Middle Class Part 13: Political Synthesis

Some may wonder why a person would delve into the more rhetorical aspects such as that which I began last time, and continue to express below, on a topic which primarily addresses the future fiscal pitfalls of the middle class, via excessive taxation and increasing prices of necessary cost items. It is not speculation if I have gone to the trouble to back it up. Well, in order to trace what ails the middle class, I can’t just write about economic issues in a vacuum, without implicating the political climate from which they originated, just as the physician, ideally, does not administer medicine without diagnosing the malady based on a set of symptoms he witnesses or complaints he hears from the one whose physical or mental health has been compromised by illness.

Primum non nocere: is Latin for “First, do no harm.” This phrase, known as the Hippocratic Oath, has been informally included in a physician’s pledge for a couple thousand years, and pertains to the ethical practice of medicine. If there is any way the medical field could be compelled to share this mantra, and the expected practice of the aforementioned mantra proper, with the politicians of the United States, the American people would be extremely grateful. I don’t hold out any hope that politicians will adopt this saying, but if they did, it could be referred to as the Hippocratic hypocritical oath--for no politician, feigning genuineness, could pull it off in this age of justified pessimism; they would alienate too many constituencies and businesses that bought them the victory on election night. People are becoming more and more jaded for plenty of good reasons.

Questionable involvement: Think of eminent domain, unaccountable tax increases, eleventh-hour presidential pardons, executive privilege, sex scandals in bathroom stalls, Watergate, Whitewater, BlackWater, corporate welfare and tax shelters, wire-tapping, and government waste—which are issues I have already accounted for, have alluded to, or will address, if you are looking for justification of why one person’s view of politicians would be so lousy. Consider the background of the real/provable corrupt republican and democratic incidents, such as those noted below and imagine the probable sordid history of hundreds of others just like them, throughout our country’s history or those still in the offing. A celebrity-stalking, cross-dressing muskrat with an unhealthy addiction to Flomax, and a strange appreciation for the way Robert Wagner pronounces the word “Darling,” would be a more trustworthy, less odd candidate if it were to hold a political office compared to some of the elected men and women who are passing laws and “representing” the American people.

democratic Case in point: Bill Lerach, former partner of Mel Weiss, was a Lincoln Bedroom guest in president* Bill Clinton’s White House. Courtesy of George F. Will of the Washington Post from November 18, 2007—“With Plaintiffs in the Pantry, Attorneys raked in Cash” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601756.html?nav=hcmodule: “Shortly after Leach attended a White House dinner, Clinton vetoed legislation that would have restricted class-action lawsuits. Lerach gave $100,000 to Clinton’s presidential library.” Just how much does that back itch—that’s an awful lot of political back-scratching. Will goes on to write:

“Does political money flow toward beliefs or do beliefs move toward money? Much scholarship strongly suggests the former. Democrats are rewarded for their devotion to trial lawyers . . . The problem is not that Democrats are ‘bought’ by trial lawyers. The problem is that Democrats, who see victims everywhere, are actually disposed to believe the narrative of pandemic victimization of investors.”

The title of the column addresses the hubbub caused by trial lawyers from the law firm Milberg Weiss, the nation’s largest securities class-action firm, who have won a total of $45 billion since 1965 by keeping various paid plaintiffs who helped the lawyers rake in money by threatening investment companies with lawsuits because the stock of the company had lost money and subsequently cost “three serial plaintiffs who testified in 180 cases over 25 years, claiming to have been repeatedly defrauded.” For the complete sordid mess that Will describes, please see the article. Three other things:

1) the firm’s partners have given more than $7 million to democratic candidates since 1980;

2) Lerach was a fundraiser for democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, and collected $64k for Edwards prior to pleading guilty to some of, (not exactly) these crimes: racketeering, obstruction of justice, perjury, bribery and fraud. And some people want to have all the proof in their hands before figuring that the political system is unjust, continuing to champion a democrat or a republican, and naively figuring that all I have written thus far is one massive non sequitur. Constituents, on behalf of politicians, have been doing things like this in politics since well before 1965, since Caesar, since people used stones to write upon stone.

