Monty Python's Voting Rules: Bring Out Your Dead!

          The silence is stunning at airports, movie theaters, DMV’s and retail counters all across the country.  Not a peep about pulling out that ID and showing it to validate your credit card, get the Senior Citizen/Student/Military discount, or to pass through security to board the plane to your favorite vacation hot spot.  In fact, I have been to a number of large corporations lately that required signing in and presenting an ID, for security purposes.  If you would like to attend a rally for your candidate, where discussion focuses on  forcing production of an ID in order to vote is considered un-American, you must present a valid ID to enter the forum.  Yet, in the face of clear evidence that non-citizens, dead citizens, felons, and imaginary characters have registered (and voted?) in our nation’s elections, we go berserk over the very simple remedy.

            Does it not bother anybody else that non-citizens and others that do not actually possess the right to vote in our country are indeed voting?  Is it really that comforting knowing they are probably voting for “your guy?”  What happens when they are not voting the way you want, and how will you know?  Amidst this fairness craze, where is the fairness in nullifying the vote of an honest citizen?  These are just a few of the questions to be considered.

What does it really say about the strength of a position that is seemingly dependent on cheating the system in order to validate it?  The purveyors of social fairness don’t actually understand cheating, and fail to consider its effects.  The very fact that people are trying to register illegals, felons and dead persons in order to vote for their position should disturb everyone.  I find that act more criminal than “buying” votes; in the final analysis we are all parsing the term “buying”.  Yes, in Kentucky the going rate was $25-$50 cash, but just substitute the name of your dearest program and you have your argument for a “purchased” vote.   I suppose the cash transactions could someday rise to the level of tripping my meter.  In the meantime, I’m comforted that I do not see rich liberals voluntarily separating the cash from their wallet, or donating their entire share of their successful father’s inheritance to charity.

            The latest voter ID laws are making it ridiculously easy to obtain an ID.  Hell, I don’t know why people are not volunteering to take any remaining folks to get one in order to preserve their own right and vote.  If it were my neighbor, I’d drive them down there tomorrow.  I suspect that there are not many people that, properly motivated to, oh, I don’t know, actually go vote, those people could not obtain an ID.

            I love these great college campus arguments.  They sound fantastic.  The disenfranchised, the class warfare against the less fortunate, or informed all make great papers.  Wow, I tear up a little just writing the topics.  We seem to forget that we only had to play that game for the degree, then we leave the professors behind so they can pontificate other bombastic ideas for more grants, and we do actual work that makes society function and maintains the country. 

            IDs are required for so many things today that I assert that if one is motivated to do whatever it is, in this case, vote; then they will certainly be able to get the ID and do it.  Yes, I admit I’m stumped for the individual that had a car wreck and is in a coma at the local hospital.  Perhaps, that individual is not quite ready to vote in this election, even though I’m sure one of those machines indicates his/her desire.

            I have tendered cash to enough fast food workers only to walk them through the math when I found the exact change in my pocket.  Every time I do it reaffirms that we have enough problems with the idiots that do qualify to vote.  But this is not a eugenics argument, let them vote.  Privately, I will hope they will not find the polling place.

            The concept could not be simpler: one person, one vote.  That is fair on any and every scale.  I think the additional qualifiers of being a citizen and not having been convicted of a felony, also stand up to the fair litmus, since we are voting for how our country will be managed.   When a simple mechanism, such as an ID, comes along that ensures that will occur, then bring it here NOW!

#cc 

Special Report: Men Support Women Only Looking Forward

Men around the country are cheering loudly.  Is this exuberance due to the return of the real refs to professional football?  No.  It is because they have finally received "credible" information that women do not care about events in the past.  Women are really only concerned with what happens in the future.  Listen closely…can you hear the constant “dings” of text message and email notifications, as men across the country plan “Guys Night Out?”  The theme will undoubtedly be No Holds Barred; after all wives and girlfriends are only concerned with what men will be doing tomorrow, not what happened last night.  Foundations that have been laid for centuries are now cracked and crumbling due to one woman’s statement.  From all the wives and girlfriends in America, we would like to thank you, Stephanie Cutter.  Please consider yourself collectively flipped off by every woman in America, and many across the world.

Seems that the voice of the Obama Campaign, who apparently is now the voice of all women, Stephanie Cutter, stated during a radio interview this week that women do not care what the current administration has done, we are only concerned with what will be done in the future:

“They’re not really concerned about what’s happened

 over the last four years, they really want to know what’s

going to happen in the next four years.”

            Seriously?  What alternate universe is Ms. Cutter living in these days?  I think she should venture out of the Beltway and actually talk to real women about what they remember, and what is important to them.

