We are our own worst enemy
It’s been known for quite a spell, but now it’s a certified fact.
A large majority of Americans – 65 percent – would vote to replace every single elected member of Congress. A recent poll showed just how many Americans are throwing-up sick-and-tired of the games being played by those so-called public servants who care more about party affiliation and partisan politics that about fixing the ills of this country.
It is an educated guess that the 35 percent who would not vote to replace every elected official in the House and Senate are a relative, a government employee or a hard-line party know-nothing.
This country is in a helluva shape and has been for more than 10 years. Say what you want to about Bill Clinton – Go ahead! We’ll wait for the diatribe! – but under Clinton there was a balanced budget and he left office with a budget surplus.
I know, I know. I can hear those tongue-cluckers warming up their YB arguments. YB? You know, “Yes, but ….”
Yes, but … at least Clinton’s kept his corrupt behavior on a personal level, and did not drag down the entire country kowtowing to the special interest groups that really run this country.
It’s an old, old argument, but it never loses its truism value: What’s wrong with America is we started out with a country run by citizens and ended up with a government run by greedy politicians and special interest groups with more money than morals.
Let’s face it: The situation will not change as long as there are only two parties from which to choose. And that statement intentionally disqualifies the Green Party and the Libertarians from consideration; both fringe groups run more scary people for office than killers conjured up in a Saw movie.
The answer is simply not change for change sake. The answer is term limits for members of Congress. A constitutional amendment is the only way to fix that thorny situation since seated members of Congress are never, ever going to do anything to reduce their power or influence.
So, what are we waiting for?
Demand of those elected on November 2 to start the process for term limits. And don’t be surprised if your request is answered in a series of non-denial denials and political-speak nonsense.
Needed changes in the system will not be made by those elected; they can only be made by those who vote.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Those darn do-gooders
A recent emailer recently wrote something positive about a group called "Conservatives for Quality Government."
In more that 45 years of covering the governmental process from a lot of angles, I can attest to one thing without equivocation: Any group with a high-falutin’ name with certain “key” words or “phrases” in its name is not reliable, has focused on a single-issue item, and are more “agin” something than they are “fir” it.
In the example above, I would automatically surmise that “Conservatives for Quality Government” are not conservatives and do not want quality government. Those high-sounders are, in fact, more than likely right wing-nuts who don’t want “quality” government, but want a government that agrees with their philosophy du jour.
Taking that logic to the next level, it’s a safe bet that “Concerned Citizens for…” anything – Quality Government, Quality Education, Safe Streets, Abolishing Drugs – are more interested in pushing their own personal agenda than they are in the societal Big Picture.
Money (think special interest groups, political action committees, and just plain too-rich-and-mean-to-die folks) runs his country, not the vote that each of us individually cast.
Most folks think their vote counts, but never stop to consider that their vote was purchased at some point.
Some votes are bought by tradition: “My grandpappy as a Democrat and that’s good enough for me!” Some are bought by one-issue platforms: “Whoever the NRA supports, count me in!” Some are influenced by the dumbest of reasons: “Did you see all the yard signs for the WASP county judge candidate? He must be all right!”
Some folks vote straight ticket ballots. It’s hard not to feel sorry for those who do not have enough matter in the brainpan to research and vote for the best candidate, not ones selected by simple R and D labels.
In a perfect world, there would be no party affiliations about which to ponder. Voters would cast ballots for a person based on experience, deeds and ideas and the ability to communicate those to a mass audience.
Unfortunately, we have become a nation of lethargic dreamers walking in a deep rut. We might want a better system and a better cast of characters from which to choose, but, as a whole, we don’t want to exert ourselves to make necessary changes.
When it comes to politics, we have forgotten two age-old truisms:
1) When a person runs for public office, at some point in the race – and assuredly after the race, if elected –that person will lie.
And,
2) A rut is simply a grave with both ends open. So get out of it as soon as you are able.
In more that 45 years of covering the governmental process from a lot of angles, I can attest to one thing without equivocation: Any group with a high-falutin’ name with certain “key” words or “phrases” in its name is not reliable, has focused on a single-issue item, and are more “agin” something than they are “fir” it.
In the example above, I would automatically surmise that “Conservatives for Quality Government” are not conservatives and do not want quality government. Those high-sounders are, in fact, more than likely right wing-nuts who don’t want “quality” government, but want a government that agrees with their philosophy du jour.
Taking that logic to the next level, it’s a safe bet that “Concerned Citizens for…” anything – Quality Government, Quality Education, Safe Streets, Abolishing Drugs – are more interested in pushing their own personal agenda than they are in the societal Big Picture.
Money (think special interest groups, political action committees, and just plain too-rich-and-mean-to-die folks) runs his country, not the vote that each of us individually cast.