3) if George Will, one of the nation’s foremost intellectuals on topics such as politics, economics, history, society, even baseball, finds this type of corruption noteworthy, more than hinting that the cooks are purposefully spoiling the meal, shouldn’t we reevaluate where we are as a voter come election time? Meaning, some dope writing a column, for no one in particular- is giving all the proof one possibly can in the form of articles, columns, stories, budgets, political committee papers, consumer activism reports, audits, etc., citing no fewer than three dozen secondary sources to this point.

The Burden of Proof: At least 40% of the country feels the way I do, the way a George Will type feels. So my argument is not of the ambiguous, ad hominem, ancillary, improbable variety. When Tom Cruise is arguing with Demi Moore about the burden of proving the relative innocence of two marines in “A Few Good Men” stating- “it doesn’t matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove!” Don’t I know it. I believe that what someone believes when he’s trotted out this much ammunition matters, but still not as much as what he can prove. I have spent, to the disgust of the few who actually read them, two blogs (#s 1 and 2) showing how difficult it is to actually prove something undeniably, irrefutably and with finality- for the same person who believes in a virgin birth, doesn’t believe we actually landed on the moon in 1969.

republican case in point: I covered a number of examples in part 11 when I revealed the amount of money going to defense contractors, with less than stellar returns on that investment. But here is another prime example of the hypocritical nature of republican politicians:

president Bush vetoed 3 bills in six years when there was a republican-controlled congress, none of which were appropriations bills (those are the bills that appropriate money to various government programs). “Federal spending increased 23% after inflation from 2001 to 2006” while the republicans controlled congress—the appropriations bills he did not veto “included hikes for defense, homeland security, entitlements, education and thousands of special-interest items called ‘earmarks’ that are tacked onto spending bills at lawmakers’ requests.” (source: David Jackson’s USA Today August 2007 article- “Squaring off with dems, Bush Makes More Veto Threats.”) Now, I’d agree that the democrats like to spend our money, particularly on earmarks for their constituencies back home, for those are the people who helped get them elected, but is there any point in a republican denying that they like to spend our money too? Incidentally, “Bush or his advisers have threatened to veto nine of 12 appropriations bills approved in the house of representatives,” – a legislative body currently controlled by the democrats. That is the definition of partisan politics coming from the president who ran with more expressed interest in uniting the parties if elected as any presidential candidate in recent memory.

Very Short Memory: president Bush was rather dismissive when he vetoed a $1 billion spending bill passed by a democratic-controlled congress for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, stating that “Congress is ‘acting like a teenager with a new credit card.’ ” (Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune’s “by the numbers” column, from November 18, 2007.) Ahhhhh, in 2005 Bush signed a spending bill passed by a then republican-controlled congress that amounted to $1.3 billion for the, you guessed it, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education . . . And you people keep voting for these hypocrites. I would rather approach an intemperate, paranoid starving cheetah, that has a history of bad experiences with English majors about the idea of donating money to aid an antelope self-awareness group than to vote for a candidate from either political party.

In fairness- another Deliverance: “Bush vetoed the first spending bill May 1, 2007, not because of spending levels but because the supplemental budget bill contained a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Democrats removed that provision, and Bush signed the bill.” (David Jackson, USA Today, see above) That is ridiculous- an appropriations bill with a troop withdrawal rider--even despite how much money some have projected the Iraq and Afghan wars (which is not a violent entanglement over who should be granted the use of a homemade blanket made of yarn this winter) will cost. These are the types of games being played by the politicians who continue to fool people into voting for them. Are we not tired of being treated like Ned Beaty, from a certain, uncomfortable-for-males-to-watch-movie from the 1970s, who is “held up” on an infrequently traveled river in the deep south. Getting a genocide bill through the legislature with a rider attached that allows geese to be hunted along strip malls using dental floss laced with contact lens solution is far more likely than getting our political representatives to effectively work together to save our being overtaxed and over- necessary-costed to death. I think of the conjoining of the biblical verse from Matthew 6:13, and the line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar when I think of politicians: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from [the] evil that men do . . .” For all kinds of politicians have led voters into the temptation of voting for them and then done nothing to reciprocate the supposed faith which compelled the voter to cast a vote for the hypocrite they elected.

