Within this nihilistic age we have come to as humans, filled with confused angst and anger, one has to wonder whatever happened to the temperate man. There was a time when we chose our office holders from among temperate men seized of honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity. Now, it seems that we universally select those whose excess hubris is extolled as a virtue. We do not seek the man seized of good sense and sensibilities, but rather, clamor around those we once deemed to be the village idiots. Apathy, with the current direction of this country, appears to rule the majority which is without any viable vision supplied by its office holders.
We have, in the past, selected our leaders for their demonstrated ability of self-restraint and moderation. We did so as a practiced way of insuring that those whom we placed in charge would likely work to find common ground and thereby serve both extremes of any issue better than an extremist would of an opposing extreme. These former leaders moved with great caution so as to insure that the best path chosen would lead to the greater happiness of all rather than of the few. In working out a path for their vision, they would deliberate with gravitas, pietas and dignitas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of seriousness in manner or bearing – which among them have gravitas? When I listen to and watch the news media, one of the first things I look for is the demeanor of those seeking to be put into office. Are these people playing to my emotions or to my intellect? All are frustrated and angry with the way things are in the country but what decision made in anger ever worked well?
When one listens to a candidate closely, all that can be distilled from their shallow rhetoric is an emotional appeal. Opposing candidates seek to foster a fear in voters that if a vote is cast for the opponent, certain doom will follow. If they cannot generate substantial fear, these same candidates fall back on disparaging their opponent without regard for any truthfulness in their charges. Stripped of emotional appeal, candidates offer no substance by which they can be compared. Would that we chose to follow those who offer intellect rather than emotion as the basis of their position.
I was present when the consummate office holder, John F. Kennedy, exhorted, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” I was immediately caught up with the emotion of pride but, upon reflection; saw that there was something of a needed change in the direction of the country; which change I intellectually embraced. Kennedy set the tone and tenor needed for the launch of the American Peace Corps as well as space exploration. His challenge was sustained through the efforts of his successor who brought us the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Most recently, an office contestant commenced her bid by asking, “How’s that ‘changey-hopey thang werkin fer ya’?” To me, her question was an intellectual affront and nothing more. The only emotion I felt was disgust.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of a sense of duty ruled by compassion for those they seek to govern – who among them have pietas? When I listen to and watch the news media, I look to discern precisely where loyalties are placed. Those who repeatedly proffer that my welfare is best served by Wall Street fail to make even a superficial case that their loyalty is to the common man. Those of Wall Street make up the bulk of the 1% of this country which holds almost 40% of the wealth. Making Wall Street and those who participate in Wall Street more secure and wealthy does not inure to my benefit. I have waited in vain, since President Reagan, for something to trickle my way. It would seem to me that the contestant who does not oblige him or her-self to Wall Street is likely to be more loyal to the common man.
In this day and age where all office holders promise an in-vogue transparency in their governance, it appears that such is truly a practiced deceit. When one seeks office taking huge sums of money from the business community and the rich to gain office and thereafter legislates to protect the identity of contributors, the transparency pledge is a broken pledge; or, at best, a meaningless pledge. And one who fails to keep one’s pledge is one who is not seized of pietas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of esteem flowing from merit – which among them has dignitas? Of a past time, office holders achieved their positions only after demonstrating that they had full command of problem solving techniques learned through years of study and observation. To them, it was declared, “Palmam qui meruit ferat” – “Let he who merits the palm bear it.” This declaration was based upon demonstrated achievement, not mere popularity. We looked beyond the rhetoric to one’s deeds and accomplishments.
Within this last election, we had numerous national candidates, several victorious, who have never held public office. Though their qualifications for office we called to account, the voters seized upon pathetically misleading slogans and statements to discern that the office holders were qualified for lofty positions. We had candidates who garnered a lot of attention from the mass media not because of qualifications, but rather, upon the arcane positions they were taking as the antithesis of the current administration.
When I think of the temperate man seized with dignitas, I also think of those who have put duty, honor and country before all else. There is a lot to be said of a man whose esteem was earned on the battlefields in defense of this country. The battlefields taught them the horror of war from which they received a valuable lesson about being temperate. They would not be as readily inclined to induce war to exercise will or dominion over others.
President Obama in his inaugural address exhorted Americans to embrace a ‘new era of responsibility’. When I heard the catchphrase, I was caught off guard and not a little disappointed. I was expecting a statement of vision from someone who, at the same time, promised change. Instead, I was being cautioned that we, as Americans, were being called upon to move away from the irresponsible behaviors of the past. Whereas change in the conduct of government was most definitely needed, there was nothing in the message which showed a true positive vision to America. In itself, the ‘new era’ message forced one to look back with a microscope rather than forward with a telescope.
Whereas Obama was urging us to abandon the policies of the previous administration, it occurred to me that there was an accurate though unintended assessment regarding our selection of office holders. It is the American people who failed to find and elect salons seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas. It is the American people who bear the burden not the mendacious fools seeking office. So, how do we American people abandon the past and embark on a new era of responsibility? How do we find and elect people to office who are temperate? How do we determine whether a candidate is seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas?
