Maybe I'm Not Smart Enough To Be On The Left

After a great deal of self-analysis, I may have discovered a serious lack of mental accuity in myself; though I can't say that I find it particularly worrisome.  It doesn't appear that it was a lack of intelligence, at least I have been given to understand it, as I've always measured pretty well on the IQ scale.  Neither was it a lack of knowledge, as I have loved to study since I was a small child; and have worked assiduously at maintaining the standing of a well-read person.  It couldn't have been a lack of education, as I've was given my early lessons in a very good private grade school, spent most of my high school years in the 'first track' (honors program) of one of the finer college prep schools in the city of Chicago, and attended classes at a couple of well-respected seats of higher learning. It don't think it could even be considered the lack of ability to communicate, though many who've been reading the efforts in this blog for any length of time could probably make an argument to the contrary.  Regardless of being able to set aside all of these potential drawbacks to my brainpower however, there still seems to be something missing intellectually in my case. 

So maybe it's not a question of knowledge but one of maturity instead.  As many of you know, I make no claims of maturation, hoping in life to go 'from immaturity to senility without noticing the transition'.  This sarcastic pose however does not prevent me from making my own decisions (such as they are), choosing my own career path (when the industry I'm in isn't collapsing around me), cooking my own meals (and doing so quite proficiently if I do say so myself), maintaining my own residence (when not improving it), and paying my bills (usually on time).

Being therefore what could be considered fairly intelligent, well-educated, and well read, it should be no surprise that there's a lot of subjects of national interest on which I have formed strong opinions.  These range on a wide variety of subjects from access to abortion to gun control, and I hold them regardless of the level of controversy attached to the subject.  None of these opinions if you must know, are based (except perhaps in some small part) on emotion, sentiment, or a 'gut feeling' about the situation; but instead rely on fact, logic and careful analysis of the short and long term consequences.  When doubt arises, as it must inevitably, I fall back on the concept of the 'rule of law' as embodied in the second attempt to define this government of this nation in a single document, The Constitution.  (I had a friend in Toledo that finally cured me of such things a few years back.)  Not surprisingly, you would find that these opinions are logically consistent from one subject to another.  I don't use one set of criteria to judge one issue, and its polar opposite on the next; in a pattern of logical inconsistency that hopes to achieve some twisted form of emotional self-satisfaction.    

These methods me at odds with some of my acquaintances, fellow pundits, and political opponents from the left however. You see, unlike many of my Liberal counterparts, progressive advocates, mainstream media reporters, and most of the statist politicians of both major parties; I don't appear to be able to make the same kind of decisions that they can.  Oh don't get me wrong, I'm more than capable of making decisions for myself; but draw the line at that point.  In their minds therefore, I'm suffering from apparent form of intellectual inadequacy that I find myself unashamed of:   

I'm not smart enough to make decisions for other people.
  
Fortunately enough for me, I'm not allowed to make decisions for other people.  Unfortunately for all of us, many of those who I've previously described think that they not only have the right to decide for the rest of us, but in fact have the obligation to do so.  Someone might get injured, so we'll decide not to expose you to the risk.  Somebody else might get hurt financially, so we'll take the risk for you to keep yourself from taking it.  Worse still, somebody might make the wrong choices, so we'll take those choices away from you for your benefit.  Heaven forbid that you should expose yourself to the potential of poor choices, potential harm, and future regret.  After all, that's only life as we know it.  No we the smart ones, the caring ones, the ones in political power will make these decisions for you regardless of whether you're capable or not because after all, we're smarter than you are.
     
Strangely enough, I find that there is no jealousy in my heart for those on the progressive left who believe that they are possessed of such a singular form enlightenment, but in fact a fair amount of pity.  Imagine the burden of knowledge that this progressive intelligentsia possesses, believing themselves capable to decide for all.  What a trial it must be to find one's self the discerning statist and recognize that one is so smart that they're incapable of allowing others to decide for themselves.  What fearful stress and emotional turmoil it must be for far too many of today's legislators, administrators, and of course political leaders to recognize the erudition in themselves that forces them to carry the responsibility of limiting the free choice of so many in order to defend freedom itself.

While I can certainly imagine the kind of progressive self-righteous sagacity must be required to assume the role of mother and father protector to those one barely knows in order to prevent those apparently unwilling or unable to accept the burden of making choices for themselves (lest it interfere with their Reality Show schedule), I certainly don't feel myself burdened with such personal perspicacity.  Oh yeah, I consider myself smart enough as far as it goes (just smart enough at least to refuse to use the Tom Hanks line from "Forest Gump"), but it appears that I may not be smart enough to be on The Left.