Scientific/Political synthesis: I’m an English major, but have studied enough philosophy to be aware of a term that combines both the thesis, a theory that one contends is true (concerning this topic, mine was found in part 5 of this blog series) and its exact opposite, its antithesis. The synthesis is born out of the combination of the two and often represents the most clear thinking of the three, as it claims the most advantageous, fair, and reasonable elements of each, often with the benefit of hindsight. This process then forms a new thesis. This is a workable scientific and philosophic way to remove one person’s, group’s, or country’s prejudices and monopolizing ways of thinking, so that something better may come, via objectivity. The stubborn are not allowed to railroad the more reasonable members of a society by just doing it the way it has been done for hundreds of years. Isn’t it about time that the thesis of democratic thinking (which originated with Jefferson and Madison in 1792) and the antithesis of republican thinking (which originated in 1854 with Lincoln) welcomed the synthesis—which is a set of candidates who take the better aspects of both, such as they are, and dutifully follow through on commitments (albeit with the understanding that checks and balances moderate one’s ability to do so?) Consider it the buffet of politics, we actually vote for and elect people who share our views, or at least more of them than our elected officials share with us now. This a la carte approach when we run through the Old Country Buffet feed line/go to vote, ensures that we aren’t forced to use the feces-covered serving spoon that someone’s sweaty-assed, sumo-sized uncle just used after having used his index finger to dig buggers out of his nose before dishing up the metaphoric fruit salad that a dying, cataracts-inflicted doberman with scurvy wouldn’t touch. I didn't actually give you the the big words that would necessarily comprise America's traditional republican political thesis or the democratic antithesis, but if you pay any attention to the political climate, you know that for every republican/conservative political principle, the democrats/liberals have the antithesis to it that they prefer.

To that end: Elected officials pretend to care about a balanced budget; we call someone who equally balances his losses with his gains- even Steven; international trade is more healthy when we have a fairly even share of imports and exports--in terms of dollars and numbers; our athletic coaches desire a level playing field; we appreciate someone’s viewpoint when they “level” (ie. are fair) with us; coaches also advise their players not to get too high or too low after wins or losses; in football, an offensive coordinator usually attempts to call about as many running plays as passing plays to keep the offense balanced for a better chance of the team advancing down the field and to keep the defense off-balance; we are instructed by nutritionists to eat a well-balanced diet; many psychologists and psychiatrists have written of the slight differences in our genetic makeup having an affect on what sex we are physically and what kind of psychological makeup comprises our unconscious- (people hate it when I do this so I won’t even bring Jung’s anima and animus into the conversation); the housing market is considered healthy if there are just enough existing houses on the market- (flooding the market lowers the average selling price of a home and a dearth of available homes raises the price); the government controls the price of a jar of peanut butter, affecting it by as much as 70 cents per jar,** by limiting the number of peanut farmers allowed to grow peanuts; we use a programmable thermostat to set the average temperature of our house at various points in the day—attempting to balance how hot or cold we are willing to be with an eye on how much our relative comfort will cost us; one can bet on red or black on the roulette wheel, with those placing bets having a 50-50 chance of winning; the federal reserve adjusts interest rates on all kinds of things in order to balance the national economy, to encourage spending on things like cars and homes, by tinkering economically with bonds and farm commodities, by attempting to foresee economic factors that might cause inflation or recession, or in fact being the cause of them, whether purposefully, or unwittingly, (this is outside of my comfort zone to declare); in short, the old law of supply and demand, and the maintaining of balance in all walks of life makes sense in so many areas: athletics, commerce, health, psycho-social behavior, physical comfort, subconscious thought processes, gambling, and economics, among other things.

