The parties have sufficiently polarized each other that our current legislature is inherently incapable of doing its job. The debacle over the credit ceiling would be comical if it didn't so negatively impact the economy and therefore virtually every American citizen. With that in mind, it becomes, at best, gross incompetence.
Its time to remind everybody in governments everywhere exactly who they work for. I propose the best and most efficient way to do that is to fire the current employees in Congress - all of them. If you want to see radical change in the way business is done in Congress, then change the roster -the whole roster. Tell the Tea Party to go hang, write the special interests out of their ability to unduly influence your representatives by doing what the Founding Fathers planned for you to do. VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT! If I was as incompetent at my job as they have proved to be at theirs, I would be unemployed. I think it only apropos that my legislative representatives be held to the same standards that I am.
Can you imagine the rush back to moderation if the polarized and polarizing members of Congress were tossed out by a general election in which it was the will of the true majority of moderate, sensible people? Conservatives are scared of the Tea Party. They should be scared of me and you. Remind them why and send a message that cannot be ignored to Washington.
No incumbents should return to their seat, be they Senators or Representatives. Its time to exercise our right to revolt that was written into the Constitution. Its time that Congress men and women represented their constituencies and shows the moral fortitude to do the right thing, even if its not along party lines or, heaven forbid!, it cost them points in a public opinion poll.
Help make history. Participate in supporting a moderate or at least rational new candidate of your choice, vote, participate in your precinct conventions and make your voice heard. America is strong and vital. Let's send that message to Washington and show them who is really in charge. Let's remind Congress, the President and all the bureaucrats that they, ultimately, work for us and will answer to us if they perform poorly. And I cannot recall and have not studied a more ineffective Congress since before the Civil War.
NO INCUMBENTS!! VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Politics, Religion, Sex and Other Safe Subjects
Next November, a small minority of those enabled to do so will go to the polls and decide who will be the face of the United States to the rest of the world for a four year term. One would think that this would be motivating after the disasters of the current resident of the White House and his immediate predecessor. But, evidently not. And what have these two august personages done that was so wrong? Let me begin....
While I am of the opinion that it is incredibly easy to sit back and pick apart a president's performance from the comfort of my desk, I also believe that a president should have the moral fortitude to at least consider what is the best course of action for the largest number of people over the longest period of time and to find a way to make it politically palatable to those powers, including their constituencies, that can make those courses of action a reality. That has obviously not been a priority in the administrations of the immediate past.
Our Democratic president of two terms lied to a grand jury, commtting felony perjury and then told Congress and a generation of young Americans that oral sex isn't sex. That's leadership and profound moral fortitude -- NOT!
Our Republican president has entered into the wholesale marketing of fear to gain power and control over the very people who are supposed to control him and his administration. The Patriot Act is profoundly un-patriotic. It is a way to invade anyone's privacy at any time woithout due process or even a legitimate reason in order to protect "the greater good". The really huge mistakes in policy weren't made after Sept. 11th, however. They were made in the months and years prior to that date. But, in all honesty, they have been compounded geometrically since then.
We should, as a society, have learned that war is not and cannot be a political action. Its causes are always economic and the best and only viable solution to a war, once entered, is to commit every single resource at our disposal to a swift and unequivocal victory. Fewer of our soldiers die, fewer of the enemy die, fewer instances of "collateral damage" occur when an enemy is defeated swiftly and soundly. It, historically, is also the best economic situation that has ever happened to our defeated enemies (see Germany and Japan after the WWII and read up on The Marshall Plan). But do we commit our economic well-being to this goal? Nope. We might have to do without a gallon of gas or a candy bar. Perish the thought that the average American should be inconvenienced over the total destruction of another society.
Where is the politically untenable but moral decision to share the plain truth? Where is the press in this mess? Why, they are allowing themselves to be spun in the interests of market shares. Who's fault is that? Take a peek in the mirror.