In the short haul, I would suggest that we will not be able to do so unless we have help. In this day and age of light speed exchange of brief information we need assistance in assuring that candidates who are putting themselves forward ‘merit the palm.’ Corporations and businesses are not to be trusted because their sole aim is to maximize profit at the expense of others. Religions have never been trustworthy and are constantly seeking power and dominion over others to their own ends. The only viable institution is the free press but it is only as worthy as its willingness to adopt and enforce a code of ethics.
I would challenge the free press to revisit the code of ethics to which most all have given lip service. The free press needs to seek a way to balance the First Amendment privilege of freedom of speech as against responsibility of speech. The institution should develop a meaningful way of policing, if not punishing, its members who fail to meet the strictures of the code of ethics. If, as an institution, they are successful in doing so, public trust will follow and we Americans will be accorded the ability to closely examine candidates for public office.
In a longer haul, we need to look to our educational institutions for help. We need our institutions to step up and educate future Americans in virtues in addition to language arts, math, social studies and science. We should be producing a next generation seized of the ability to discern honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity in others. These new age students should be able to divorce emotion from logic, discern double-speak, examine loyalties and look for candor. They need to be able to compare credentials and find those most qualified to be elected. They need to be able to identify the temperate man better than the current generations which are mishandling their right to vote.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
How Much Is Too Much?
How much is too much? Last Thanksgiving, I was called upon by my two children, now adults in their 30’s, to prepare Giblet Gravy for the Thanksgiving feast. A short-coming in their up-bringing, admittedly done by me, left them with the desire but not the know how to prepare the necessary accompaniment to the mashed potatoes. I left it to my daughter to add the final salt and pepper to the gravy advising her to spice the gravy to her taste. In her exuberance, too much salt was added and we had to add additional chicken stock, flour and butter to dilute the excess salt. Ultimately, the gravy turned out well and all enjoyed the traditional flavors and trappings of the Thanksgiving feast.
It has occurred to me that the experience with the gravy serves as a micro study of what is going wrong with our economy. As a people, very prosperous indeed, we have somehow lost, if ever we knew, the answer to just how much is too much. We won the global wars of economy surpassing all of Europe, after the 1st World War, and accumulated a national largess which overshadowed all other nations. Our rise to become the wealthiest nation on earth came about because of an abundance of natural resources and our free-wheeling attitudes allowing anyone with vision and desire to exploit those resources. We became the wealthiest nation on planet earth and are still leading all other nations in all measures of wealth.
Our measures of wealth are mixed. From the huge caches of wealth accumulated by petroleum extractors to the ownership of rights to the micro-processing of data there is measurable wealth present in all nations around the world. Whether one measures durables or nondurables, the presence of wealth is discernable. The only measure of wealth that is difficult to quantify is the wealth we ascribe to the value of natural resources. All that can really be said is that the value of natural resources is being exhausted. Evince the need now to explore for petroleum in our oceans rather than upon now depleted land reservoirs.
We are now faced with the prospect that we must continue to grow our economy in order to maintain the level of abundance we have enjoyed. Other nations, however, stand in the way of our desired growth and are even now working to raise their nations above America. And, if Coase’s Theorem is true and has grown legs, there is a finite level of resources by which we measure wealth that is quickly being approached. We will pay for transactional costs by diminishing our wealth and largess. Said another way, we will find ourselves trading wealth back and forth with other countries with our desires, happiness and prosperity hanging in the balance and subject to the vagaries of wealth on the move.
America’s natural resources are still abundant though diminishing. The value of those resources has, however, diminished because of the rising price of exploiting those resources. It is less expensive, and uses less of our wealth, to secure oil from the Middle East than it is to extract it from our own soils. Moreover, we are not much inclined to look for alternatives to our energy needs that would reserve and preserve our natural resources. In fact, and as against scientific analysis which shows that we are quickly approaching an irreversible point, we continue to utilize carbon based fuels. And, of course, we are in fact transferring our wealth to the Middle East, in the short run, to secure less expensive carbon based fuels.
Not only are we suffering on the pure economic side of the equations, we are losing on the philosophical side as well by not knowing how much is too much. There was a time in which greed was viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. In our rush to increase largess, we turned a blind eye to moral questions about how we accumulate wealth at the sake of others. Now, a goodly portion of our national largess is held by a very small number of people. In the not too distant future, even more of our national largess will be held by a very small number of people. It is hard to convince people, however, because they enjoy just enough of the national largess to distract them from this unbalanced accumulation of wealth in the few.
When we turn on our TVs and see from world news reports just how destitute others are around the world and compare their estate to that of ours, we think ourselves truly right in our capitalistic society. Rather than say, “there but for the grace of God go I”, we smugly conclude that we have a better idea of how to exploit the world’s wealth. History supports that conclusion as well. By far, freely democratic countries fare much better than older archaic forms of societal rule. In time, we all hope to become one human family seized of the liberty the Americans wrested from England in the late 1700’s. Our experience with democracy has grown firm legs and serves as the mark for all countries to strive for even as against tradition and religion.
