“If you are not getting as much from life as you want to, then examine the state of your enthusiasm.”
- Norman Vincent Peale
I can consider the above quotation in the context of many things- athletics, politics, movies, wait service at a restaurant, christmas presents, service on a furnace/air conditioner unit that is two years old, vacation destinations where the overall cost is balanced with the return of life-long positive memories, the petting of a dog-in-law though you are allergic to pet dander, how often one would desire that it rain after having planted 15 shrubs in a remodeled front entry-way, life’s expectations in general, the expected life-span of a compact fluorescent light bulb after having named it, being able to spot the siberian tiger at the Minnesota zoo, and the list goes on. There are a myriad of life’s endeavors where expectations must be managed in order to determine their overall worth. Considering the subject matter of my previous posts, I better just stick to how the above quotation might introduce this installment’s particular material. Readers should be mindful of my insistence that there is not much separation between the politicians sent by voters to government centers, state capitals and Washington D.C. in an effort to solve the issues and the issues themselves, so as I addressed some issues last time, I will again turn to the politicians tasked with the chore of deliberating upon them, before finishing with a couple of issues which politicians have created of their own accord.
At heart: I am an idealist. When something surprises me to the point of euphoria, I am a child; when something disappoints me to the point of disgust I am an ornery old coot. So, if at heart I am an idealist, I can be a pragmatist, even a pessimist (which often occurs when a person is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of life’s practical events seemingly decided negatively and in unison). A set of examples- I was absolutely giddy when the Patriots lost the Super Bowl and when the Red Sox beat the Yankees in the 2004 A.L. Championship series. I can be disappointed by the weak mix of a Captain Morgan and Coke I ordered. In all cases I measure the experience as it is presently constituted against my expectations and my previous disappointments. Sometimes my expectations are reasonable and sometimes I can be completely obstinate. Factors that might influence my mentality one way or another are many and certainly not worth getting into. Suffice to say, I feel I am being reasonable where my disappointment in the political direction of this country is concerned. I know that not every problem is solvable, but know too that plenty of them could be. In short, my expectations are not being met and with that, those issues are costing me money.
All covered: If one political side were to prevail on every issue, and all issues were resolved to just one party’s satisfaction- what a terrible country we would have. Each side is about half wrong on every issue and equally wrong in their approach to conflict resolution. Course, each side isn’t wrong if you ask a democrat or republican who think that all is right with the world. But I don’t live in their fairy-land America. Many, many people are concerned about the state of the country, just ask them. If they aren’t all that concerned then perhaps they live in an apartment, with few obligations, their daddy paid their way through college, bought them a car and probably still pays their car insurance, though they are 25. Career politicians, or even first-time elected officials, are capable of completely ignoring the views of the voter. I have given a number of examples of politicians generally who constantly make decisions that do not affect politicians at all, lest the residual effect of their re-election is a major concern. Ha. I have no other recourse but to dismiss people and their political views if they approve of everything, or nearly everything, their party of choice promotes. Such people are more unreasonable than my brand of idealist.
A saying in Latin: quis custodiet ipsos custodes- means “who will guard the guards themselves?” I know that we sometimes elect politicians on their merits, we elect them because they are armed with knowledge that we do not have in order to make decisions for us, sometimes to give us what we want or need and often enough to protect us from ourselves insofar as we would make decisions about how our tax money is spent that we would suppose are in keeping with our best interests. Unfortunately, we are not always aware of what our best interests are in the long run. More unfortunate still- the politicians we elect do not always know either. We elect them and pay them to know. In a way, they are our guardians- distributing our money to various local, state, national and international causes as they see fit, which in theory improves our way of life. It is the fitness of those decisions that can certainly be questioned. The question one asks about their merits, objectivity, knowledge, altruism and foresight, given that we have granted them the power to make important decisions certainly begs the question, (though it might not necessarily need to be phrased in Latin)- if they guard against our financial and political shortsightedness, selfishness, ignorance, etc. who guards us from theirs? Read the Lou Dobbs book- War on the Middle Class- chapters 3 and 4, pgs- 37-75, for more examples of the interconnection between politicians and lobbyists. He has saved me a lot of work.
So to has Jean Jaques Rousseau in words that echo a consistent representative government argument of Alexander Hamilton’s. The caveat being that Hamilton too quickly dismissed the “But” portion that Rousseau correctly includes:
“. . . it is the best and most natural arrangement for the wisest to govern the multitude, if we are sure that they will govern it for its advantage and not for their own. One ought never to multiply devices uselessly, or employ twenty thousand men to do what a hundred picked men could do much better. But it must be noted that the corporate interest begins at this point to direct the national energies less strictly in accordance with the general will, and that a further inevitable tendency is for a part of the executive power to escape the domain of law.” (Book III, chapter 5, pg. 115- Rouseau’s The Social Contract, published initially in 1762). Read up on corporate law on your own which is a topic I may include next time when I hope to get to Welfare generally. Also consider executive type law domain violations from part 12 and the wiretapping and EPA portions at the end of this number.