And in the meantime, we have removed control of our classrooms from our teachers, introduced standardized testing to insure that every single child, no matter their capabilities or promise (or lack thereof) recieve exactly the same education. We have reduced education to the lowest common denominator, which by the way, Title 9 insured would reach all time lows by insisting that children better served in other institutions have free and total access to a classroom along with every other student. We cannot separate students by learning ability, capability or lack thereof in any public school. Isn't that absurd? Why should children that will never be capapble of learning need access to an education? They don't. They need in loco parentis or socialized baby-sitting. Why should a child that can master calculus in the 6th grade be denied the educational opportunity to do so? Why because separate is inherently unequal. NEWSFLASH: Nature is inherently unequal. Deal with it.
While it is ridiculous and ultimately socially detrimental to deny opportunities to persons based on racial or cultural differences, its is absolutely mandatory that opportunities be made available to those who can take advantage of them. No one would think twice about denying a college scholarship to a mentally retarded person incapable of grasping basic mathmetical concepts, that's just silly. But we cannot say that about a high school math class. Why not? Why can we not give the mentally retarded man the tools and opportunities that he most needs to become as self-sufficient as possible? And save the classroom space for our calculus geniuses? Isn't that being socially responsible?
And where, for God's sake, is the church in this debacle? Why its telling us who God has chosen as our next President because of that particular candidate's moral superiority. Why aren't they taking on their responsibilities as the gaurdians of social and personal morality. That is their function. The church, as an institution, must take on the conscience-keeping aspect in our society if, for no other reason, because no other institution can do it. Government, by its existence and definition in a republic, is inherently immoral. It is not to be trusted. Which is why the founding fathers' intention was to leave the power of government in the hands of the governed. But that was a long time ago before we figured out that we could vote ourselves a paycheck, before Congress opted out of Social Security and went more directly on the Federal dole, before we grew complacent and apathetic.
Or don't you care?
While I am of the opinion that it is incredibly easy to sit back and pick apart a president's performance from the comfort of my desk, I also believe that a president should have the moral fortitude to at least consider what is the best course of action for the largest number of people over the longest period of time and to find a way to make it politically palatable to those powers, including their constituencies, that can make those courses of action a reality. That has obviously not been a priority in the administrations of the immediate past.
Our Democratic president of two terms lied to a grand jury, commtting felony perjury and then told Congress and a generation of young Americans that oral sex isn't sex. That's leadership and profound moral fortitude -- NOT!
Our Republican president has entered into the wholesale marketing of fear to gain power and control over the very people who are supposed to control him and his administration. The Patriot Act is profoundly un-patriotic. It is a way to invade anyone's privacy at any time woithout due process or even a legitimate reason in order to protect "the greater good". The really huge mistakes in policy weren't made after Sept. 11th, however. They were made in the months and years prior to that date. But, in all honesty, they have been compounded geometrically since then.
We should, as a society, have learned that war is not and cannot be a political action. Its causes are always economic and the best and only viable solution to a war, once entered, is to commit every single resource at our disposal to a swift and unequivocal victory. Fewer of our soldiers die, fewer of the enemy die, fewer instances of "collateral damage" occur when an enemy is defeated swiftly and soundly. It, historically, is also the best economic situation that has ever happened to our defeated enemies (see Germany and Japan after the WWII and read up on The Marshall Plan). But do we commit our economic well-being to this goal? Nope. We might have to do without a gallon of gas or a candy bar. Perish the thought that the average American should be inconvenienced over the total destruction of another society.
Where is the politically untenable but moral decision to share the plain truth? Where is the press in this mess? Why, they are allowing themselves to be spun in the interests of market shares. Who's fault is that? Take a peek in the mirror.