The problem with the American psyche regarding economics, however, is exacerbated by international news for the reasons set forth above. We do not think in terms that, “there but for the grace of God go I”, but rather that we are right and others are wrong. This has allowed us to turn the vice of greed into a virtue. We are all now patterned after and accepting of Gordon Gecko’s “greed is good” mantra. But greed impoverishes. It is a vice no matter how much it is exalted. And, it has grown out of hand. No one has asked, “how much is too much?”
Presently, there are two impoverished nations in the world clamoring to secure nuclear capacity in order to force countries of wealth to redistribute wealth to them. The history of the nuclear arms race was not lost on them. The United States forced the old Soviet Union to stand down by presenting itself as the projected winner in a theorized war. It proved to be an effective way to impose will and now two backward countries, containing few natural resources, are poised to present themselves as viable contestants for the world’s wealth. That one is taxed with a debilitating religion and the other with a failed ideology matters not. Both are preparing their countries to take if they do not receive.
If our leaders and great thinkers do not come up with a vision in answer to the question of how much is too much, we will likely have to engage in another war of attrition. We will likely see a diminishing prosperity for all but a very few. And in the interim, we may deplete our natural resources to the point from which there will be no recovery.
I had not intended this to be a dooms day message. But it seems that even those who continue to believe that our continued prosperity will come only by diminishing government, eliminating social programs and removing all restraints to capitalism ought to be asking, “how much is too much.” And if they answer, “enough is never enough,” then they need to take ownership of the famine that is sure to follow when all our natural resources are exhausted or taken from us by force. And if any are left behind, let us carve upon their tombstones, the epitaph; “I was greedy and damned proud of it.”
As for me, I would grow government so as to have an ample supply of steel-fisted regulators on Wall Street, in the banks and in corporate offices everywhere to insure that practices overstepping and overreaching merely to accumulate vast fortunes are knocked down before they get out of hand. I would also continue taxes at a level insuring that those who have been impoverished by those whose greed has robbed the majority of a decent existence, are recompensed enough to enjoy a decent existence. Lastly, I would forebear all but the minimums to sustain life in order to find a way to preserve our diminishing national resources for the future seeking renewable energy. And, upon my tombstone, I hope I earn the right to have inscribed, “he numbered among those who cared for his fellow man.”
So I question; “how much is too much?” Hopefully wisdom will guide us rather than mere intelligence. Intelligence is gained by learning from one’s mistakes whereas wisdom is gained by studying the mistakes of others. Putting too much salt in the gravy was a mistake that I learned from. Allowing greed to become a virtue is also a mistake that we all can learn from. We’ve accumulated a lot of intelligence over the ages, let us now gather wisdom from all that intelligence and renumber greed as a vice.
It has occurred to me that the experience with the gravy serves as a micro study of what is going wrong with our economy. As a people, very prosperous indeed, we have somehow lost, if ever we knew, the answer to just how much is too much. We won the global wars of economy surpassing all of Europe, after the 1st World War, and accumulated a national largess which overshadowed all other nations. Our rise to become the wealthiest nation on earth came about because of an abundance of natural resources and our free-wheeling attitudes allowing anyone with vision and desire to exploit those resources. We became the wealthiest nation on planet earth and are still leading all other nations in all measures of wealth.
Our measures of wealth are mixed. From the huge caches of wealth accumulated by petroleum extractors to the ownership of rights to the micro-processing of data there is measurable wealth present in all nations around the world. Whether one measures durables or nondurables, the presence of wealth is discernable. The only measure of wealth that is difficult to quantify is the wealth we ascribe to the value of natural resources. All that can really be said is that the value of natural resources is being exhausted. Evince the need now to explore for petroleum in our oceans rather than upon now depleted land reservoirs.
We are now faced with the prospect that we must continue to grow our economy in order to maintain the level of abundance we have enjoyed. Other nations, however, stand in the way of our desired growth and are even now working to raise their nations above America. And, if Coase’s Theorem is true and has grown legs, there is a finite level of resources by which we measure wealth that is quickly being approached. We will pay for transactional costs by diminishing our wealth and largess. Said another way, we will find ourselves trading wealth back and forth with other countries with our desires, happiness and prosperity hanging in the balance and subject to the vagaries of wealth on the move.
America’s natural resources are still abundant though diminishing. The value of those resources has, however, diminished because of the rising price of exploiting those resources. It is less expensive, and uses less of our wealth, to secure oil from the Middle East than it is to extract it from our own soils. Moreover, we are not much inclined to look for alternatives to our energy needs that would reserve and preserve our natural resources. In fact, and as against scientific analysis which shows that we are quickly approaching an irreversible point, we continue to utilize carbon based fuels. And, of course, we are in fact transferring our wealth to the Middle East, in the short run, to secure less expensive carbon based fuels.
Not only are we suffering on the pure economic side of the equations, we are losing on the philosophical side as well by not knowing how much is too much. There was a time in which greed was viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. In our rush to increase largess, we turned a blind eye to moral questions about how we accumulate wealth at the sake of others. Now, a goodly portion of our national largess is held by a very small number of people. In the not too distant future, even more of our national largess will be held by a very small number of people. It is hard to convince people, however, because they enjoy just enough of the national largess to distract them from this unbalanced accumulation of wealth in the few.