Liar, Liar: I hate it when people answer their own questions, but this might serve as a possibility for who might guard our guards- “New Anti-Terror Weapon: Hand-Held Lie Detector.” (MSNBC, Bill Dedman, April 9, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23926278). Just after political candidates complete a televised debate, they step down from stage and are all taken into different rooms by trained lie-detector specialists and administered a test based on their answers during the debate. Their proposed policy initiatives which they had already made public and any other subject matter fodder relevant to their political career, voting record, accepted amount of campaign finance money, etc. are all topics worthy of further investigation. If they are innocent, they will have nothing to hide. The “portable device isn’t perfect, but is accurate enough to save American lives by . . . narrow[ing] the list of suspects after a roadside bombing.” How about potentially bettering American lives by helping to ensure that voters are getting what they elected, not some quasi-humanoid with a dysfunctional conscience whose evil twin has stepped from some alien-pod form jettisoned to our country to take political office while we sleep. In order to determine if the person being administered the test is lying, a number of baseline questions are asked before hitting them with the important questions, courtesy of the article cited directly above- “ ‘Do you intend to answer my questions truthfully?’ ‘Are the lights on in this room?’ ‘Are you a member of the Taliban?’ ” Those would be the military questions, quoted from the article. The political candidate questions would be something along the lines of- Is the color of the tie you are wearing red? Did you tie that tie yourself? Did you wear it thinking it would fool millions of Virginians into voting for you for governor because it reflects your supposed patriotism? Have you ever lied to the voters in order to get elected? For Obama- are you certain it was your uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz? For McCain- do you really want to push for immigration reform or are you just trying to appeal to your republican base? All things considered, would you have voted for an immigration bill if there wasn’t a save the penguin from sexually aggressive and conflicted elephant seal attacks rider attached.” (see part 28). Let us not concern ourselves with the supposed historical inaccuracies of traditional polygraph tests. This could be made for TV drama. “Meet My Folks” was a reality television program which made the proper use of the lie-detector test. The administrator provided either a thumbs up or thumbs down verdict on whether a proposed romantic candidate was lying to the parents about his or her intentions with the parent’s offspring. I would care less about whether a political candidate had a real extra-marital affair with a campaign volunteer and more about whether they used taxpayer money to buy airline tickets to fund their secretive sexual encounters. I saw a show where a bride-to-be used the lie detector test administered to her best friend since the seventh grade and her own sister to determine who would be the maid of honor at her wedding. Both lied to her on a number of occasions as judged by the administrator of the test. Despite a couple of lies, she chose her sister, who admitted to either flirting with or kissing one of her old boyfriends- I can’t remember which. Hey, I am addicted to HGTV and had to change the channel. I want to be witness to the first kitchen makeover featuring a countertop surface that is not granite . . . I have priorities. Future groom . . . run! I once dated a woman so indecisive she nearly had to make a decision tree to figure out which kind of soda she wanted to purchase in the gas station.
Practical idealism: Pundits are always able to recognize but the voting sheep are not able to realize when issue flip-flop is happening for the benefit of garnering sheepish votes. Candidates pretend to change their views when they become the presumptive nominee of either of the parties so that they might gather more votes from the undecideds, and progressives. I would maintain that they do not gain votes from the true Independents because in order to be an Independent you must have made the decision not to fall for that fake sincerity crap. If a candidate were dressed as a bear and it approached the stream you, as a voting salmon, were swimming in and informed you that he wouldn’t try to gather you in with his paw, ensuring your safe passage up stream would you trust him? I wouldn’t. Candidates in primaries almost always seem to be either very liberal or very conservative during the primary in order to establish their political ideology to be widely accepted amongst their own party members, in order to be Lord of the Flies. Of course, the current version of McCain is quite a different animal, as I don’t know a lot of conservatives who are all that happy with him as their nominee, and weren’t all that impressed in the heart of the primary process. See the article “Conservatives to Battle McCain over Platform- Activists Don’t Want His Views on Warming, Stem Cells, Other Issues Adopted” Washington Post, July 6, 2008, where his positions on immigration and campaign finance are also being questioned by conservatives- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25561143/. Conservatives, you still ok with allowing unregistered republicans a vote in state primaries? One conservative, a director of energy and global warming policy, is quoted in the article as saying- “McCain ‘is really out of step with the strong majority of his party.’ ” Powell (see URL in the paragraph immediately below) writes of McCain having “shifted several positions in the Republican primary, taking conservative lines on taxes and immigration.” So, McCain changed some of his positions and it does not appear that his own constituency has bought those alterations- but I bet several million undecideds already have. Democrats have always been assured of Obama’s liberalism and that is exactly what scares an Independent. McCain at least has a long history of deal-brokering and though republicans may not like it, he has gotten some things done of which at least this Independent has approved. Obama's appeal to the Independent's and republican's in-name-only and undecideds is a mystery to me. But those are the people who are going to get fooled out of their vote by him which will swing the election his way.