            So, women around the country are clenching their fists, shaking them at Ms. Cutter, and screaming, “You do not represent me!”  The statement as it pertains to women, is another example of what has become commonplace in the Obama administration: speak without thinking, support your words vehemently, back track or retract the statement, and then blame the conservative media for taking it out of context.  Ahhh, politics.  The problem, however, does not end with how Cutter represented women.  It goes deeper, and is potentially more disturbing.

             The real problem with this statement is the fact that the Obama campaign is perpetrating a double standard in the election.

            Cutter is not the only member of the Obama campaign that is now spouting the “look forward” slogan for re-election.  This is the mantra for the entire campaign.  FORWARD. As in -do not look back.  Cutter even encouraged it, and tried to reinforce her message with an absurd statement that indicates women are essentially not critical thinkers who consider all available information when making decisions.  Her only criteria for making this statement; she is a woman, and therefore can speak for all of us.

            The Obama campaign wants Americans to look forward only.  They seem to have a “the past is in the past” attitude that conjures visions of the wizard meeting Dorothy and crew in the Emerald City – “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”  Obama would like for Americans to simply look forward, and not consider his record over the past four years.  Perhaps they should research Lou Alder’s theories on performance-based hiring.  Alder’s premise, which is often quoted (perhaps even by Mr. Obama himself - discussing Mitt Romney’s past record, of course, not Obama’s own record) that past performance is the best indicator of future performance.

            The arrogance displayed by Obama during the last election, that continued into his first days as president, is now coming back to haunt him.  Promises made that have been broken, remarks of being only a “one-term” president if the economy has not turned and improved, and statements that the deficit would be lowered.  The campaign would just as soon forget those ever happened, and instead uses a “do not look back” mantra, as well as the ever constant, “it was Bush’s fault.”   They even go so far as to misrepresent their fiscal irresponsibility, without ever taking any responsibility for their part in the unparalleled increase in the national debt.  The Obama campaign’s mission statement must be “Deflect, deflect, deflect, and then make counter accusations.”

             Equally disturbing is that while the Obama campaign desperately wants to move FORWARD, they are slamming Mitt Romney for his past.  Everything from 10 years of tax returns (which has never been asked of a candidate, including Obama), and spanning Romney’s entire professional career as a governor, successful business and philanthropist.  Americans are encouraged by Obama and his campaign to consider what Romney has done in the past, in various different capacities (none of which were President of the United States) to determine his abilities.  We are not, however, supposed to consider the effects of the policies put in place by Obama, who is the current president.  We are supposed to simply accept that “things in the Obama administration past, should remain in the past,”  dismiss the promises made,but not kept, and trust that Mr. Obama will keep his new promises because, in his own words, he’s “not done yet.”

            The poet and philosopher, George Santayana, may he rest in peace, is rolling in his grave, screaming, “Those who cannot remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.”  Nicely stated, Mr. Santayana.  The ideals of Santayana and Alder cannot be applied to only one side in political campaigns.  One campaign cannot insist voters review and consider one candidate’s past performance without also encouraging a review of their own past performance.  It has to be a two-way street for the political system to function fairly.

            The President may want to consider that absence of information, whether intentional or accidental, will lead voters to fill in the gaps with their own version of events.  Typically, people will remember the bad things that have happened.

           

Job Opening: NFL Ref - No qualifications required. All encouraged to apply.

    I, for one, love the replacement referees in the NFL.  I find them as exciting as the BCS on Monday morning, you fell slightly hungover, while you scratch your head in amazement over what happened, while drinking your first cup of coffee.  In true American fashion, however, the new refs provide instant gratification.  Instead of morning after wonderment, you can have it the minute they make an absurd call, while you place your 4th, 5th, or 6th beer (depending on what quarter the game is in).

    Now granted, the NFL referees are among the lowest, if not the lowest, paid professional officials of any sport.  I can't imagine, though, too many better part-time jobs .  Let's think about this problem.  It is ultimately, at least for now, still a human game; mistakes will be made.  I'm not sure it is even a question of what to do about the mistakes when they happen.  Our delicate egos can't roll with any negatives associated with competition.  Obviously, we do nothing, tell them it is okay and to try to make better calls next time around. (Fingers crossed!!)

But perhaps not all the blame should be placed at the feet of the "Not-A-Ref's."  Follow along with me for a minute.

   Professional athlete "player minimum salaries" instantly qualify them to be the subject of ridicule from the Occupy Wall Street crowd by placing them in the 1%.  Why are professional athletes, and other entertainers, the only professionals that do not have to raise their conduct and performance to be commensurate with their pay?  Why do they get a pass necessitating a specially trained nanny to prevent them from becoming base animals?  If that is the standard of behavior then it also needs to be the standard of pay.  What is the going rate for zoo animals?