When we turn on our TVs and see from world news reports just how destitute others are around the world and compare their estate to that of ours, we think ourselves truly right in our capitalistic society. Rather than say, “there but for the grace of God go I”, we smugly conclude that we have a better idea of how to exploit the world’s wealth. History supports that conclusion as well. By far, freely democratic countries fare much better than older archaic forms of societal rule. In time, we all hope to become one human family seized of the liberty the Americans wrested from England in the late 1700’s. Our experience with democracy has grown firm legs and serves as the mark for all countries to strive for even as against tradition and religion.
The problem with the American psyche regarding economics, however, is exacerbated by international news for the reasons set forth above. We do not think in terms that, “there but for the grace of God go I”, but rather that we are right and others are wrong. This has allowed us to turn the vice of greed into a virtue. We are all now patterned after and accepting of Gordon Gecko’s “greed is good” mantra. But greed impoverishes. It is a vice no matter how much it is exalted. And, it has grown out of hand. No one has asked, “how much is too much?”
Presently, there are two impoverished nations in the world clamoring to secure nuclear capacity in order to force countries of wealth to redistribute wealth to them. The history of the nuclear arms race was not lost on them. The United States forced the old Soviet Union to stand down by presenting itself as the projected winner in a theorized war. It proved to be an effective way to impose will and now two backward countries, containing few natural resources, are poised to present themselves as viable contestants for the world’s wealth. That one is taxed with a debilitating religion and the other with a failed ideology matters not. Both are preparing their countries to take if they do not receive.
If our leaders and great thinkers do not come up with a vision in answer to the question of how much is too much, we will likely have to engage in another war of attrition. We will likely see a diminishing prosperity for all but a very few. And in the interim, we may deplete our natural resources to the point from which there will be no recovery.
I had not intended this to be a dooms day message. But it seems that even those who continue to believe that our continued prosperity will come only by diminishing government, eliminating social programs and removing all restraints to capitalism ought to be asking, “how much is too much.” And if they answer, “enough is never enough,” then they need to take ownership of the famine that is sure to follow when all our natural resources are exhausted or taken from us by force. And if any are left behind, let us carve upon their tombstones, the epitaph; “I was greedy and damned proud of it.”
As for me, I would grow government so as to have an ample supply of steel-fisted regulators on Wall Street, in the banks and in corporate offices everywhere to insure that practices overstepping and overreaching merely to accumulate vast fortunes are knocked down before they get out of hand. I would also continue taxes at a level insuring that those who have been impoverished by those whose greed has robbed the majority of a decent existence, are recompensed enough to enjoy a decent existence. Lastly, I would forebear all but the minimums to sustain life in order to find a way to preserve our diminishing national resources for the future seeking renewable energy. And, upon my tombstone, I hope I earn the right to have inscribed, “he numbered among those who cared for his fellow man.”
So I question; “how much is too much?” Hopefully wisdom will guide us rather than mere intelligence. Intelligence is gained by learning from one’s mistakes whereas wisdom is gained by studying the mistakes of others. Putting too much salt in the gravy was a mistake that I learned from. Allowing greed to become a virtue is also a mistake that we all can learn from. We’ve accumulated a lot of intelligence over the ages, let us now gather wisdom from all that intelligence and renumber greed as a vice.
Key West Fantasy Fest
Curiosity finally got the best of me. I attended a few events of Fantasy Fest for the first time after living almost 10 years in the Keys. And, I must say (cliché borrowed from Mark Howell), based on what I observed, I’ve probably not missed much.
My first foray into the ‘save the merchants out-of-season festival’ was to Dante’s Pool-side party wherein I was promised a wet T-shirt competition among females. My second trip downtown was on the following Saturday afternoon taken as against some very good college football games being broadcasted. I regretted both trips. Had I been given an equal quantity (I like this; the word ends almost like titty) of lumps of coal and diamonds to award amongst those ladies who were not garbed to the waist, I would have returned home a rich man, without coal, after only a few minutes at either event.
I freely admit that I am an old, wizened, ugly man in his sixties who will seize upon any opportunity to stare at women’s breasts; but only, if they merit the gaze. I am a connoisseur of the female form, having been educated by Playboy Magazines, with very strict and rigid requirements as to what constitutes beautiful and down-right ugly. Though I embrace most oriental wisdom, I do not abide by the teaching which instructs that, “it is only when we see something as beautiful, that other things become ugly.” Ugly semi-naked women are ugly whether you compare them to beauties or not.
The organization in charge of Fantasy Fest should consider two pressing issues. First, is whether the name should be changed from Fantasy Fest to Titty Fest? It would seem that in dropping the pretense of ‘fantasy’ (which is held in the minds of women who believe that their breasts are worth looking at) we may actually see more tourist show up. It is a given fact that women who perceive their breasts beautiful, will bare them upon a sincere request to do so. If this ever becomes Titty Fest, women all over America, who perceive that they have quality breasts, will flock to the event. Accordingly, we will see more tourist and their precious dollars.