Time for assertions on behalf of the middle class: There is at least one area that I can think of where balancing one mode of thought, one viewpoint, and one set of parameters against its supposed opposite, with an interest in maintaining an equal footing in the universe for the appealing confluence of both . . . that is in the area of the "representation" by political candidates, for the benefit of the hunyucks who voted for them. Maintaining a slight majority for one party or another in the various state and federal branches of the government is often considered desirable. Maintaining a balance in the political realm is the dangerous exception to the thesis, the cliche- everything in moderation. Many thinking inside the box consider a fairly equal mix of dems and reps is advantageous to the public. It was George Orwell who wrote in Animal Farm: "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Equality is not assured the middle class when neither political party represents us, excepting when they are pleading for our vote. The check on the power, determination and political monopoly of either by electing both to political offices is no fail-safe to freedom from excessive taxation- yeah . . . I already mentioned the wire-tapping and veto threats right? We have been led to a point in our political history—where each side (dems and reps) doesn’t so much monopolize the other, as that both sides plausibly deny they are working together to monopolize the middle.

Not the concluding conclusion: I’ve collected and dispensed enough, but not all, of the information necessary to begin to draw some conclusions. Detractors would claim that the portion of the argument I am beginning to bring to the forefront is pure speculation, is an ad hominem argument, a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. But the people that would combat all of the information I have provided about the way things are would not concede that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line or that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Thinking of voting for a candidate other than one that has a chance to win is too revolutionary for them. Those voters don’t know that when they decide to vote for a candidate because the candidate has a chance to win, only the voter loses.

Barbaric Yawp: Apparently I am not the only one who has come to the conclusion that the federal government is failing the citizens, even the state governments over which it presides: The state of California is suing the federal government “to force a decision about whether the state can impose the nation’s first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks. More than a dozen other states are poised to follow California’s lead.” A spokesman for the New Jersey attorney general said: “ ‘it’s time for [the] EPA [that’s Environmental Protection Agency] to either act or get out of the way.’ ” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21691277/) The current administration is demonstrating a profound ability in the event of feet-dragging in the political Olympics. So, I am not one voice crying out in the wilderness for wholesale political change. In a recent editorial in the objectively-suspect Minneapolis Star Tribune, these words appear: “Calling a politician a hypocrite for behaving like a politician probably won’t raise many eyebrows.” So, we all know who is most to blame for our problems; I am not telling children that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, adults that their spouse has been cheating on them, a snake that he sucks at tying his own shoelaces or asking when the alligator is going to lose the baby weight because the blouse she thinks she looks looks good in makes her behind look as big as a crocodile's. People are writing articles, books, hosting talk shows and news programs that address the apathy, corruption, and general incompetence in Washington and its ancillary state governments because it is impossible to ignore. People already know about the general ineffectiveness of the politicians that assume the offices some of us elect them to. Politicians have a superiority complex, use the hint of executive privelege when they aren’t executives; politicians use the notion of diplomatic immunity from all sorts of crimes they have been convicted of in the court of public opinion. It is time for us to convict them of obstruction of justice, perjury, bribery and fraud, and time for them to serve their sentence by voting for a candidate who is not a republican or a democrat. It is time for the middle class, for the rich and poor have been and are quite catered to, to act on the sentiment expressed in the last section of Walt Whitman’s famous poem- “Song of Myself”:

I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric YAWP over the roofs of the world.


* - some may wonder why an English major would mistakenly leave words such as senator, president, governor, house of representatives, etc. uncapitalized when they appear preceding the proper noun, such as a person’s name who held or holds a particular office. That is no mistake. I don’t capitalize the word god because I don’t believe in the entity. So, President Lincoln, President Jefferson- to be sure, but President Bush or Senator Clinton . . . to quote Dana Carvey, who did an off the wall impersonation of the first president Bush- “not gonna do it . . . not gone do it.”