Day of independence: I would hope that most voters (considering the numbers that vote for one of the major parties) should regret their vote about once every election cycle. A desperate man-whore probably has this same feeling of regret after waking up in bed next to some overweight woman seeking to draw him closer to her gunt the morning after committing to more than being her partner in the Scene It- Disney edition board game. Too many Long Island Ice Teas might do that to you. This is pure speculation- I thought a well-constructed analogy might help some people visualize my point more clearly. Allowing Independents and undecideds to vote in state primaries all over the country is a double-edged sword. This year, by having both McCain and Obama, the two candidates in the field who naturally appealed to the political middle more than any of the others at the outset, win their respective primaries, has kept a true potential Independent candidate from being able to justify their candidacy (Nader, Bloomberg, Dobbs, possibly even Paul, etc.) Though Obama was the noted most liberal of the senators in office, his mantra of change has appealed to DINOs, RINOs, IINOs (Independents In Name Only), undecideds, and 23-year-old Mississippians who have just learned they have had the right to vote for five years. McCain is perhaps himself a RINO, but we won’t know that for sure until he stops changing shapes attempting to appeal to the middle.
Mr. Shape-shifter: This article- “For Obama, a Pragmatist’s Shift Toward Center” by Michael Powell of The New York Times, June 27, 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25404397) is just one example of a candidate caught in the act between idealism and practicality. Consider some of the writer’s language- he uses the word “seemed” three times in the first three paragraphs to characterize Obama’s stance on the Supreme Court’s recent D.C. handgun ban ruling. Powell writes that: Obama’s “path toward the political center [is] marked by artful leaps and turns,” that “Mr. Obama has taken calibrated positions on issues . . . suggesting a presidential candidate in hot pursuit of what Bill Clinton once lovingly described as ‘the vital center.’ ” A presidential historian is quoted within the article as having said: “ ‘A presidential candidate’s great desire is to be seen as pragmatic, and they hope their maneuvering and shifting will be seen in pursuit of some higher purpose . . . It doesn’t mean they are utterly insincere.’ ” That hardly sounds like a promotional announcement for a candidate’s honest views; usually I shy away from voting for candidates who have all of the attributes of a shape-shifter. And here I thought shape-shifters were restricted to Native American literature and being considered dangerous mutants like the hot-evil (Rebecca Romijn) from the X-Men movies. Obama recently “backed away from his own earlier support for campaign finance spending limits” and “painted his decision to opt out of the campaign finance system as a reformist gesture, noting that most of his donors are not wealthy.”
Gist mill: Sir, you did not acquire a war chest in excess of $200 million because Ma and Pa Kettle contributed to your campaign. If you have acquired that much money because of the little people, there are more ignorami (which is the widely accepted plural form of ignoramus) than I had initially thought, who will be unleashed upon voting booths all over the country, which is almost as annoying as when teenagers drive to my house for candy on Halloween sans costume. Dude, the camoflauge gear you wear to play splatball is not a costume. Also, Mr. Obama, who would be financing your campaign if you accepted the $84.1 million . . . perhaps the public? See, I gleaned that from the name of the type of financing- it being called “public financing” and all. It actually comes from the $3 tax return check off and primary matching funds, where any individual can contribute their own money multiple times up to $250 of which can be matched by the federal government’s Treasury department for the purpose of campaigning. It is more intricate than this, but that is the basic gist. It seems that Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was the first to propose the use of public financing. I wonder if the republicans considered that Unconstitutional back in the opening years of the 20th century? More information can be found at the Federal Election Commission site featuring this article- http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml. Within that link can be found this very valuable information:
“Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.”
So, perhaps it will eventually pay if more than two candidates are considered for the political offices up for grabs come election time. That does not seem like a wasted vote to me. But perhaps the die-hard democrats and republicans are like the pescatarian capuchin* monkey who would continue to acknowledge a wind-aided cherry pit-spitting championship. Freaks. Have you no sense of shame.