Second, the organization should form a new committee charged with insuring that this annual breast display is done in good taste by those women sporting breasts of a quality to be admired. It should be called the Committee Used to Limit Lewdness. The acronym of this committee says it all. “CULL” will be responsible to insure that women seeking to bare their breasts have quality breasts to be seen.
In advance of this annual rite renamed Titty Fest, women desiring to expose their breasts should have to submit an application for a license to appear nude from the waist up which application requires them to supply quality color photographs with their application. It is an onerous task but I will volunteer to chair the committee.
Each applicant should be forewarned, however, that standards are high. First, those with nipples looking at and facing mother earth when released from a bra will be disqualified. Second, those with teeny-tiny busts, (more appropriated defined as burps), will be disqualified if it appears that their nose will hit the wall first, if ever they walk into a wall. Third, those whose belly extends beyond their breasts will be disqualified no matter what the cup size. Lastly, and for those who have expended thousands of dollars in the pursuit of perfect breasts, one may nonetheless be disqualified if it appears that her augmentation would have been better fitted to an eastern European bloc female athlete standing 6’6”, sporting a shaved mustache and capable of hurling a shot put some 150 meters. This means that those 5’2” pixies with breasts twice or thrice the size of their derriere will be disqualified. It would also include those females whose breasts arrive two or three minutes before they do.
If the organizers of Fantasy Fest implement these much needed measures, it is likely that the merchants will see a few of my dollars next year. Otherwise, I plan on buying a six-pack and watching college football next year and in the years thereafter.
I am cognizant that several women in the Keys will respond with legendary scorn and fury. In preemptive response, I would say to them; “Go to The Bull”; when Yankee Jack is playing, and ask him to sing to you his wonderful song entitled, “Yes, Dear.” Caveat: Do not be drawn in by his lyrics that a lady “Is Only a Light Switch Away from Beautiful.” I know the contrary to be true. Ask Yankee Jack for the definition of Coyote.
My first foray into the ‘save the merchants out-of-season festival’ was to Dante’s Pool-side party wherein I was promised a wet T-shirt competition among females. My second trip downtown was on the following Saturday afternoon taken as against some very good college football games being broadcasted. I regretted both trips. Had I been given an equal quantity (I like this; the word ends almost like titty) of lumps of coal and diamonds to award amongst those ladies who were not garbed to the waist, I would have returned home a rich man, without coal, after only a few minutes at either event.
I freely admit that I am an old, wizened, ugly man in his sixties who will seize upon any opportunity to stare at women’s breasts; but only, if they merit the gaze. I am a connoisseur of the female form, having been educated by Playboy Magazines, with very strict and rigid requirements as to what constitutes beautiful and down-right ugly. Though I embrace most oriental wisdom, I do not abide by the teaching which instructs that, “it is only when we see something as beautiful, that other things become ugly.” Ugly semi-naked women are ugly whether you compare them to beauties or not.
The organization in charge of Fantasy Fest should consider two pressing issues. First, is whether the name should be changed from Fantasy Fest to Titty Fest? It would seem that in dropping the pretense of ‘fantasy’ (which is held in the minds of women who believe that their breasts are worth looking at) we may actually see more tourist show up. It is a given fact that women who perceive their breasts beautiful, will bare them upon a sincere request to do so. If this ever becomes Titty Fest, women all over America, who perceive that they have quality breasts, will flock to the event. Accordingly, we will see more tourist and their precious dollars.
Second, the organization should form a new committee charged with insuring that this annual breast display is done in good taste by those women sporting breasts of a quality to be admired. It should be called the Committee Used to Limit Lewdness. The acronym of this committee says it all. “CULL” will be responsible to insure that women seeking to bare their breasts have quality breasts to be seen.
In advance of this annual rite renamed Titty Fest, women desiring to expose their breasts should have to submit an application for a license to appear nude from the waist up which application requires them to supply quality color photographs with their application. It is an onerous task but I will volunteer to chair the committee.
Each applicant should be forewarned, however, that standards are high. First, those with nipples looking at and facing mother earth when released from a bra will be disqualified. Second, those with teeny-tiny busts, (more appropriated defined as burps), will be disqualified if it appears that their nose will hit the wall first, if ever they walk into a wall. Third, those whose belly extends beyond their breasts will be disqualified no matter what the cup size. Lastly, and for those who have expended thousands of dollars in the pursuit of perfect breasts, one may nonetheless be disqualified if it appears that her augmentation would have been better fitted to an eastern European bloc female athlete standing 6’6”, sporting a shaved mustache and capable of hurling a shot put some 150 meters. This means that those 5’2” pixies with breasts twice or thrice the size of their derriere will be disqualified. It would also include those females whose breasts arrive two or three minutes before they do.
If the organizers of Fantasy Fest implement these much needed measures, it is likely that the merchants will see a few of my dollars next year. Otherwise, I plan on buying a six-pack and watching college football next year and in the years thereafter.