** - Cato Institute- http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-254.html (Cato Policy Analysis No. 254- May 15, 1996). I'll have a further comment on that next time.

Next Time: “You gotta fight, for your right . . . to paaaaaarty” . . . or not. And more, but I can’t predict what that might be at this time.

Middle Class Part 12: Lesser of two Evils and Consent of the Governed?

I’m a clairvoyant- so I know that if anyone reads this they will wonder what it has to do with the overall topic. I’m just putting a dot way out here . so I can connect it to others later on.

Since I began this blog topic in May with things we know that may or may not be true (ie. they are difficult to prove) here are a few more:

Smells Fishy: Recently, there was a report that stated that a pregnant woman who eats 12 ounces of fish a week may actually be helping to improve brain growth in fetuses, her own fetus, not some random stranger’s. Unfortunately, I read in an Elizabeth Weise USA Today column that “the group’s work was paid for in part by a $60,000 grant from the National Fisheries Institute.” (That darn rooster in the hen-house again?)

Drink up: Another study reported that a beer was better than water after a strenuous workout. Lazy husbands across the country currently enjoying the NFL this year collectively rejoiced at this news and made every lame joke in the book about how much effort it takes to walk from the recliner to the refrigerator. (FYI- no word yet on whether the Miller Brewing Company or Anheuser-Busch Companies had anything to do with this spectacular news.)

Amputee: Next, we’ll be told that the 2-year-old, formerly 8-limed Indian girl had some of the wrong appendages removed, that some of them were from a parasitic puma carcass with a severe co-dependency issue, and that she has, as an illegal alien, already been allowed the right to procure a driver’s license by any and all democratic presidential candidates except for Hillary Clinton. What’s that- now Hillary is willing to allow that? . . . Huh, now she’s not? . . . She is? . . . Not? . . . Is? Better get used to it- the primary elections are around the corner and we are about to see more waffling from political candidates than from a bus-load of porcine guys forsaking their Over-Eaters Anonymous pledges ordering the big breakfast at IHOP. Might as well take the next step and just refer to the candidates as- waffles.

No Strike: See, it is difficult to prove things. I thought I would remind the negative number of readers about that before continuing. I would also like to remind them that I will forego the writer’s strike and will go on producing largely unread blog columns, until someone pays me $60,000 to stop (see- Smells Fishy above). Altruistically, I cannot let the millions that I would be in line for from residual DVD sales affect my devotion to a cause that literally no one appreciates, except for those would watch Simon and Simon reruns on cable while they get over their bout of pneumonia.

Political Analogies: Ok, so we’ve established that the government and the business industry, to the detriment of the public,* continue to make the kinds of deals that the plunger and the toilet bowl scrubber would make in that dirty world behind the toilet if there were votes to swing, politicians to pay off, kickbacks to hand out, and “free” elections to bastardize. If you haven’t come to realize that fact because it hasn’t been as advertised as the “Bee Movie” then perhaps more digesting of second-hand msnbc articles borrowed from The New York Times and Associated Press is in order.

Political Analogies- the Sequel: Speaking of analogies and movies—my favorite scene from “Planes Trains and Automobiles” where John Candy is goofing around with the electronic seat adjuster, which is very amusing to the audience, only comforting to him, and only after he has found a position that is just good enough given his exhaustion. Candy’s antics are rather annoying to Steve Martin, particularly because once it is Martin’s turn to relax, while Candy drives, the seat is broken. That is how I see politics. We are uncomfortable, annoyed and tired. Someone, kind of, gets their way, in a potentially cozy position and then all hell breaks loose. Keep in mind, that scene ends with Candy driving the wrong way in the dark on a freeway heading right toward a semi-truck or two, and oh yeah, ends up setting the car on fire because his lit cigarette never makes it out of the window. Now, tell me that doesn’t sound like a perfect analogy for the nature of politics, and as I have demonstrated, I’m only just learning about it.