Most folks think their vote counts, but never stop to consider that their vote was purchased at some point.
Some votes are bought by tradition: “My grandpappy as a Democrat and that’s good enough for me!” Some are bought by one-issue platforms: “Whoever the NRA supports, count me in!” Some are influenced by the dumbest of reasons: “Did you see all the yard signs for the WASP county judge candidate? He must be all right!”
Some folks vote straight ticket ballots. It’s hard not to feel sorry for those who do not have enough matter in the brainpan to research and vote for the best candidate, not ones selected by simple R and D labels.
In a perfect world, there would be no party affiliations about which to ponder. Voters would cast ballots for a person based on experience, deeds and ideas and the ability to communicate those to a mass audience.
Unfortunately, we have become a nation of lethargic dreamers walking in a deep rut. We might want a better system and a better cast of characters from which to choose, but, as a whole, we don’t want to exert ourselves to make necessary changes.
When it comes to politics, we have forgotten two age-old truisms:
1) When a person runs for public office, at some point in the race – and assuredly after the race, if elected –that person will lie.
And,
2) A rut is simply a grave with both ends open. So get out of it as soon as you are able.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Poor, pitiful us
It’s a simple, complex sentence, really.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, we all understand all that. It’s the law and … well, big whoop.
But what about another “Congress shall make no law …” that the Constitution framers forgot.
Congress shall make no law that affects the citizenry that does not equally affect the elected members of Congress, and all elected and appointed officials of the federal government.
Where’s that law, huh?
And,
Congress shall pass no law that uses taxpayer money to enrich its members, relying on the goodwill and fairness of the American people to set salaries for elected officials.
Elected officials think, nay, believe, they are better than average citizens and they prove it every time they pass a law that benefits them and excludes the citizens.
For example: Congress is not governed by the Social Security laws. If they were, do you think there would be a problem with Social Security?
Congress passes laws in virtually every session that binds the country’s citizens to the will and whim of the elected, but excludes the elected from the boundaries of those very same law.
Why do they think they can do that? Because they can and the people allow it. And, those that we put in office will continue to do so because the people of this country have become a pack of sheep, dutifully, blindly, following the bell sheep to the slaughter pens.
It is amazing to think that there are people out there who truly and honestly believe that slashing the Democratic majority in Congress will change one single thing in the way government is run.
It won’t. It will change the faces and positions of the main power brokers, but it will not change the way members of Congress enriches themselves on the backs of the taxpayers.
This is a trick question, now, so pay attention: Can you name one politician who went to Washington and returned home with less money than they went there with? Forget ending a sentence with a preposition! This is serious and grammar rules be damned.
The system – Demogogues, Republicrats, TeaHee Partiers … they are all the same, all spouting political pabulum and selling it as steak. And we keep paying steak prices for gruel.
Poor, ignorant, misguided, bamboozled … us.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, we all understand all that. It’s the law and … well, big whoop.
But what about another “Congress shall make no law …” that the Constitution framers forgot.
Congress shall make no law that affects the citizenry that does not equally affect the elected members of Congress, and all elected and appointed officials of the federal government.
Where’s that law, huh?
And,
Congress shall pass no law that uses taxpayer money to enrich its members, relying on the goodwill and fairness of the American people to set salaries for elected officials.
Elected officials think, nay, believe, they are better than average citizens and they prove it every time they pass a law that benefits them and excludes the citizens.
For example: Congress is not governed by the Social Security laws. If they were, do you think there would be a problem with Social Security?
Congress passes laws in virtually every session that binds the country’s citizens to the will and whim of the elected, but excludes the elected from the boundaries of those very same law.
Why do they think they can do that? Because they can and the people allow it. And, those that we put in office will continue to do so because the people of this country have become a pack of sheep, dutifully, blindly, following the bell sheep to the slaughter pens.
It is amazing to think that there are people out there who truly and honestly believe that slashing the Democratic majority in Congress will change one single thing in the way government is run.
It won’t. It will change the faces and positions of the main power brokers, but it will not change the way members of Congress enriches themselves on the backs of the taxpayers.
This is a trick question, now, so pay attention: Can you name one politician who went to Washington and returned home with less money than they went there with? Forget ending a sentence with a preposition! This is serious and grammar rules be damned.
The system – Demogogues, Republicrats, TeaHee Partiers … they are all the same, all spouting political pabulum and selling it as steak. And we keep paying steak prices for gruel.
Poor, ignorant, misguided, bamboozled … us.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
‘Generation gap’ or ‘logic skewed?’
I admit to entering the World of the Web later than many. I first got on the Internet in 1992, after accepting a job that requiring not only knowing what it was but how to maneuver in it.
As a research tool, there’s nothing better and the old investigative reporter / editor urges are best satisfied by a good, heapin’ helpin’ of googling.