And in the meantime, we have removed control of our classrooms from our teachers, introduced standardized testing to insure that every single child, no matter their capabilities or promise (or lack thereof) recieve exactly the same education. We have reduced education to the lowest common denominator, which by the way, Title 9 insured would reach all time lows by insisting that children better served in other institutions have free and total access to a classroom along with every other student. We cannot separate students by learning ability, capability or lack thereof in any public school. Isn't that absurd? Why should children that will never be capapble of learning need access to an education? They don't. They need in loco parentis or socialized baby-sitting. Why should a child that can master calculus in the 6th grade be denied the educational opportunity to do so? Why because separate is inherently unequal. NEWSFLASH: Nature is inherently unequal. Deal with it.
While it is ridiculous and ultimately socially detrimental to deny opportunities to persons based on racial or cultural differences, its is absolutely mandatory that opportunities be made available to those who can take advantage of them. No one would think twice about denying a college scholarship to a mentally retarded person incapable of grasping basic mathmetical concepts, that's just silly. But we cannot say that about a high school math class. Why not? Why can we not give the mentally retarded man the tools and opportunities that he most needs to become as self-sufficient as possible? And save the classroom space for our calculus geniuses? Isn't that being socially responsible?
And where, for God's sake, is the church in this debacle? Why its telling us who God has chosen as our next President because of that particular candidate's moral superiority. Why aren't they taking on their responsibilities as the gaurdians of social and personal morality. That is their function. The church, as an institution, must take on the conscience-keeping aspect in our society if, for no other reason, because no other institution can do it. Government, by its existence and definition in a republic, is inherently immoral. It is not to be trusted. Which is why the founding fathers' intention was to leave the power of government in the hands of the governed. But that was a long time ago before we figured out that we could vote ourselves a paycheck, before Congress opted out of Social Security and went more directly on the Federal dole, before we grew complacent and apathetic.
Or don't you care?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Do You Think?
The title is not a rhetorical question. Let me explain. I believe (meaning that it is my opinion - implying that I have invested the time and energy to form one) that we have removed the need for the members of our society to question basic beliefs. You either believe in God or you don't and either way you're wrong. You are either liberal (and therefore a Godless, secular humanist) or a conservative (and therefore a religious fanatic) and ne'er the twain shall meet. And neither side of either particular social division you'd care to name has invested the time and energy to justify a solidly held belief. News isn't news -its entertainment. Politics is about spin and power, not about public service.
Let me forward a few old ideas that have become extremely unpopular:
An unquestioned faith isn't faith, its a cult.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security shall have neither.
Problems are solved face-to-face, not by committee or government funding.
Government is the least capapble institution of solving your problems, with the Federal government at the pinnacle of incapabilty.
Does any of that sound familiar? We teach our children to pass standardized tests in order not to endanger federal funding to our schools. People are actually afraid to voice an unpopular opinion because they might be ridiculed and villainized by "their peers". Why? And why are they villianized? Why is it not okay to disgree with a majority opinion? Why do we allow the government to dictate what is and what is not a good education? If I sold you a deal to provide a 4-star movie once a week and then sent cartoons, you'd be pissed. But our government does that every single day and we don't even question it.
Apathy is the coin of the realm. Nobody cares. And the last time that happened to a world power, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany. It should scare the crap out of any reasonable person.
But it doesn't.
Let me forward a few old ideas that have become extremely unpopular:
An unquestioned faith isn't faith, its a cult.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security shall have neither.
Problems are solved face-to-face, not by committee or government funding.
Government is the least capapble institution of solving your problems, with the Federal government at the pinnacle of incapabilty.
Does any of that sound familiar? We teach our children to pass standardized tests in order not to endanger federal funding to our schools. People are actually afraid to voice an unpopular opinion because they might be ridiculed and villainized by "their peers". Why? And why are they villianized? Why is it not okay to disgree with a majority opinion? Why do we allow the government to dictate what is and what is not a good education? If I sold you a deal to provide a 4-star movie once a week and then sent cartoons, you'd be pissed. But our government does that every single day and we don't even question it.
Apathy is the coin of the realm. Nobody cares. And the last time that happened to a world power, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany. It should scare the crap out of any reasonable person.
But it doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