General Truth: Last time I nailed the government in terms of how much money they waste on the military. I am not advocating isolationism from a military or an economic perspective because there is too much money to make globally in a capitalistic society. But what sense does it make to be imperialists militarily if a good piece of the money we make economically is spent on wars we should want no part of, at least not anymore. The federal budget is weighted too much in one direction and another, which doesn’t satisfy anyone in the middle caught between the republicans and the democrats. Who is in the middle but a growing number of independents who are members of the middle class. Case in point: from, I don’t know, part 4 or 5 of this blog epic, I revealed that the two biggest recipients of federal money are the military (21%) and major social aid programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (28%). Well, generally, the biggest backers of an unreasonably strong military are republicans, and the biggest backers of a completely broken, corrupt and abused Medicare system are the democrats. I could trot out a number of Time or Newsweek articles and newspaper and internet columns that back this point and I may do so, but for now, trust me on this—it is very provable. The military annex of the federal government named its preliminary Iraqi offensive- “shock and awe.” At this point, since we are still there well over four years later, perhaps it should be renamed “awe shucks,” for it has had a Devin Hester opening kickoff of the Super Bowl returned for a touchdown kind of effect. The Colts still beat the Bears by 12 points.

Change: Problem is, while I’m convinced that the disgust and frustration is growing among people who may be naturally inclined to vote for an independent/populist type candidate, many of them in the political middle simply aren’t secure enough in the knowledge that they are probably going to have to “waste” their vote on political candidates for a party that doesn’t control the executive, legislative, or judicial parts of our government. To me, this is not a wasted or a protest vote. Someone I know voted against every incumbent in the last election because they wanted- change. However, political change in this country isn’t about voting in a democrat when we are dissatisfied with a republican. Change is- voting them both out. Unfortunately, short of a peaceful, well-organized, well-financed revolt, the only way to do it is through a decades long, systematic, impassioned voting strategy where all the people who complain about the way things are, actually do something about it. Besides, no revolt of the masses would ever happen- for two reasons:

1) the politicians, by letting in all the immigrants, are turning this country into one massive Tower of Babel. I decided to go with a biblical reference—Tower of Babel, see god makes everyone speak a different language in order to stop them from working together in their building of a very structurally unsound edifice that would reach into the heavens, allegorically anyway. My allusion is as much literal, as figurative, for Mexicans, Hmong, Haitians, and all the rest, are causing the unrest of the more naturalized citizens, because of their disregard for our country’s language, customs, and oh yeah, our laws (by coming here illegally, among other things). Hey, we have enough Americans breaking laws, we don't need ringers in the game of law-breaking. It is hard to be a unified populace if, to continue the Babel analogy, all groups want different social, economic, and political gains;

2) money. Ironically, the government is stripping this from everyone anyway with the heavy taxes it is imposing, so we wouldn't have enough money to finance a peaceful uprising, which begins with a vote.

Your Vote: Trust me; I would have earned at least a C in every political science class I took pass-fail since I swore off attempting to obtain my GED. Change is going to take: writing in Mickey Mouse, Harry Truman, Ralph Nader, “Not You” or simply voting for the independent, populist, or green party candidate whose name appears on the ballot and doing so en masse (that means everyone so inclined should go ahead and do so). One gubernatorial election will not be enough, and voting for Giuliani or Edwards and voting for an independent for your district’s state house of representative’s seat isn’t enough. This has to be a carte blanche (across the board) vote against the democrats and republicans and a vote for a la carte politics- taking the best aspects of both, such as they are. Just complaining isn’t enough anymore. Politicians should have to pay, by losing their jobs, for being more loyal to the resurrection of an antiquated, marginally appreciated historical site, toward which they throw a million dollars, than to the citizens they are supposed to dutifully represent? The governed certainly have not given their consent for congress or the president, or their state legislators to send $2.2 billion and $1.3 billion to Israel and Egypt respectively, while ignoring domestic issues such as pathetic emissions standards affecting the environment, street crimes, and any of a number of other economic issues that might cause a recession. We did not authorize them to allow corporations to skate as it pertains to how much tax they pay because the politician wants to secure the campaign finance support from those tax-protected businesses. No candidate should be in favor of allowing an illegal immigrant a driver’s license when the illegal shouldn’t even be in this country to begin with! We want an immigration bill—as Steve Martin from the same movie I reference above states in a scene where he was left stranded in a massive parking lot full of rental cars, except for the one he was supposed to have rented- “right f------ now!” We want one even if it isn’t the perfect law, because it is better than nothing. I look forward to the day when congress is equally populated with democrats, republicans and independents. I look forward to that day slightly more than I do to 3M window insulation weekend. And, I might be dead before I see it . . . never mind.