Price of hypocrisy: And see this article for more information on the hubbub about Obama reneging on his inclination to use public financing- “Public Financing? Obama and McCain Appear Split” by Jeff Zeleny and Michael Luo of the New York Times, April 10, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html. The article reveals that the price of hypocrisy is no less than the combined $95 million in campaign finance money Obama raised in February and March of 2008. To be fair, the article discloses that public financing of a presidential run has been made available to all comers since the 1976 election and that no nominees have elected to accept that bounty, which is adjusted for inflation. Also in the article- “Mr. Obama, who has shattered fund-raising records for candidates of either party . . . argues that his small contributors, many of whom have given again and again over the Internet, have injected a new democracy into fund-raising, with the result that a kind of ‘parallel public financing system’ has been created.’ ” Sure, by ‘democracy’ he actually means 'oligarchy' and by “parallel public financing system” he means- a complete set of hunyucks who are somehow distantly related to an alligator. In the article, evidence suggests that McCain could also be considered a hypocrite considering the waffling which took place over which centrist candidate would decide to accept public financing. All voters should beware the comeliness of the spider who traps you in a net you may already know is there, for the price of hypocrisy (for the candidate) is not in any way comparable to the cost of it (to the voter).
My solution for campaign finance reform**: 1) Empower the Federal Elections Commission to dictate that an inflation-based standard amount of public financing money will be made available to presidential, congressional, even state district candidates based on a set of criteria to be determined by a reasonable commission for the purposes of the public being able to avoid having the whims and passions of the rich donors dictate the types of policies which are initiated or proposed. All issues- foreign and domestic- from campaign finance itself, to farm subsidies, education, immigration, taxation, off-shore drilling, how to deal with China, co-sourcing, etc., need not be controlled or influenced by any group, the minority of billionaires who need another million to blow on private jets, or majorities of immigrants, working poor, or even the middle class who win the support of the public because they are one hell of a pity case. 2) Along with that FEC stuff I mention above- run public service announcements on behalf of each candidate clearly indicating where they stand on the issue, perhaps in the form of an info-mercial and give the voting public more information about where websites, news articles, etc. can be found that further break down the issues and the candidates. A component that also communicates the truth about a candidate’s voting record and whether and how they have reneged on past promises inadequately addressed by them during their legal, private business, legislative, presidential, or gubernatorial careers. 3) Limit the number of paid staff members each candidate can keep employed. No need to limit the number of volunteers, as compensating someone from the never chosen pool of public financing money (because they are volunteers) wouldn’t infringe upon the publicly allotted earmarked campaign money. Candidates can still run as many adds as they can pay for with the $84.1 million, and go on as many trips to certain states as they see fit. 4) Obviously, it takes more money to run a national campaign, so senators and governors would receive half of that total, or a total to be assigned by an independent agency. The issue of how a politician can, or should be allowed to finance a campaign is a more complicated issue than I just represented, but it is much easier to fix than education, health care, immigration, or the carbon emission/global warming/tax v. cap and trade issue.
Unconstitutional homeless sluts: That intro. phrase is just a little harsh. If anyone should find that the above proposals are Unconstitutional . . . tough! There should be no attempt to justify a massive waste of money, even one's own, on an election by drawing an inadequate connection to the ambiguously-written first amendment. I consider the exorbitant amount of money spent on an election a detriment to clean and fair elections and that priority takes precedence over someone's unnamed first amendment right to be beholden to those who finance their campaign. The politician who whines about his rights when he has been allowed to waffle and lie, with impunity and without shame, about any number of issues does not much concern me. Both major parties are like the homeless guy who stands out on the off-ramp street corner with a sign begging for money, looking down to make sure he is holding the sign right side up, which adds to his aura of desperation and banality. The candidate who wins your vote is like the slut who cheats on her man, who begs for forgiveness and knows she has pulled it over on you when you have given it to her.