I am cognizant that several women in the Keys will respond with legendary scorn and fury. In preemptive response, I would say to them; “Go to The Bull”; when Yankee Jack is playing, and ask him to sing to you his wonderful song entitled, “Yes, Dear.” Caveat: Do not be drawn in by his lyrics that a lady “Is Only a Light Switch Away from Beautiful.” I know the contrary to be true. Ask Yankee Jack for the definition of Coyote.
Tax Cut Extension
Republicans, with not just a little support from Democrats spooked in the last elections, are bent on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, the rich included. Given the deficit, which Republicans caused and are only now alarmed about, one has to wonder why we would cut off the only sensible way to reduce or eliminate the deficit.
Taking away my tax cuts will not have much effect. An increase in taxes means that I will not be able to buy a much needed car. If the tax cuts are extended, I will still not be able to buy the needed car. As for the rich, of course, there is no problem. With or without the tax cuts, they will still be able to buy a car.
The tax cuts made by Bush and Congress were really a bad idea from the start. They were done to boost the economy and did not work. They were also done to create jobs and that didn’t work either.
Growing up, my parents taught and constantly reminded me; when it comes to incurring debt, one has to pay the fiddler if one wants to dance. Shortly, I suspect, the fiddler is going to pack up his fiddle and leave us to dance in silence – if anyone feels like dancing.
Rather than allow congress to make sweeping cuts to entitlement programs and government services, more of us will feel like dancing if congress identifies what caused our deficit and eliminate it. From where I stand, that means we should stop the foolhardy wars we are engaged in and dismantle TARP.
Those measures alone will reduce the growth of the deficit and if we tighten belts by allowing the tax cut measure to expire, we should be able to eliminate the deficit and pay the fiddler; and, continue to dance on life.
Taking away my tax cuts will not have much effect. An increase in taxes means that I will not be able to buy a much needed car. If the tax cuts are extended, I will still not be able to buy the needed car. As for the rich, of course, there is no problem. With or without the tax cuts, they will still be able to buy a car.
The tax cuts made by Bush and Congress were really a bad idea from the start. They were done to boost the economy and did not work. They were also done to create jobs and that didn’t work either.
Growing up, my parents taught and constantly reminded me; when it comes to incurring debt, one has to pay the fiddler if one wants to dance. Shortly, I suspect, the fiddler is going to pack up his fiddle and leave us to dance in silence – if anyone feels like dancing.
Rather than allow congress to make sweeping cuts to entitlement programs and government services, more of us will feel like dancing if congress identifies what caused our deficit and eliminate it. From where I stand, that means we should stop the foolhardy wars we are engaged in and dismantle TARP.
Those measures alone will reduce the growth of the deficit and if we tighten belts by allowing the tax cut measure to expire, we should be able to eliminate the deficit and pay the fiddler; and, continue to dance on life.
Letter to Marco Rubio
Congratulations. You are now one of our senators from the great State of Florida.
I note you told us, during elections, one of your first priorities, when you reach the Senate, is to launch a bill to repeal the Health Care Reform Act. I did not vote for you, in the recent election, because of that declaration. You see, Senator Rubio, I am sixty-two years old, without health insurance, but had planned to see health insurance within the next two years or so under this new law. But, you are going to insure that I will not have health insurance. And remember, it is the nature of our representative form of government, even though I did not vote for you, you now represent me as well as those who voted for you.
I have only two requests to make of you, the first of which is that you actually read the Health Care Reform Act before you put forth your bill to repeal the act. Please make sure that it will actually destroy all things American if not repealed. If it merely reduces the profits of health insurance companies, who cares? Second, I would like for you to also introduce a bill which would eliminate all forms of health care coverage for members of Congress. Is it really right that you and your fellow congressmen and senators enjoy what is being denied the citizens of this Country?
I served this country in its Armed Services, did a stint as a law enforcement officer and as a public school teacher not long enough to ‘vest’ in any retirement system. I am currently unemployed and living day to day on social security at least, until such time, as that ‘entitlement’ is eliminated. I think I have earned the right or privilege to put the above requests to you. Will you consider them?
You need not reply directly – and, if you get caught up in the arrogance of your new found position – not at all. It would come as no surprise to me.
I note you told us, during elections, one of your first priorities, when you reach the Senate, is to launch a bill to repeal the Health Care Reform Act. I did not vote for you, in the recent election, because of that declaration. You see, Senator Rubio, I am sixty-two years old, without health insurance, but had planned to see health insurance within the next two years or so under this new law. But, you are going to insure that I will not have health insurance. And remember, it is the nature of our representative form of government, even though I did not vote for you, you now represent me as well as those who voted for you.
I have only two requests to make of you, the first of which is that you actually read the Health Care Reform Act before you put forth your bill to repeal the act. Please make sure that it will actually destroy all things American if not repealed. If it merely reduces the profits of health insurance companies, who cares? Second, I would like for you to also introduce a bill which would eliminate all forms of health care coverage for members of Congress. Is it really right that you and your fellow congressmen and senators enjoy what is being denied the citizens of this Country?