Evil Ways of the Election process: Voters in every election choose, or are fooled into voting, for the lesser of two evils. One candidate may appear more youthful and the other more experienced; one may feel a bit more touched by the pleading of a destitute farmer, and one less unnerved by a foreign threat. Or, we vote for them because we just like their smile. After all- “one may smile, and smile and be a villain.” –spoken by Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The difference between the two candidates in terms of quality (how effectively they might govern) is negligible (that is, there is little difference). If you feel differently, and are as narrow-minded as some people’s aunts, who have lived such stubbornly-sheltered lives they haven’t even realized it yet, and vote for political candidates based on their stance on abortion, then I pity you. One candidate may be deliberately evil in one way, and the other is over-sexed. Where one would give the rich tax breaks incommensurate with what is objectively just, the other would allow massive amounts of illegals into the country, and make the middle class foot the bill for their health care. Either way, to put it bluntly, the taxpayers are screwed, and not because we have chosen one candidate over the other, but because we have chosen either of them. The metaphorical fork in the road that leads in one direction to voting for a democrat and the other toward a republican, has a third way- voting for an independent because we can. Choosing this way means we start out on a bumpy dirt road in a jalopy, but ends in our voice being heard loud in clear.

Be Governed: One caveat here, the first response of a defender of the status quo, an opinion akin to apathy, or the political climate’s equivalent of religious agnosticism, is to blame the voters. The voters who are disgruntled by the amount of tax they are paying say and write such things as this line paraphrased from the Declaration of Independence- “this country is not run with the ‘consent of the governed.’ ” The contrarian-revisionists who oppose this stance say and write such things as- “well, you people who are complaining about what the government (presidents, legislators, congressman, governors, state representatives, even city council men and women) are the ones who voted for the people misspending your money- so it is your (the voter’s) fault.” Let me set something straight- the second group of people is speaking complete nonsense. How does a man who can barely keep his son from stealing mystery meat chunks and jarred green bean nuggets from his daughter’s tray decide this? Because it is a much easier task to determine who should be blamed for placing which politicians in office than to be determined to halt any food ownership disputes involving a toddler and an infant.

Opinion pages: I have read columnists and letters to the editor that espouse that view, that cite the fact that certain politicians are put into office because we voted for them. That is as much because the collective majority liked the other person the least, not because the winning candidate’s skill set was above reproach. One letter to the editor writer, shortly after the 35W bridge collapse, under the heading- “Voters must bear blame” came up with this quaint story about who is to blame for our current situation- “one of my teachers used to say that when we point the blame finger at others, three are still pointing at ourselves.” Are you kidding me! After how politicians misspend the money that they already have, we are to blame? The letter writer concludes: “It’s time that we all act more prudently when we elect (or reelect) politicians to office.” Do you think this sheep-man actually voted for anyone willing to upset the apple cart? I would have concluded the letter with Howard Beale’s famous line from the movie “Network” after he has implored that all of the viewers go to the window, open it, stick their heads out, and yell- “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” Ah, irony- the Network bosses keep Beale on the air because his insane tirades are great for ratings- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Beale). The ironic part, during one of his tirades “he exposes business links between the corporation that owns the network and Saudi Arabia,” which is where, in real life, America had received the majority of its oil supply until the late 1990’s. Now, is that life imitating art or art imitating life? One thing is for sure- that’s like the fox pedophiliac running the henhouse daycare . . . or something.