Meta-politics I: At work in this country are any number of issues that are reported on all over the nightly and cable news programs. We citizens argue about them just as our politicians do. Almost any issue is connected to at least a few others and many issues have many issue relationships. I would make a Kevin Bacon- six degrees of separation allusion here but no one would value that. The solvency of social security may only come about with immigration reform; the price of gas is affected by oil futures, and the lack of refineries, the withheld decision to drill in Alaska or off the coast, or in the Dakotas, etc.; the Iraq war, Bush just signed the bill, will allocate an additional $162 billion, even while the next president is being sworn in and that alone affects a couple dozen domestic issues that could be bettered with those earmarked millions, not to mention sensible tax cuts for all economic classes. Welfare is undeniably tied to unemployment, children born out of wedlock to teen mothers and potentially to the dairy industry, because there are likely a few welfare recipients who are milking the system. Things are getting tense. The inflammatory language used to decry the solutions of our counterparts in any argument is nonsensical compared to the possibility of real issue resolution. Read the series of comments, which follow a carbon emissions tax v. cap and trade article, which reveal the wealth of disparagement that follows on the trail of any article whose author promotes either a liberal or conservative view. The comments are more valuable as issue fodder than was the article which precedes them- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/30/17554/0835. These people are beyond worrying about tomato salmonella scares- they are like Touretted walking sticks competing with each other on the same pommel horse at the insect savant special Olympics. Everyone is impressed with what they know and how condescendingly they can communicate it, even me. I characterize such combative personalities as insects because we are hardly aware of our own insignificance or how futilely we shout down the ignorance of others. My friends, ignorance has a way of prevailing.
For another example of the invective-laden mental tennis match of discussing everything and yet solving nothing- please see an email exchange reproduced in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about a Big Stone II South Dakota power plant proposal that would use coal-fired power plant to serve the energy needs of 45% of Minnesotans as well as many South Dakotans. The story- “A Full-Tilt Battle Over Electricity” ran July 6, 2008 in the Opinion exchange section- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/22887154.html?location_refer=Commentary:highlightModules:4. The two combatants are an attorney for five utilities companies advocating the necessity of the plant for the region’s energy needs and the executive director of an environmental advocacy group, who is concerned about the levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Both make multiple excellent points, which leaves someone desirous of a resolution frustrated until a duty-bound, impartial set of arbitrators can make an equitable decision. The reason I would continue to suggest a Supreme Court-like, somewhat Grecian super-judge method to many of our problems is because- of the three branches of government, the supposed impartiality of the judicial branch is certainly more respected than either the executive or legislative branches who are far more beholden to listening to the voices and money offered by potential vote-buyers. I am not proposing that the current Supreme Court decide the weighty issues that remain unresolved, simply that an arbitrator-like body, in possession of the opinions and facts is in a better position to make far-reaching, objective decisions fraught with a number of potential undesirable outcomes.
You cannot believe everything you read, especially given a political predisposition to be cowed, nor can all material be dismissed should it conflict with one’s views. It is difficult for an Independent to figure on a decision, but he is more qualified to do so than the average republican who would promote the building of the power plant and the democrat who would petition against its construction.
Meta-politics II: Behind the scenes in all computer programs there are meta-languages which consist of relationships between data components. The stuff and nonsense zooming around behind the scenes affecting the representation of data on our computer monitors, what font is represented, which formulas are suppressed, which text is displayed is referred to as metadata. It describes and defines the data by providing it with qualities and properties which affect relationships between data components which affects the data itself. Meta-politics, that stuff that goes on behind closed doors in a congressman’s office, in a subcommittee board room, at a ritzy restaurant blocks away from the nation’s capital or over the phone, with two lead negotiators a dozen states away, are things that the public may never know, nor should we need to. Many issues are associated with each other in a similar way to how XML or HTML, or any other computer coding, affects electronic data. This is just one published example- “Global Warming May Increase Illegal Immigration, Terrorism,” Associated Press, June 25, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25372743. These issues that never seem to get resolved are related in ways that some may not consider. Lower speed limits are tied to better fuel efficiency, fewer accidents, the frequency of our trips to the gas station, which equates to spending less money at the pump. The second consideration listed (fewer accidents), in turn, equates to lower automobile insurance rates. Bigger cars with more safety standards also cost the consumer more. If emission standards are set to improve, which would cause automobiles to go a greater distance on less fuel, this affects not only car companies, because they would probably have to adjust their fuel injection systems, or engines to accomodate an improved fuel, but oil companies as well. I don’t know how much of that $143 a barrel for oil is attributable to the future expected losses that oil companies assume is coming their way, due to the hardly diligent legislative pursuit of higher emission standards. That was kind of a joke. Cars and fuel would need to be modified in the event that widespread legislation is enacted, which will cause automobile manufacturers and oil companies to pass this cost onto the consumer, as I expect, they already have begun to do. Almost every issue has a price, an origin, a boiling point, and has a relationship with plenty of other issues, but can be reconciled with its polar opposite if the proper meta-political wrangling is done by citizens and politicians alike who guard against each other.