I served this country in its Armed Services, did a stint as a law enforcement officer and as a public school teacher not long enough to ‘vest’ in any retirement system. I am currently unemployed and living day to day on social security at least, until such time, as that ‘entitlement’ is eliminated. I think I have earned the right or privilege to put the above requests to you. Will you consider them?
You need not reply directly – and, if you get caught up in the arrogance of your new found position – not at all. It would come as no surprise to me.
Throwing In the Towel
Cut to the chase, is what I say. Let’s amend the Constitution so as to allow Senators, Representatives and, what the hell, even Presidents to be elected for life. That way, we could avoid this ridiculous rite called elections. We would get our TV back without those annoying political ads. We would save bundles of money currently being wasted on ‘air’ and bring back a little serenity.
All politicians are primarily concerned with being reelected – if they don’t have to worry about reelection, they might be able to focus on doing a better job of running the country. Most politicians get reelected making periodic elections fruitless anyway. In fact, these ‘for life’ salons might wax towards making wise and philosophical statements for us to digest going forward rather than pander to ignorant masses simply to get reelected.
Elections for life would also save Americans a lot of money. Salaries, for those elected for life, should be put at $1.00 per year. America’s corporations should (and already do) pick up the tab for politicians’ services. After all, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the USA. It must be or we would not have put up so much bailout monies last year.
Best part of all – since these salons gain their job for life, they will be able to make decisions for America rather than fight for pork for their home state. Imagine, a Florida Representative killing a bill for a new railway in Florida simply because it doesn’t make sense to put the rail in. You know – it could happen. And somewhere down the line, I promise you, no more political parties – they will not be needed.
We have just had an election where most Democrats have been tossed out on their asses. A few years down the road, the Democrats will get together and toss all the Republicans out on their asses. This swinging back and forth, going no where, seems a little foolish to me and if we go with elections for life, we will not have to swing so much. I’m ready to get off the swing, sit at the picnic table and have a beer.
All politicians are primarily concerned with being reelected – if they don’t have to worry about reelection, they might be able to focus on doing a better job of running the country. Most politicians get reelected making periodic elections fruitless anyway. In fact, these ‘for life’ salons might wax towards making wise and philosophical statements for us to digest going forward rather than pander to ignorant masses simply to get reelected.
Elections for life would also save Americans a lot of money. Salaries, for those elected for life, should be put at $1.00 per year. America’s corporations should (and already do) pick up the tab for politicians’ services. After all, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the USA. It must be or we would not have put up so much bailout monies last year.
Best part of all – since these salons gain their job for life, they will be able to make decisions for America rather than fight for pork for their home state. Imagine, a Florida Representative killing a bill for a new railway in Florida simply because it doesn’t make sense to put the rail in. You know – it could happen. And somewhere down the line, I promise you, no more political parties – they will not be needed.
We have just had an election where most Democrats have been tossed out on their asses. A few years down the road, the Democrats will get together and toss all the Republicans out on their asses. This swinging back and forth, going no where, seems a little foolish to me and if we go with elections for life, we will not have to swing so much. I’m ready to get off the swing, sit at the picnic table and have a beer.
Politicians Are Comedians
It was Will Rogers who said that “[e]verything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.” I propose he was repeating what he had read in a fortune cookie in the 1930’s predicting our current state of affairs.
We’ve an incredibly hilarious ticket to vote on in Florida’s governor’s race this year. We have a former CEO of the nation’s largest health care provider, Rick Scott, who, after he led his company through a settlement of $1.7 billion dollars as against a Medicare Fraud complaint, seeks our vote to let him ‘go to work’ for the State of Florida. Who is he going to defraud this go-around? Better, his opponent, a woman with a man’s name, (only in Florida), Alex Sink, is vying for Governor. She claims unassailable, though enthusiastically assailed, credentials as a Banker. Bankers, of course, are those people who make money off other people’s money. Who is she going to make money off of and for whom?
It gets better. We’ve also an opportunity to vote for a new U.S. Senator. We have Marco Rubio (who obviously was bereft of maternal love or he would have been named “Mark”), who is our GQ, (excuse me, “GOP”) candidate. He was groomed to secure the feminine Republican vote (remember GWB’s photo posed in Navy flight gear used to titillate Republican female voters?). He espouses Limbaughesque dribble about cutting taxes, cutting government, cutting social security (oops, saving social security, until after elections), and saving America for the few, (oops, for the many, until after elections). We also have Mr. Meeks, who, despite his name, is bravely advocating whatever and whenever. He has no specific plans other than to oppose plans of Republicans (if ever they actually come up with plans). And, in the muddled middle, we have good ole’ Charlie. Charlie Crist gives us that Florida smile, framed by a Florida tan, and says what most of Florida wants to hear with as much clarity as we receive from our Rice Krispy’s each morning. Remember, it was Charlie who left the GOP in order to exercise sound judgment. (Maybe he has something there.)
