the mockery.  Neither of these party-ites resembles Lincoln or Jackson.  It’s a sad fact that probably some of those who call themselves Democrat or Republican can’t identify which is which nor which side either was on during the debate.  

If they should figure out their true directions then we may consider what the major parties’ candidates have to say about some of the important issues going on in the country.  Until then, we’ll stick with “none of the above” and find someone who will.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?