    

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #39

In what may in fact be the real first sign of Spring, the lazy lexicographers of the SOS Dictionary have apparently come out of their hole, failed to see their collective shadows (which would have been difficult at best, considering the bloodshot conditions of their eyes), and decided to stay out in the fresh air for a bit.  (This had nothing to do with locking the door behind them after their 'temporary exit' I'm sure.)  Their efforts are at best sporadic and at worst all but nonexistent recently, and Senior Staff felt obligated to try something new.  Having given up on the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) for assistance, we have instead contacted Lindsay Lohan's people to recommend potential detox facilities.

Having all but reconciled ourselves to a level of production consistent with the output of common sense from the federal government is a bit disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.  Their chemically-induced maunderings however still manage to pass Senior Staff editorial muster; so we print 'em when we get 'em.

Such inconsistent production however, means that there may actually be those of you reading this who have somehow managed to miss previous postings on this subject (shame on you, now go back and search all of the postings under the label of  'Dictionary').  For those of you thus unfamiliar, the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appears to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.


Democrat

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them. 
(See Republican)

 
Republican

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them.
(See Democrat)

TFP Column: It's All A Bit Taxing

I guess I'll have to owe you one for a bit, as once more an attempt at a mid-week blog post has become yet another column for the TFP.  Since the media and the election campaigns for President seem to be caught up either calling for release of more of Mitt Romney's tax returns, or the refusal to do so; I decided to put my two cents in with "It's All A Bit Too Taxing".

It's not that I know any more about whether or why they should be released and why they're not; but I think that I'm capable of applying a bit of common sense to the situation while making fun of some the other out there purporting to do so.

Another thing I don't know any more about than anyone else is what's going to be going on in the Glass City for the rest of the week.  So while passing on the opportunity to read my own effort and discover the typos and grammatical errors that I've committed, you can bet that in order to find out what's going on I'll be reading today's 'Star' edition, as well as this weekend's edition of Toledo's largest circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third year in a row; the Toledo Free Press.

    

TFP Column: The Perfect Issue

Being a news-junkie, I normally spend my Saturday mornings reading two newspapers, the Kansas City Star and the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (I save the TFP for Sunday).  There was an interesting news story in the latter this week about a bicyclist in San Francisco being charged with felony vehicular manslaughter for allegedly running a red light and striking a pedestrian.  Having dodged a few of these two-wheeled felons over time myself (both on the roads and in the crosswalks), this story intrigued me long after I put the paper down.

Then it hit me!  If you took a city like Toledo, whose City Council is considering putting a Recreation Levy that has to eventually include bike paths, tossed in potential breakthrough legislation prohibiting bicycle texting, added a dash Eco-friendly and Recreation-friendly City Council activity, if you then mixed in a healthy dose of those revenue enhancing red-light cameras along with a pinch of licensing fees for bicycles, sprinkled on a few senior citizens, and added a few tears from that golden oldie 'if just one life could be saved'; you might just have created the recipe for "The Perfect Issue" in politics.  So that's what I wrote about for this week's TFP.

Countless studies, could be followed by endless debates (with politicians flip-flopping and holding logically inconsistent ideas); which in turn could be followed by a seemingly endless streams nauseating rhetoric and pages of useless legislation protecting seniors, bicyclists, and pedestrians (along with all of us in public not texting).  This could be as close to a legislative Nirvana (the place, not the band) as many politicians experience.

Speaking of which, it's still early in the week, and those of you attempting to experience the best of what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio this week would be well-advised to catch up, both in the mid-week 'Star' edition Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper for the last three years, the Toledo Free Press.

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....



  

TFP Column: The Law of Averages

Well we've got a new texting while driving ban in the State of Ohio, freshly signed by Governor John Kasich.  This law may be going into effect soon, but not before I weighed in one more time on the nonsense of creating laws against things that are already against the law.  While I was at it, I thought that I might kick my two cents in on some of the other kinds of laws that municipal, state, and national elected representatives like to pass and why.  The result became "The Law of Averages" on the TFP website.

But it's summer, and between the mid-week Star edition and the regular weekend one there will undoubtedly be a number of reasons to find a shady spot, relax, and catch up on everything going on in the area in what is (now without doubt) Toledo's largest Sunday circulation, and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper for the third year in a row, the Toledo Free Press.

(And who knows, there might even be more to come this week ...)