I volunteered – or better said, my company volunteered me – to be a test dummy for a new way of receiving information while on the go: Internet via cell phone modem. That was in 1998.
I signed up for Facebook in ’06 and now admit to being a faddist. I don’t know why I signed up, and cheerfully acknowledge I have “friends” I don’t even know. But I am a horrible member of Facebook Nation.
I very seldom check my page, and, as my oldest daughter tells me, I relish in being a Phantom Facebooker. “You can not stay silent for months at a time,” she chided me one time on my page, “gallop in and make some snide comments and then disappear.”
Of course I can. It is what I do. It is my job.
The point is I don’t see the point in people telling me what they are eating for breakfast (“Cream of Wheat with fresh peaches.”), what meeting they are going to attend (“Rotary today. Again!”) or that they are “going to beddy-bye.”
I am tempted to jot down notes about bowel movements but I don’t want to write it, much less edit the durn thing.
Somehow, within the last 18 months, I started texting. I began texting by hating texting but, like brussell sprouts, I agreed to try the new art form of communication because, well, hey, as my son said, “Everyone is doing it.”
I’m not good at texting either, because after being in the writing profession in one way or another for 45-plus years I can’t send messages that are not grammatically correct.
Well, yes I can, and do frequently. My iPhone knows when someone is finger-challenged and has a program that “corrects” mis-strikes of the keyboard. That’s how a message I sent about a friend’s kidney “stone” came out “kindly store.”
A good friend sent a message that she wanted to meet me at the “intercourse.” I figured out it was “intersection” but regretted the fact I had to think about the “true” meaning rather than just accept the message as a divine gift.
Texting is becoming a real problem. Just ask the administrators in schools across the country.
It’s not only a time-consumer, it’s dumbing down our society.
According to a new survey out of Texas, more than 42 percent of teenagers say they text during class. Eighty percent of those kids say they have never gotten in trouble.
Two things wrong here: Cell phones allowed in classrooms and teachers who overlook the obvious.
And then there’s “text lingo.” Lol. u. b4. 2.
stpd. ignrnt. grmaticly ncorek.
What’s to do? Get the parents involved, naturally.
Wait, that might not work. The same survey revealed that almost 70 percent of students admitted to receiving text messages from parents while in class.
gsh. wat 2 do.
As a research tool, there’s nothing better and the old investigative reporter / editor urges are best satisfied by a good, heapin’ helpin’ of googling.
I volunteered – or better said, my company volunteered me – to be a test dummy for a new way of receiving information while on the go: Internet via cell phone modem. That was in 1998.
I signed up for Facebook in ’06 and now admit to being a faddist. I don’t know why I signed up, and cheerfully acknowledge I have “friends” I don’t even know. But I am a horrible member of Facebook Nation.
I very seldom check my page, and, as my oldest daughter tells me, I relish in being a Phantom Facebooker. “You can not stay silent for months at a time,” she chided me one time on my page, “gallop in and make some snide comments and then disappear.”
Of course I can. It is what I do. It is my job.
The point is I don’t see the point in people telling me what they are eating for breakfast (“Cream of Wheat with fresh peaches.”), what meeting they are going to attend (“Rotary today. Again!”) or that they are “going to beddy-bye.”
I am tempted to jot down notes about bowel movements but I don’t want to write it, much less edit the durn thing.
Somehow, within the last 18 months, I started texting. I began texting by hating texting but, like brussell sprouts, I agreed to try the new art form of communication because, well, hey, as my son said, “Everyone is doing it.”
I’m not good at texting either, because after being in the writing profession in one way or another for 45-plus years I can’t send messages that are not grammatically correct.
Well, yes I can, and do frequently. My iPhone knows when someone is finger-challenged and has a program that “corrects” mis-strikes of the keyboard. That’s how a message I sent about a friend’s kidney “stone” came out “kindly store.”
A good friend sent a message that she wanted to meet me at the “intercourse.” I figured out it was “intersection” but regretted the fact I had to think about the “true” meaning rather than just accept the message as a divine gift.
Texting is becoming a real problem. Just ask the administrators in schools across the country.
It’s not only a time-consumer, it’s dumbing down our society.
According to a new survey out of Texas, more than 42 percent of teenagers say they text during class. Eighty percent of those kids say they have never gotten in trouble.
Two things wrong here: Cell phones allowed in classrooms and teachers who overlook the obvious.
And then there’s “text lingo.” Lol. u. b4. 2.
stpd. ignrnt. grmaticly ncorek.
What’s to do? Get the parents involved, naturally.
Wait, that might not work. The same survey revealed that almost 70 percent of students admitted to receiving text messages from parents while in class.
gsh. wat 2 do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