One would think Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity has merit, given the current morass of asses vying for our votes. Stay the course, Jon, and remember: it was Will Rogers who observed, “[i]t’s easy to be a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”
Did you know, the word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek word ‘idiotes’ which was used to denote those who did not vote? In order to avoid the stigma of being an idiot (original definition), I intend to vote. But, I am not going to be the idiot (current usage) who votes for anyone of the above – instead, I think I will write in a vote for Jimmy Buffett for Governor. That son-of-a-sailor has assured us that he is neither a “lawyer, a thief or a banker.” As for Senator, I will write in a vote for Leroy LNU. I don’t know who he is, and it is doubtful he will ever be found, if elected; and his absence from the halls of Congress will be noticed not.
We’ve an incredibly hilarious ticket to vote on in Florida’s governor’s race this year. We have a former CEO of the nation’s largest health care provider, Rick Scott, who, after he led his company through a settlement of $1.7 billion dollars as against a Medicare Fraud complaint, seeks our vote to let him ‘go to work’ for the State of Florida. Who is he going to defraud this go-around? Better, his opponent, a woman with a man’s name, (only in Florida), Alex Sink, is vying for Governor. She claims unassailable, though enthusiastically assailed, credentials as a Banker. Bankers, of course, are those people who make money off other people’s money. Who is she going to make money off of and for whom?
It gets better. We’ve also an opportunity to vote for a new U.S. Senator. We have Marco Rubio (who obviously was bereft of maternal love or he would have been named “Mark”), who is our GQ, (excuse me, “GOP”) candidate. He was groomed to secure the feminine Republican vote (remember GWB’s photo posed in Navy flight gear used to titillate Republican female voters?). He espouses Limbaughesque dribble about cutting taxes, cutting government, cutting social security (oops, saving social security, until after elections), and saving America for the few, (oops, for the many, until after elections). We also have Mr. Meeks, who, despite his name, is bravely advocating whatever and whenever. He has no specific plans other than to oppose plans of Republicans (if ever they actually come up with plans). And, in the muddled middle, we have good ole’ Charlie. Charlie Crist gives us that Florida smile, framed by a Florida tan, and says what most of Florida wants to hear with as much clarity as we receive from our Rice Krispy’s each morning. Remember, it was Charlie who left the GOP in order to exercise sound judgment. (Maybe he has something there.)
One would think Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity has merit, given the current morass of asses vying for our votes. Stay the course, Jon, and remember: it was Will Rogers who observed, “[i]t’s easy to be a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”
Did you know, the word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek word ‘idiotes’ which was used to denote those who did not vote? In order to avoid the stigma of being an idiot (original definition), I intend to vote. But, I am not going to be the idiot (current usage) who votes for anyone of the above – instead, I think I will write in a vote for Jimmy Buffett for Governor. That son-of-a-sailor has assured us that he is neither a “lawyer, a thief or a banker.” As for Senator, I will write in a vote for Leroy LNU. I don’t know who he is, and it is doubtful he will ever be found, if elected; and his absence from the halls of Congress will be noticed not.
Rick Scott
Rick Scott wants to be our Governor. I perused his website just to make sure that some of the news reports I’ve heard were accurate. Sure enough, Rick Scott wants to run the State of Florida like a business. And, that concerns me. First, businesses either make products to sell for a profit or provide services for profit. I don’t look to the state government to do either. The state has no ‘business’ making a profit off its citizens even if there was a way to do so. Moreover, a government renders a limited number of services without competition from anyone – or at least, it should. So, I’m not much convinced that his plan to run the state government as a business is a very good one. A government should be run as a government fully accountable to the electorate.
Rick Scott also wants us to assume that he became a more astute businessman, and therefore a better gubernatorial candidate, because he was ousted as CEO from Columbia/HCA following the $1.7 billion fraud claim settlement. I’ve got to wonder exactly what lessons he learned as set forth in his website claim. He obviously didn’t learn how not to get caught and it’s unlikely that he learned honesty out of the affair. Whether he knew of the fraud or not doesn’t qualify him, in my mind, as a good gubernatorial candidate. If he knew, he is a common thief – if he didn’t know of the frauds, he’s not a very good CEO.
News pundits claim that Rick Scott has spent over $15 million of his own money to get the job as the Governor of this State. That job pays only about $140,000 a year. I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who spends $15 million out of his own pocket to obtain a 4 year job that will gross only about $520,000. I’ve been in business for myself for some time and, to me, the figures just don’t add up unless, of course, he has plans of continuing larceny.
Rick Scott also wants us to assume that he became a more astute businessman, and therefore a better gubernatorial candidate, because he was ousted as CEO from Columbia/HCA following the $1.7 billion fraud claim settlement. I’ve got to wonder exactly what lessons he learned as set forth in his website claim. He obviously didn’t learn how not to get caught and it’s unlikely that he learned honesty out of the affair. Whether he knew of the fraud or not doesn’t qualify him, in my mind, as a good gubernatorial candidate. If he knew, he is a common thief – if he didn’t know of the frauds, he’s not a very good CEO.
News pundits claim that Rick Scott has spent over $15 million of his own money to get the job as the Governor of this State. That job pays only about $140,000 a year. I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who spends $15 million out of his own pocket to obtain a 4 year job that will gross only about $520,000. I’ve been in business for myself for some time and, to me, the figures just don’t add up unless, of course, he has plans of continuing larceny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)