The Inalienable Right to Stupidity

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about the Rights that we have in this country as human beings and as citizens of this great nation (in fact, more than there usually is after NYC's Mayor Bloomberg decided to try and save New Yorkers from large soft drinks).  Some are worthy, some are even inspiring; but some are tedious and boring, some are simply bogus, and some could even be considered rather far-fetched.

No discussion of Rights in this country of course, is ever possible without first mentioning "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"  (or Property, depending on whether you go with Jefferson's original, or the sanitized version that ended up on parchment) that has come to define the message in the Declaration of Independence. While this was certainly a sound base to build upon, by the time the Founding Fathers had gotten around to writing the Constitution, many of the same people who signed the Declaration had become rather cynical about what would happen to their Rights when having to replace the looser Articles of Confederation with the stronger central government outlined in this new document.  They were wary and distrustful of the amount of power now being place in the hands of that new government.  (Pretty smart guys those Founding Fathers.)  

In spite of the reassurances of some of the finest minds in the nation at the time as to the limits and restraints placed by that Constitution on this new federal government in "The Federalist Papers", they wanted written guarantees as to Rights that would be protected before signing on the dotted line.  A list of twenty such rights was handed back to the nation by James Madison (Jefferson couldn't help, as he was in France at the time), twelve of which were voted on, and ten later passed to became the first ten Amendments to this new Constitution and came to be known as the "Bill of Rights".

With all due respect to the efforts of 'The Father of the Constitution', who I suspect is now whirling like a dervish during his dirt nap when considering some of the feeble attempts put forward masquerading as Rights in this country, I am shocked ... shocked I tell you, by the big one that even he apparently missed.  I'm not sure for example, that 'affordable housing', 'a living wage', or 'free contraception' would have made any list that he would have submitted to Congress (even if it had been available).  Having just gone through a war with the greatest empire of his time over the Rights they believed that they were entitled to 'by their Creator' ... and won it, I doubt that he would have been amused by such mundane concepts, let alone submit them for serious consideration.  In so doing however, he was in fact denying the people of this country the one fundamental Right that even the Declaration's troika failed to list  .... The Right to Stupidity.

Come on now, admit it.  We're all falling back on this Right far more times than any of us would like to admit (and far more than the ten listed in the Constitution).  Have you bungee jumped lately or jumped out of an airplane with nothing between you and certain death but an over-sized handkerchief? How about ordering that triple cheeseburger with the large fries (you know, the kind that makes your cholesterol go up before the first bite)?  Smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years and still don't think you're setting yourself up for lung cancer?  Drink a quart of vodka every week, but you aren't concerned about the condition of your liver?  Hitting the tanning booth three times a week, but aren't worried about those new freckles that you're getting? How about when you told one of your friends that despite all the warnings, you were still convinced that you'd get your money back out of Social Security?  See, there you go ... Stupidity.

You know, quite a lot of stupidity that we deal with today has to do with government in one way or another.  After all, it's government that tells us that with each new law or regulation, it can protect us from evil banks, greedy corporations, and predatory merchandisers; and we all know that that's just plain stupid.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting if the government wants to check out the hot dog factory from time to time to make sure that it hasn't become a science experiment.  Nor am I upset that if they want to check to make sure that the teddy bear I just gave my grandchild isn't stuffed with material used to clean up hazardous or radioactive waste.  I'm even OK with a few rules for those in the stock market to make sure that they're not lining their pockets with my money while trading off of inside information.  It defies all logic and reason however, for government to think that we're stupid enough to believe that it can protect us from our own stupidity.  (OK, that issue may still be up for grabs...)

The truth of the matter is that if members of this and previous Congresses, along many of the recent occupants of the White House hadn't kept bailing individuals, corporations, and foreign countries from the results of their moronic actions, perhaps there would be less stupidity in the US, if not the world today.  At the very least, making them pay in full for the stupidity of their actions would have resulted in a 'thinning of the herd' that would probably have raised the average and collective IQ in this country considerably.

Of course maybe the real consideration here is that government simply doesn't like having competition.  It doesn't take an Einstein to look at the imbecilic nonsense committed in Washington DC on a daily basis and come to the conclusion that they would prefer a monopoly on stupidity; and that based on their fear of competition they will do all in their power (no matter how stupid it appears) to reduce the number of players in the game.  