Time to pay: Let me assure you, I will not: “ ‘have the courage to say to the American people, ‘We are sending our soldiers, would you please help me pay for this?’ ” This was spoken by the democratic senator from North Dakota- (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21774226/.) If the senator from my state said this, do you think I would vote for them, if they were against abortion? I care about the soldiers but not to the tune of funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the tune of $3.5 trillion through 2017, according to the same msnbc article referenced above. I would rather try “awe shucks” again and spare their lives by avoiding a futile protracted occupation in a country that has historically been a mess. An Associated Press article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21766479) estimates that a middle class family of four can expect the wars to cost them $20,900. I don’t want to be an alarmist, but I have a family of four. This affects me. So, I am inclined to be concerned about it. I’m concerned about families, or individuals who are financially affected by an over-funded war. We may not have lost a son on a battlefield in a foreign country, such as Cindy Sheehan had, but we are losing all kinds of ground on the myriad of domestic issues we can’t focus on due to our continued “telescopic philanthropy,” to quote Charles Dickens. Telescopic philanthropy is our sometimes unnecessary involvment in entangling alliances or the proliferation of ego-centric foreign policies for reasons like oil. Domestic issues, such as immigration, health care reform, social security, taxation, campaign finance reform, big business kickbacks, necessary cost items price increases, and attending to defaulted mortgagees are much more worthy of resolutions. Domestic issues that should concern us should not be restricted to the mediation of cuisine brouhahas where one tries to keep his daughter’s more mobile brother from pilfering her banana puffs. There are far too many domestic issues on our plates, so to speak.

Don’t Worry = Be Happy?: I’m considered as being the gloom and doom, chicken little, glass is half empty guy, and am only considered as such by people who don’t know any better, who see their life as pretty darn good, but not perfect, as it is never going to be. I admitted in part 1 or 2, (hey, I am cross promoting my other blog entries on this topic) that my life is pretty darn good. Nevertheless, I began this whole expansive, apparently immortal blog harangue by clearly stating that I was concerned about the next generation and those after it. I would only be seeing the state of this country through rose-colored glasses if I were completely oblivious to economic trends (increasing prices of necessary cost items [parts 6-8] coupled with the amount of taxes we pay [still upcoming subtopic] ) or an egocentric, apathetic person who has never wondered why Americans preferred the German version of 99-Luft Balloons, (or just an egocentric, apathetic person.) I know people who are only concerned about how something affects them, and I know this because they told me: “unless something affects me, why would I worry about it?” Thing is—it does affect you, you just haven’t realized it yet, or you undervalue the futures of your middle class kids. So, not worrying about anyone but yourself is the way to go? I’m as against that as I am against shorter paragraphs, car accidents, snow still on the ground in April, coughing, and burying pet snakes in a marked grave in the back yard that died of the dreaded combination of acute gingivitis, brought on by fetal alcohol syndrome.

* See the USA today August 6, 2007 front page of the Life Section- “Science vs. Politics Gets Down and Dirty” article. Looks like there are issues with the FDA about “ignoring its science advisers and being influenced by political ideology,” that “the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a former oil industry lawyer, had altered climate reports to soften scientific findings showing that fossil-fuel use and deforestation triggered global warming” and also that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “reconsidered” an Endangered Species Act which made eight species less than endangered- “Questions have been raised about the integrity and legality of the decisions, which were overseen by a political appointee.” I wonder why they would do such a thing. They wouldn’t want to alarm any members of the public and have them connect the dots concerning what species’ natural habitat might be affected next, or possibly lose the financial support of major businesses, with the government’s allowance, that would be most responsible for the endangeradeness- (yeah, that’s not a word, but I went with it)- for as you can see, the government alters more than just the English language with its inner-workings.

Next Time: The nature of being well-balanced people, peanut farmers, Walt Whitman and Political synthesis.