Words from Hamilton: I am reading the Federalist Papers and at quite an appropriate moment in my parade through the subject matter of this blog diatribe. I have been critical of various pundits, of talk show hosts, of George Will and Milton Friedman, and many others, but am not above granting them credit when they express their measure of reasonable thought, for many of those I have quoted are wise without being infallible and some have even been brilliant without ranking high on the integrity scale. Hamilton, a brilliant man, though altogether too impertinent as a pamphleteer, wrote this on the nature of issue resolution after writing of the deliberations of votes and the nature of majority and minority voting groups: “. . . tedious delays—continual negotiation and intrigue—contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savour of weakness—sometimes border upon anarchy.” And that was just when he was trying to get Martha Washington in the sack when the rest of the initial cabinet was on recess. He also writes of the hindrances to necessary actions caused by a variety of issues, not the least of which is that old enemy of all governments, including this one in its infancy and extending into the present day- factions, which are, I imagine, largely what causes the gridlock of which Hamilton writes. The immediately preceding quotation originates from December 14, 1787 (Federalist No. 22).
In offering #23 of the Federalist Papers Hamilton writes: “It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal. The means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.” Martha's seamstress abilities must have really turned this guy on. I can agree with the sentiment though, as I have demonstrated, (see part 28 and Rousseau's quotation above) not with Hamilton’s subsequent contention that the rich are less infallible than the poor when types of vices are taken into consideration.
Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers #21 wrote: “The natural cure for an ill administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” However, it is unfortunate that in this country, we have limits on the number of times we can affect this change and that far too few of a different brand of men than those we traditionally elect are available to hasten this cure. Hamilton’s just quoted words could have appeared in direct succession within a single number of the Federalist Papers if they were to carry the most weight and show the ineffectual side of the legislative body. In three successive papers Hamilton had hit upon a series of major failings of our current governmental structure—these being the nature of governmental representation, the assigned duties, the potential ineffectual nature of the performance of the duties and the proper course for people who have elected the representatives who are judged as having failed the public. Hamilton was good at recognizing the malady but not equipped to provide the remedy. Allow me to further detail how undeniably gangrenous the multitude of unresolved issues is making us . . .
“I’d gladly pay you Tuesday . . . (Pensions): This was the beginning of a common line of J. Wellington Wimpy’s from the Popeye cartoons. Ironically, this is the text that appears in the Wikipedia entry for J. Wellington Wimpy- “Wimpy is Popeye's friend. In the cartoons he mainly plays the role of the ‘straight man’ to Popeye's outbursts and wild antics. Wimpy is very intelligent, and well educated, but very lazy and gluttonous. Wimpy is also something of a scam artist and . . . can be shockingly underhanded at times.” Remind you of any career politicians you know? (See the wiretapping and Countrywide paragraphs below.) When I think of scam artist I think of three things- a car salesman, pigeons that wear sweater vests and refuse to pay spousal maintenance and politicians. Yes, yes, there are a number of very efficient, diligent, altruistic, commendable politicians, and it appears that I heard two very devoted, capable and benevolent ones speak at a Common Cause event the first week of June (Bob Edgar a former six term Pennsylvania house member and Mark Ritchie- current MN secretary of state), but there are also plenty of “shockingly underhanded” and “gluttonous” ones as well. Consider the story which I briefly touched on in part 29: “Growing Deficits Threaten Pensions,” by David Cho of the Washington Post, from May 11, 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24449812/. Cho writes- “The funds that pay pension and health benefits to police officers, teachers and millions of other public employees across the country are facing a shortfall that could soon run into trillions of dollars . . . State governments alone have reported they are already confronting a deficit of at least $750 billion to cover the cost of the retirement benefits they have promised . . . massive breach of faith with a generation of public employees . . . By their own assessment, state and local governments acknowledge that their funds for retiree benefits are increasingly falling behind . . . governments have been struggling to keep up with the promises they made . . . passing the bill to future generations by using sunny projections of what their investments will return . . .”
. . . for a hamburger today.”: Consider the Warren Buffett quote I included in part 29 about the “time bomb” of unrealized expectations of retirees as it concerns their earned pensions, a problem which current politicians are not interested in attending to. This is not unlike the time bombs which current politicians are not interested in attending to like- the probable insolvency of social security, medicare, medicaid, the skyrocketing gas prices and cost of health care, etc. Buffett wrote that the pension “problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed.” Concerned with their own continued electability and perceiving that the bearer of bad news would be associated with the pension failure, hundreds of politicians are sacrificing the futures of even the current crop of middle class workers to say nothing about pension benefit insolvency in the future. I would rather a politician admit his or her failures and deliver me the truth. I have never failed to respect a person for being honest, even if I am the one they are being honest about. Infallibility is not a requirement I demand of immediate superiors, myself or the official a mass of people elect to political office. If this were so, and all people demanded such a character trait, we would be without representation in every office of government across the country. Members of congress, Mr. president, state officials on all levels, local magistrates- the job approval numbers show that we already don’t trust you, so pony up with the truth and address these issues now. This is a call to address all issues truthfully not just the advent of a pension nightmare. We, it seems, will be paying today and Tuesday/tomorrow for the gluttony and perhaps the not so shocking underhandedness of our elected officials.