The hard truth however, is that with or without government intervention we will remain the constant victims of our own stupidity.  (Are you paying attention Mayor Bloomberg?)  One could even make the case that continued efforts to protect us from our ill-advised behaviors will in fact increase them through a half-witted (though often astonishingly creative) push back against increasing government interference in the exercise of this fundamental Right.

One might even go so far as to say that a government consisting of professional politicians wishing to serve as our elected officials should be wary of tampering with the inalienable right to stupidity, and  should instead be celebrating it.  What other hope do they have in the never-ending quest for a return to their well-paid positions than to count on the stupidity of the American voter.

 
    

The Evolution of the Flip Flop

I am reliably told that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in Evolution, which is perfectly fine by me.  Evolution is a scientific theory and though there's a fair bit or corroborating data to back it up, there are also some terribly important gaps and questions that need to be adequately answered before it moves from the concept of a theory to established scientific fact.  What's more, since this is a scientific theory and not an article faith (regardless of what some on both sides of the argument would like to tell you), the concept of belief has nothing to do with its validity one way or the other.  The theory will be either proven, modified over time to fit the facts as we currently understand them, or disproven and discarded as no longer of any scientific use.

While theories regarding the 'Origin of the Species' may remain in doubt however, there is none whatsoever regarding whether the flip-flop exists in politics, and that it has evolved in this country throughout its history.  One could even go so far as to say that it has been doing so since before there even was a country.  

Was Benedict Arnold not the ultimate flip-flopper of his time; first as the hero of the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Battle of Ridgefield, and the Battle of Saratoga, (where leg injuries cost him time on the battlefield and damned near his life).  Did he not then, for no better reason than retribution for personal insult, lack of promotion, and money betray the very ideals he earlier fought for and switch sides in the argument; eventually receiving a commission as a brigadier general in the British Army and leading attacks against former allies and compatriots in Virginia.

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt change his mind about running for President after serving two terms in office (one after stepping up following the McKinley assassination, and one of his own), promoting William Howard Taft as the next Republican nominee (and eventually President).  Didn't he then flip-flop, change his mind about about seeking yet another term, and go so far as to enter the election as a 3rd party candidate after losing his party's nomination in his attempt to unseat his former protege.   

But it's in the election of 2012 that we seem to have seen the flip-flop reach its highest evolutionary form to date.

It started of course, as Republican candidate (and now all but nominee) Mitt Romney fought to keep himself from being 'tarred and feathered' by fellow Republicans over whether he stood with his potential Democratic opponent as a supporter of what has become commonly known as Obamacare.  Having signed a law in Massachusetts as governor which called for an individual mandate for health insurance, he found himself flipping first one way, then flopping to another in order to distance himself from an unpopular position in the primaries, without repudiating his former stance on the issue.  Caught in an unsustainable and vacillating argument (seemingly with himself), he seemed finally to emerge with a self-satisfied position of being for what he was before, and not for what the current White House occupant is; in spite of the fact that the differences are all but indiscernible, except as to the number of people who must follow the mandate.

It is however, the incumbent Democratic President who has elevated the flip-flop to almost an art form, perhaps afraid he would fall short in demonstrating his ability to remain as verbally and intellectually flexible as his opponent where his core beliefs were concerned.  Where same-sex unions were concerned, it was the President himself that in fact called his stand "an evolution on the issue."  As detailed in a Miami Herald piece (which I am quoting extensively from), in 1996 when running for the Illinois Senate, he said "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."  In a questionnaire just two years later his answer was instead 'Undecided' on legalizing same sex unions.  When running for the US Senate in 2004, he stated "I am a fierce supporter of domestic partnership and civil union laws.  I am not a supporter of same sex marriage as it has been thrown about ..." 

FLIP,FLOP, and done ... right?  But wait, we're not even close to the end.

In his book 'Audacity of Hope', he defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  In a 2007 debate he supported civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage", but not legal recognition of same-sex marriage.  In 2008 he said "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.  I am not in favor of gay marriage." And this year on ABC's 'Good Morning America'  he said, "...it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Don't get me wrong here.  I've spoken about my own theories of the place of government when it comes to the subject of marriage (none), so I am casting no stones at the position(s) that the President has taken over a period of SIX YEARS on the subject.  It might even be said that I am voicing a twisted form of admiration for the flexibility that Barack Obama is able to maintain in the face of changing public opinion, polling data, and same-sex marriage legislation at the State level (though I freely admit that my admiration may contain more than a little sarcasm and even a touch of irony).