   Everybody that has ever played a referee'd sport knows that human in the loop is just a another potential game changer.  Those that have played small town baseball likely know the term "home cooking" applied to baseball wasn't because of the food, it was because of who personally knew, and paid, the umpires.  Which way do you think the close calls, or benefit of the doubt, goes?  Every human interaction is part of the game.  The sports are becoming victims of technology.  First television brought us the slow motion replay, making us desperate to have a correction mechanism.  Then it brought the yellow line so that each and every one of us can make the first down call.  These aren't bad for the game, and fortunately the reviewable issues are still limited.  What's next, making penalties reviewable?

   If we make penalties reviewable, do we even need a referee?  Maybe one in the booth.   On the field you can employee clowns to grab the ball and put it down, mark off all the penalties caught on the review and entertain the crowd between snaps.  Then we will fully have football on the same social road, where we review everything for fairness.

   Maybe it isn't about football at all.  After all, sports are frequently used in metaphors.  Maybe football is simply a metaphor of some desired Utopia where everything is reviewed for "fairness," and no errors occur. The problem with every Utopian ideal that has been asserted is that the human in the loop gets to make the rules.  From there it doesn't take long to be compromised or show favoritism.  The Terminator movie series examined a pitfall of eliminating the human from the loop, and I'm not sure we are, or ever should be, ready for that era.  So maybe this isn't about some deeper examination of our humanity.  Maybe it is as simple as re-learning and teaching our children how to compete; and holding those that have so much to a higher standard.  I'd rather have that than their tax money.  Instead, it seems the politically correct answer is to blow sums on professional apologists, which we then eat up.  Ultimately nobody benefits.

Dueling Videos: The Best Political Ads To Date

Finally!!!  It has only taken how many months of campaigning, two conventions, and countless smear and misleading ads on t.v. for the candidates to finally show their political stance, and where they intend to go with this great country of ours.  Now, if we could just keep this truth thing (as tricky as it is) going throughout the rest of the campaign, and the next presidential term, I think we may just have a shot at picking ourselves up from the dirt, brushing off the dust, and flying a finger at those who believed, and hoped, we would fail.

The two videos that came out this week were very telling.  No matter how old they are, no matter who posted them - it is a clear view of the two candidates - and what a view it is!  These candidates are so divergent in their beliefs that it seems that the decision to choose one or the other may be an easy one.  Those who believe in big government, belong to Team Obama.  If you believe government should be in the background of life - Team Romney is for you.  Now, of course, nothing can be that easy, and I am not suggesting that anyone vote based strictly on this criteria.

In a week that followed one of the worst acts of terrorism - yes, I said it, because that is what it was - the story that seemed to pervade the airwaves was a video taken on a cell phone of Mitt Romney speaking to some people he wanted money from regarding where he thinks the election is going.  Now, this is not unusual, and anyone in business knows, if you want investors, you must tell them where their money is going, what it will be used for, and why they should invest in you in the first place.  They also want your take on how successful your business plan will likely be (in this case, being elected president), and where the potential problems and pitfalls may exist.  

For a businessman, or candidate alike, the importance of giving some of the pitfalls is essential in ensuring your credibility.  No one wants the snake oil salesman who proclaims there are no side effects to donating money to the campaign, and that the election is in the proverbial "bag."  So, I wonder, is it really all that surprising that Romney would lay his cards out to potential big dollar donors, and give them the unedited pictorial of the remainder of the campaign?  

I think the bigger surprise is that, finally, we have heard a candidate talk about a group of people realistically and without spin.  I mean, come on, didn't we already know that the people who believe the government should be there for them, and help them because they are in need, are not likely to vote for a guy who wants to decrease the size of government by limiting entitlements?  Mitt Romney said there are about 47% of the people who will probably not vote for him.  Whether or not that number is correct, who cares?  The truth is that there are a certain percentage of people he will not reach with his message, no matter how hard he tries.

If you have seen the full video, or at least the longest one I could find, Romney's remarks are in response to a question regarding how he plans to reach the people who are dependent on the government.  As I stated, his percent may be off (he was going off the cuff in answering the question), but his message was pretty sound.  His best shot at being elected is to talk to the people that do pay taxes, and that do not take entitlements, that may be sitting on the fence regarding whom to vote for and target them.  His message that government should remain small, and not provide everything for everyone, may resonate with the people in swing states who, like me, have seen members of our family who are aided by certain entitlements, and other members who leach off the government and blame anyone and everyone for the condition of their lives – except themselves, of course.  Not sure this is a new message from Romney.  Just looks more clandestine since it was taken secretly on a cell phone, and leaked (gasp) to the media.

For Obama, if you have been lucky enough to see the video, or even hear about it, it was taken while he was a State Senator speaking at Loyola University.  In his closing remarks, he states that he believes that government resources should be pooled and redistributed in a way to give everyone a fair shot.  Now, that seems ambiguous to me, as there are no real specifics of what resources should be pooled and who they are redistributed to; nor is it clear what he means by everybody getting a "shot."  What I do take from this, however, is that if you believe that government should force a level of success and take care of you, giving you an equal "shot" in life no matter the fiscal cost, then re-elect President Obama and see how long he can sustain that hope.  

In our "gotcha" society, it seems that these videos get more play and discussion simply because they are being presented as videos "they didn't want you to see," or a "long lost - buried in the closet" expose' of each candidate.  I think both candidates have stated the topics found in their respective videos, either in word or action, during this administration and/or campaign.  There seems to be very little gotcha, and more unrestrained information without any spin.  Are they eloquent? No.  Do the candidates wish they could state it better?  Maybe, at least in Romney's case (not much has been revealed regarding how the President feels about his video).  It is what it is, an unguarded glimpse of what each candidate believes and stands for in a no-nonsense recitation:  Romney is for smaller government and less entitlements; Obama is for larger government and redistribution.

Shocking revelations?  No.  I, for one, found it a refreshing change.

Debating School Uniforms: Reality meets Absurdity

Yesterday was a rare commute to work in a car vice a motorcycle due to inclement weather.  On such days, it gives me the opportunity to plug into radio entertainment instead of my favorite iPod playlist.  I found myself listening to a local Morning Show, covering the topic of school uniforms.  Now, having worn a uniform for 26 years, I'm not adverse to uniforms, but to hear the validations given in support this morning seemed a reach.

I'd like to think I was closer connected to this issue as a father of 5, all in public schools and, save one in NJROTC, not required to wear uniforms.  Listeners, however, seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of school uniforms, so perhaps I'm just a lonely, out of touch, minority.  The reasons given, with one exception, seem to be merely a matter of adult convenience, or young adult reflections.

Assertion 1: It is easier and saves time in the morning.  Really?  Again, I've worn a uniform for 26 years and minus the fact that it takes zero time to decide what to wear, preparing a uniform does take time.  It becomes its own stressor and show stopper when you realize the next morning all your uniforms are in the laundry or you just spilled on your last one.  Does that turn into an absence?  Excused or unexcused?

Assertion 2: Uniform schools do better on average.  Well, on average schools that mandate uniforms are also private.  So, on top of spending money on school uniforms that adhere to the prescribed uniform, you also get to pay a large tuition bill each semester.  There goes the savings on not having to buy the latest $350 shoes.  Not to mention a strong caution to be weary of what expensive accessory will become the new differential.  To my knowledge, no clothing inherently changes your personal motivation.

Assertion 3:  (by two different male teachers, one middle school and one high school) Uncomfortable correcting girls on their dress, i.e. unwilling to enforce the dress code policy and send the girls to the office while indicating that uniforms would eliminate them needing to "control" themselves.  REALLY?!  REALLY?!  You, a grown man, has control issues with underage females?  There is surely a better argument than the old rape argument, "she was asking for it," to justify the establishment of your local Winston Smith coveralls.  Perhaps employment that necessitates you to be around young girls is not the best career choice, if you fear you will have control issues.  Additionally, that may speak to worse problems that need to be addressed by you that do not involve school uniforms and their validity.  If you feel you cannot control yourself, or speak with a young girl dressed inappropriately with respect to school dress code, what happens if she comes and asks you a question after class, and stands (gasp) next to you.  Should we worry about your control issues then?  And what rule should be implemented at that point.  No girls can ask questions after class?

Assertion 4: It eliminates competition and saves self-esteem.  Ah, the one potential student focused issue; but does it do the student justice?  Competition is all over the place, regardless of whether it is A's-F's, 1's-4's, or various types of flowers, emoticons, etc.  Grades are being recorded and will be used in competition for college entrance.  Businesses are about competition and we are expecting our youth to join the work force, correct?  Besides what fun would Monday with the BCS be if we didn't keep score on Saturday (I do hope it doesn't hurt those players esteem).  If our children never learn to compete, then we are doomed to follow, because at some point – someone will step up to lead.  If children are not competitive, they will follow without question.  Is that really what you want for your children?  Or are you of the mindset that there should be no competition when they are young, but then demand it when they are adults, even though you did not take the time to teach them about healthy competition when they were in your care? 

The whole thing seems like a twist to the zero-tolerance policy, which is ultimately a cop-out for leadership and discipline.  There must be a better reason than lazy teachers grasping at straws for control of their classroom, and lazy parents, than this effort.  What happens next when uniforms don't fix the problem?
#cc