Wimpy postscript: The Wikipedia entry for Wimpy indicated that the character served a much larger role in a comic that predated the Popeye strip and cartoon. Considering I have associated many politicians with a dated cartoon character that no one under the age of thirty would know (Wimpy), I may as well pine for the possibility of life imitating art as well (i.e. that politicians would also be restricted in their roles in our future tragi-comic political affairs).
Country-Wide impropriety: Not having been embroiled in politics my entire life, I would only be speculating on the possibility of corrupt politicians if I didn't know how to read- others who will vote for either McCain or Obama apparently do not have this BS vetting feature available to them. Thankfully, others with experience, insight, those with news article deadlines and nightly cable news programs are able to ferret out some facts. See this story “Countrywide’s Many ‘Friends’ ” Daniel Golden of Portfolio.com, June 12, 2008 (the URL is longer than the rinse cycle on my dishwasher- key in the title of the article). It concerns “two U.S. [democratic] senators, two former cabinet members, and a former ambassador to the United Nations” who “received loans from Countrywide Financial through a little-known program that waived points, lender fees, and company borrowing rules for prominent people” . . . [who] “received better deals than those available to ordinary borrowers.” Perhaps these ordinary borrowers could be included in the group who were given ridiculous total loan amounts with disastrous interest rate considerations (i.e. sub-prime loans) and that companies like Countrywide sought to gain back the money from the less fortunate that they had saved the V.I.P.s. Of course this is pure speculation on my part. I think it makes sense to give financial incentives to those who already benefit economically where financial position, salary, fortune, hard-work, genetics, socialization, dishonesty, complicity, negligence or plausible deniability are concerned. Genius! There are dollar amounts and percentages all over the document which clearly communicate when, how much, and in what ways certain V.I.P.s benefited. “The V.I.P. loans to public officials in a position to advance Countrywide’s interests raise legal and ethical questions.” Duh. “Countrywide is reportedly under F.B.I. investigation for alleged securities fraud, and [chief executive Angelo] Mazilo has drawn criticism for unloading $474 million in Countrywide shares between 2004 and 2007 as the housing crisis neared.” Politicians who are bright enough to campaign for these offices, pull facts and factoids from their brains in a machine-gun manner in the heat of a debate somehow are unable to connect those types of financial benefits to the appearance of impropriety? Inconceivable. These cats are getting so fat, they have stretch marks on their dress pants. Some might think those are merely pleats . . . try again. Fewer than an estimated 1.2 million homeowners will actually have their mortgage subprime interest rates frozen for five years. Give millionaire, or otherwise financially secure politicians who will always be employable as lobbyists (again, see Dobbs WMC chapters 3 and 4 referenced above) breaks on their mortgages while “the number of homeowners stung by the rout in the U.S. housing market jumped last month as foreclosure filings grew by more than 50 percent compared with June a year ago” makes all the sense in the world to me, whatever the reason for the foreclosure. (Source: “Foreclosure Filings Surged 53 Percent in June”- Associated Press, July 9, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25612487/.)
Governmental Protection Agency: For another instance of governmental corruption, please see this article- “White House Tried to Silence EPA on Emissions” by Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post, June 25, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id25379956/. The facts would take too much space to detail, especially when the crux of the claim against the government’s involvement in quieting the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempts to act on a “2007 Supreme Court ruling that the agency had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to take up the issue of regulating automobile emissions that contribute to global warming” is included in the article’s title. So, given the EPA’s efforts to attempt to address the issue, it seems the Bush administration is more culpable at this point than is the EPA. For similar tactics employed by the Bush administration, see part 12. Again, I would advocate for an independent council that could act as a Governmental Protection Agency, that would research potential ethics violations, and make rulings that objectively addressed the negligence and complicit nature of our federal, state and local governments including the possibility that the vice president’s “office [allegedly] censored testimony by the head of the Centers for Disease Control that linked climate change to the public health crisis.” (Note: This text was included in an email sent to me from my limited association with Common Cause. I included “allegedly” in the sentence above because I have not verified this and do not want to take for granted that CC has.)