What we are apparently seeing here is that having been inspired (outed) by the 'foot in pie hole' verbal discipline of his running mate, the Commander-in-Chief is turning the simple political flip-flop into into a gymnastics run involving at least five flip flops, with perhaps two and a half twists on the dismount (difficult 3.4, at least according the judges that I spoke to).

You know this is an Olympic as well as an election year, and I can't help feeling that we're somehow missing the boat by not having the political flip-flop as an event in the games (even if it's only as a demonstration sport).  It's obvious that we are blessed with at least two who are not only ready and able to compete at the international level, but whose skills might well guarantee bringing home both the gold and silver medals.  I am in fact lost in admiration as I watch these truly mesmerizing performances by what will apparently be the two major competitors for the highest office in the land, their efforts achieving what can be considered nothing less that the highest current evolutionary stage of what was once the simple political flip-flop.

Please note that the picture inserted above is not a composite, time-lapse one of my life.  The hair color is completely wrong ...

Happy Constitution Day

I thought about trying to come up with something truly inspiring in honor of the 224 years that the Constitution has been around on the day before it was signed by the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  I quickly realized however, that any words of mine would be so far overshadowed by the Constitution as to be all but meaningless.  Then again, the day of celebration may incorrect, since the document didn't become official until ratified by at least nine of the thirteen original colonies, something which didn't occur until almost a year later (though almost on the same day), on September 13, 1788.

But enough of the history lesson about a document that tragically few understand anyway.  The simple truth of the matter is that we must shamefully admit that with very few exceptions, the only people in this country that do understand it, other than Libertarians, Tea Party members, and Constitutional scholars are the citizens of this country that became so only through the immigration and naturalization process.  

Government sponsored re-education camps no longer teach it's construction and principles, believing it to be little more than the outdated pronouncements of a bunch of slave-owning white men.  Many of the graduates of such rigid indoctrination also believe it to be a 'living document' subject to the will of the mob and historic (or perhaps more accurately, hysteric) re-interpretation. Politicians who take an oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend" this document often spend more of their time in office trying to figure out ways to get around it than they spend in fulfilling such oaths.  Nominees seeking to take up the robes of the Supreme Court, the branch of government designed to determine whether new laws fall within the limits of this document, often preclude themselves from consideration for such duties by being 'strict constructionists'.  (In other words, if you understand and believe in the language of the Constitution, you are unfit to rule on things that might impact its meanging.)

Of course the fact that I almost always have a pocket copy of this document and the Declaration of Independence with me might have something to do with what might be seen as unwarranted concern on the subject.  The fact that I have read more than a few books about interpreting the language used by the Founders in writing it ("The Original Constitution" by Robert G Natelson is particularly good) might indicate a certain level of preoccupation with the document defining and limiting our government.  The fact that I recently managed to get through all of the arguments set forth by those early Founders for ratification in "The Federalist Papers" (the original, not the Beck translation) might indicate to you how serious I am about this.

So you can imagine how crazy I get when I have to patiently explain that there is no "separation of church and state" laid out in the Constitution.  In fact, the First Amendment merely prohibits the establishment of a national religion, and prevents laws from being written prohibiting religious practice.  You can likewise imagine how frustrated I get with people not understanding that election of Senators by state legislatures was not a mistake, but by design as a way to set the power of states in balance with the potential power of the federal government.  You can well imagine how insane I get when explaining that the Constitution does not define the boundaries of a democratic government in the United States, but instead sets the limits of government power in a representative republic; something far different.

I could go on ad nauseum, but fortunately for you I'm saving myself for some continuing education on the Constitution on its birthday this year.  While sadly not being able to attend the session at Owens Community College in Toledo with any number of friends and acquaintances this weekend, I will be attending (by computer) the sessions being held by Hillsdale College today.  Now Hillsdale has long been famous for its Constitutional scholarship, and today's sessions will no doubt be both entertaining and enlightening.  While I will have to settle for the archived video in most cases (as my employer has strangely not declared this a national holiday and given me the day off), I am looking forward to the live presentation being given by Charles Krauthammer at 8PM Eastern time this evening.

I hope that each of you, even if you choose not go through such an extensive educational process, might take just a minute or two tomorrow to read and understand even a portion of the document that provides the blanket of freedom that we sleep under.

Happy Constitution Day! 

 

Politicians Are A Necessary Evil

"Most Politicians are like Halloween decorations.  It's OK to display them in public for a few days once a year, but you don't want to leave them out too long ... they scare the children."

If it seem like I spend a lot of time castigating politicians on both sides of the aisle ... it's because I do.  Don't get me wrong, most of them are probably pretty decent people outside of their political responsibilities (but there are some that are simply and seriously wrong in ways that I don't have time to get into in this post).  What they have CHOSEN to do however, cannot help but call their intelligence, common sense, and ulterior motives into question.  Who after all would choose to sit through school board or city council meetings that are only slightly less entertaining than being trapped in an elevator for hours at a time with a talkative hypochondriac, a flatulent idiot, and a self-righteous and proselytizing bigot without a damn good reason?  

Like many, I've heard the pronouncements of "the call to public service", and I believe for a few that it's actually true; but as it relates to far more of those seeking office, I have more than a few doubts.  In fact, I'm far more willing to believe the outlandish claims of AXE ads telling me that if I spray some cheap crap on myself, the chicks will really dig me than these concocted self-serving rationalizations. (Though that AXE thing really does work ...  No, really!)  Seeking public office, regardless of the misleading reasons handed out like fortune cookies by some office-seekers, is for a great many of these people a desire to take up the mantle of power.

Perhaps the exercise of such power is the prize they believe is their due for the price they pay by humbling themselves in begging for campaign funds, showing up at public events that they don't want to go to (and normally wouldn't otherwise), and talking to a bunch of 'just plain folks' who want them to make the neighbors dog stop barking in the middle of the night.  This 'Let's Make a Deal' trade should not and does not however, grant them a level of self-importance beyond their previous station; nor does election provide them as a 'servant of the people' with membership in some elite society.

Worse still however, is that somehow being elected often seems to mistakenly confer upon them the belief that they can solve the world's ills if they can just pass one more law.  Many times it doesn't even matter what the laws long-term consequences (good or bad) might be, as long as such a law has the elected official's name attached to it.  It seems as if somehow the thrill of competing and winning in the game of politics has had the side effect of turning these once normal people into media addicts, jonesing for the microphone and the camera, desperate for the fix of a broadcast soundbite.

Politicians can in fact, solve little if anything by passing another bit of legislation (though they can create some rather costly and unsuccessful attempts to do so).  If the world could have had its ills resolved by the passing of a law, don't you think someone in the long history of politics and politicians would have come up with it by now. "Passing laws is like passing gas.  It normally serves no one but those passing it, is an impolite thing to do at best (especially in public), and often results in a horrible and lingering odor."

Those we elect to office should recognize that they are only necessary as the chosen sacrifices made by a civilized society (well, kind of anyway) that recognizes that it's far too wrapped up in self-indulgence, complacency, and ignorance to govern itself.  We can respect the nature of the sacrifice that some make on our behalf, while retaining what now seems an all but necessary skepticism of the motives of the rest.  For their own and society's benefit (and much like small children), they should seek to be mostly seen and not heard.  Also like children, they should work hardest at staying out of mischief.  All of us should likewise keep in mind that where politicians are concerned, they serve us best who burden us least with their efforts.

And so perhaps we are left with a reluctant thanks to those who serve us in office at the same time that we must at all times be suspicious of their efforts and methods.  Like those responsible for picking up the trash, we should applaud their services to the common good without seeking to join them in what often becomes their rather distasteful efforts.  Like the actors that they many times are, we seem to ask little of them these days but that they entertain us.  Most (except the best) should remember however, that they are only necessary until the new crop of would-be zealots and power seekers makes its appearance at the next election. Ultimately, politicians (and government) are nothing more than a necessary evil that we must perpetrate upon ourselves in protection from the even greater evils that Man is capable of. 

(All quotes used in this post are from ... me.)

Political Personality Disorder

I am currently working my way through P J O'Rourke's latest effort,  "Don't Vote - It Just Encourages The Bastards" (a book whose insight and humor make it one that I would highly recommend). While I'm not one prone to sharing long passages, when I came across this particular one, I found it crying out to be shared with those of you not willing to spend your all too brief leisure time reading books on history and politics. 

I present it for your amusement, enlightenment, and edification without explanation or comment.

"Political power, however, remains the most powerful of powers, so people will continue to be drawn to it.  What kind of people we know too well.  The politician's personality has been brilliantly described.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fanstasy or behavior) need for admiration ... beginning by early adulthood ... as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents and, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration 
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her ends
7. lacks empathy:  is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of other or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. show arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

The authors of the above passage had no idea they were writing about politics.  They thought they were writing about mental illness.  This perceptive analysis of politicians appears on page 717 of the American Psychiatric Association's 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders', fourth edition, under the heading 'Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder'."