Dick Morris: Apparently has a new book out (“Fleeced”) which addresses these very types of issues. These types of problems are more interesting than discussions about improper tire inflation as it relates to fuel economy, the declining costs of lasik surgery on pet reindeer who gave themselves lymes disease or why George Clooney has decided to remain unmarried. If my approach has seemed a bit myopic- well, I will never let collective apathy get in the way of an over-written column. Morris contends that Barack Obama has claimed he is fiscally responsible, though Obama puts a tax cut disguise on a possible $1 trillion tax increase.
Anyone for wiretapping?: “The biggest telecom carriers in the nation participated in the program before it came to light and have since been deluged by nearly 40 lawsuits from customers claiming their privacy rights were violated.” (See the Washington Post article written by Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima, May 29, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24867416.) How much did setting up the wiretapping cost the taxpayer? Anyone have an idea how much potential lawsuits will cost the American taxpayer this time around? This time around? Sure, this wasn’t a precedent setting secretive, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (for all of you hypocritical conservative protectors of campaign finance reform- see part 20) wiretapping initiative. It seems that “Beginning in 1964 New Haven police persuaded executives of the Southern New England Telephone Company (today part of AT&T) to let officers monitor traffic on the phone company's mainframe . . . The cost of corporate cooperation in illegal surveillance is ultimately huge. In New Haven taxpayers in a cash-strapped city paid 1,200 victims $1.75 million, while the officials who ordered the operation remained immune. That's not just vast legal costs borne by the city and SNET. With a much-deserved lawsuit already filed in the NSA case, it is taxpayers, consumers and shareholders--not George W. Bush or telecom CEOs--who will eventually pay the bill.” See Bruce Shapiro’s article from May 24, 2006- “The Wiretapping Tango”- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060605/shapiro. Plenty of people, usually conservative in nature, would be apathetic to such a maneuver, perhaps stating that they have nothing to hide, so go ahead and tap my phone for the common good, to root out terrorists. As a non-reactionary Independent who likes to look at the larger scale impact and not look at each issue in a vacuum, for consistency’s sake, I might say, I wonder what a conservative who might allow wiretapping would say to a non-smoker who doesn’t want his lung capacity infringed upon by someone else’s toxic cigarette smoke, sometimes these people/victims are as innocent as babes- “Carcinogens from Tobacco Smoke Found In Babies Urine”- http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/secondhandsmoke/a/NNALinUrine.htm.
Whine me: I heard another conservative talk-show host*** over the 4th of July weekend who possibly regrets being a late bloomer in the declam department, claiming he could have brow-beaten a wine conniosseur into submission claiming that cigarette and cigar smoking was no more harmful or obnoxious than wine consumption. I was led to believe that the conservative talk-show host objected to the opinions of his counterpart because of his liberal views. I have no interest in defending a liberal on every ground, and certainly not in the wearing of socks with sandals, but my good conservative hypocrite sir- I beg you- show me the numbers of drunken wine aficionados with the hazardous behavior of putting the lives of other people in danger, stubbornly maintaining their sobriety and continue to deny the effects of second-hand smoke. Besides, after you get done with your "whine" there isn't any left for the rest of us to drink.
* pescatarian- a vegetarian who eats fish; capuchin monkey- a small monkey not necessarily known for its ability to spit cherry pits for distance. Capuchins are considered the most intelligent of the New World monkeys (quite a qualifier) and are sometimes used by people who do not have the use of their upper torso. The monkeys look like a cross between Jay Leno, as they have white faces and head hair, excepting a dark tuft on top, and a shrinking Jewish man attending the synogogue wearing his yarmulke.
** This solution could just as easily have been provided in parts 19-21, but I did not have as much information, relative to campaign finance, at my disposal at that time.
*** Neither his name, the call letters or local station affiliation are all that important. It gets to the point, where I have begun to suspect that it is just one guy providing all of the banter, facts and conservative platform talk on all of the stations. They just alter his voice to sound like a completely different cartoon character pompously spouting information the grand poo-bah of conservativism bestowed upon him at the last tribal gathering. Employing that many conservatives to speak essentially the same words with that same level of vitriol would be a waste of controllable costs. Conservatives sound so awfully castrated when their frustration is matched against their hypocrisy. I have more respect for food storage devices, plates and cups that are only top-shelf dishwasher safe than at the impotent blow-hards who each received a “proud to pontificate” bumper sticker they’ll affix to their Escalades which were handed out at the last Republicans-R-Us gathering. The utility of the former- (the top-shelf dishwasher safe containers) though they await a purchase in thousands of home goods stores across the country, serve a better purpose melting on the bottom rack of my dishwasher than a conservative who molts his moral rectitude only to reveal a better version of himself . . . according to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment