And don't trip as you step up ONTO the podium and proceed to the LECTERN.
People, people - why is this so difficult? Do perhaps 90% of all English-speaking folks abuse this word, maybe out of fear of sounding pompous or too literal by correctly choosing the word lectern? Do people simply not care when they lazily copy others in the wrong application of the word podium? Where is the intellectual curiosity these days?
As a high school student, making my first feeble attempt at learning a foreign language, I was so pleased to see the obvious root word for the various English words having to do with feet. (I had missed any similar connection during an earlier strike-out year with Latin, which was even then being called a dead language when I was a dead-head trying to understand it!) It was in my new venture into Spanish that I found the word Poder [poh - dare], meaning to walk. The POD and PED variations, as in podiatrist and pedestrian, began to make sense to my slowly awakening interest in words. The opportunity to take a course in etymology had never appeared in my school, so my lexologic interests had to be self-directed. Any simple check in the dictionary shows the Greek podos, a word meaning foot, is obviously the main root for many words, including the English podiatrist and the Spanish poder.
So when I first ran across the word podium, it made complete sense that it had everything to do with where the feet were placed, not where a book or note paper would be placed. That speaker's stand (which stands in front of the speaker, ON the podium) is a lectern, meaning desk, table, counter, stand, etc. Check the word podium in a thesaurus. It has many synonyms, all of them meaning where feet should go, not where hands go to turn pages of notes. So when we hear a supposedly educated broadcaster say that "[so-and-so] is standing at the podium" - it is perfectly permissible to shout at the television screen that [so-and-so] is standing ON, not AT the podium!
In one of my sales jobs I was a presenter of information and that part of my work was referred to as doing podiums! It isn't easy to express my disdain for this kind of abuse of words. There was no podium at all; I stood merely in front of the patrons on floor level. And as a strict point of usage, had I actually had a podium from which to speak, the act of doing many presentations from this raised platform should have been called in the plural, podia. If we visit more than one museum or stadium, we are visiting musea and stadia. Now I never get too riled up or vociferous when someone says he or she visited three museums; the handling of foreign words and their variations is not an easy matter. (The stadia and musea references even tripped up my spell-check.) But the typical use of a wrong word as a habit is just a sign of lazy repetition and having no determination to speak with clarity.
My first question above was whether perhaps 90% of us misuse the term podium. Of the remainder of society, perhaps only a tiny fraction are bothered by it. Obviously I am in this latter group.
Someday I will tackle the even more completely misapplied word only in probably 99% of our speaking.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Does SIZE Really Matter?
YES, apparently. In fact, in the context of what I am addressing here, it seems to be ALL that matters.
The subject in the news on morning network television was Tom Cruise and an article written about him in Vanity Fair magazine. The subject of the article was the supposed "auditioning" having been done by the Church of Scientology looking for a wife for their prize adherent, Mr. Cruise.
As the news reporter and guest discussed some of the points of the matter and revealed how restrictive and controlling the sect is over its members, my wife said in mild surprise, "That sounds like a cult!" And the harsh emphasis her voice gave to the word cult made it clear that my sweet former Catholic innocent did not consider something called a cult to be worthy of anyone's devotion.
My wife either has not read some of my earlier posts here and there concerning cults, or she has forgotten them. Interesting that in modern times the very word cult has undergone an adaptation in definition and now, when used in the common vernacular, means only small sectarian groups that are not acceptable to the larger sects. They are Johnny-come-lately shams of true(!) belief systems and they should be avoided in favor of the long-established mainstream religious sects.
The original meaning of cult is merely stated as a set of beliefs and its pertinent tenets and rituals. So tradition and a solemn deference that apparently must be paid to long-time established sects that have grown large, means that they - the large groups - get to judge and find guilty of worthlessness, any new or slightly different sectarian group. So the cult of Catholicism (a huge and controlling cult of the larger cult of Christianity), the cult of Judaism, the cult of Islam - all these are given respect and are now free of that slur which gets hurled at Scientology or at splinters of The Worldwide Church of God, or at the Branch Davidians.
Oh yes, size definitely matters! When that rag-tag little sect called Christians finally, after almost three hundred years of sneaking around and gaining converts, got the attention of an emperor, things changed for them. Over the succeeding centuries, with the ruler of a large segment of Europe ordering the masses to convert and then with the Pope and his enforcers seeing to it that all within their domain either converted or died, the little sect became a large one.
Where is the line that must be crossed? Is there written somewhere a number of adherents that small sects must struggle to attain? When did The Sikhs become accepted as mainstream and no longer have to be mentioned always with the pejorative label of cult? When did the Mormons - or have they? Is Zoroastrianism considered mainstream? And what of those splinter groups that develop as off-shoots of tenets within traditional Christianity? Are they covered by the large umbrella and considered acceptable? Are the snake-handlers left alone and not concerned about being thought of derisively as a cult because they are still Christian? How about the tongues-talkers or the leapers & jumpers? As long as they are calling themselves part of Christianity, are they acceptable? Or should the typical judgmental cult label be casually applied to them? The lines drawn among religious sects as to their acceptability to the general citizenry of the world are anything but straight and clear lines. They resemble a Texas redistricting map!
I have my own simple line drawn: Any way of life that requires the human mind to accept unprovable doctrine over logic and makes a person subservient to ideology, choosing belief over reason, is a sad and wasteful way of living. Cult still means just that, and the larger ones are merely more detrimental to humanity because they have infected more minds. Snake-handlers are not nearly as dangerous to humanity as are Catholics or Muslims. Historically, this is very easily proved on massive scales.
So if you are smart enough to say "No, thanks" to accepting an adder in your hands, why say "Sure thing" to accepting a wafer on the tongue or the requirement of incessant washing of your hands and falling on your face to pray many times a day? Gotta be a simple case of bigger is better!"
The subject in the news on morning network television was Tom Cruise and an article written about him in Vanity Fair magazine. The subject of the article was the supposed "auditioning" having been done by the Church of Scientology looking for a wife for their prize adherent, Mr. Cruise.
As the news reporter and guest discussed some of the points of the matter and revealed how restrictive and controlling the sect is over its members, my wife said in mild surprise, "That sounds like a cult!" And the harsh emphasis her voice gave to the word cult made it clear that my sweet former Catholic innocent did not consider something called a cult to be worthy of anyone's devotion.
My wife either has not read some of my earlier posts here and there concerning cults, or she has forgotten them. Interesting that in modern times the very word cult has undergone an adaptation in definition and now, when used in the common vernacular, means only small sectarian groups that are not acceptable to the larger sects. They are Johnny-come-lately shams of true(!) belief systems and they should be avoided in favor of the long-established mainstream religious sects.
The original meaning of cult is merely stated as a set of beliefs and its pertinent tenets and rituals. So tradition and a solemn deference that apparently must be paid to long-time established sects that have grown large, means that they - the large groups - get to judge and find guilty of worthlessness, any new or slightly different sectarian group. So the cult of Catholicism (a huge and controlling cult of the larger cult of Christianity), the cult of Judaism, the cult of Islam - all these are given respect and are now free of that slur which gets hurled at Scientology or at splinters of The Worldwide Church of God, or at the Branch Davidians.
Oh yes, size definitely matters! When that rag-tag little sect called Christians finally, after almost three hundred years of sneaking around and gaining converts, got the attention of an emperor, things changed for them. Over the succeeding centuries, with the ruler of a large segment of Europe ordering the masses to convert and then with the Pope and his enforcers seeing to it that all within their domain either converted or died, the little sect became a large one.
Where is the line that must be crossed? Is there written somewhere a number of adherents that small sects must struggle to attain? When did The Sikhs become accepted as mainstream and no longer have to be mentioned always with the pejorative label of cult? When did the Mormons - or have they? Is Zoroastrianism considered mainstream? And what of those splinter groups that develop as off-shoots of tenets within traditional Christianity? Are they covered by the large umbrella and considered acceptable? Are the snake-handlers left alone and not concerned about being thought of derisively as a cult because they are still Christian? How about the tongues-talkers or the leapers & jumpers? As long as they are calling themselves part of Christianity, are they acceptable? Or should the typical judgmental cult label be casually applied to them? The lines drawn among religious sects as to their acceptability to the general citizenry of the world are anything but straight and clear lines. They resemble a Texas redistricting map!
I have my own simple line drawn: Any way of life that requires the human mind to accept unprovable doctrine over logic and makes a person subservient to ideology, choosing belief over reason, is a sad and wasteful way of living. Cult still means just that, and the larger ones are merely more detrimental to humanity because they have infected more minds. Snake-handlers are not nearly as dangerous to humanity as are Catholics or Muslims. Historically, this is very easily proved on massive scales.
So if you are smart enough to say "No, thanks" to accepting an adder in your hands, why say "Sure thing" to accepting a wafer on the tongue or the requirement of incessant washing of your hands and falling on your face to pray many times a day? Gotta be a simple case of bigger is better!"
Monday, September 3, 2012
A Holiday for Now
The first entry under my Google search of Labor Day brought up a simple history beginning with:
Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means
Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.
I hope you will click on the link and read it all. It's shorter than my usual post.
My topic line above means to emphasize the for now aspect. This holiday may very well be on the way OUT. If the current raging right-wing of the Republican Party gets into power, what would be the basis of a once vibrant holiday spirit honoring the American Worker? The party that can have a (proven dishonest) presidential candidate speak in glowing terms about when "...you need an American" while at the same time hailing a governor who destroys labor unions as a hero, will do all it can to end the balancing factor of organized labor in our nation. The article mentioned above flatly states that the labor movement brought about social and economic achievements, and if you were to ask the rich and powerful business moguls of today whether this is true, they would have to admit that it is true. However they would hate to face the fact that those achievements came in spite of the wealthy business barons of the nineteenth century who would rather have kept all their wealth and let the common worker (including children) go on living in poverty while working endless hours and having no rights.
So have a great holiday. And as you enjoy your cook-outs, family gatherings and other fun activities that were not a part of the All American way of life until the Labor Movement brought some sanity to the way our work weeks and time off were organized, think seriously for a moment. Try to imagine the bright new future of a nation going in reverse if a big-money coalition buys our elections and eventually chokes off the voice of the American Worker. But be aware: it is our own national throat we are cutting if we sell our votes this November.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
UNMITIGATED GALL
As an Independent, it behooves me - actually I'm required - to listen to speeches and read articles from all sides of issues. So I do what I must, even when some of the rhetoric makes me sick.
The convention speech by Paul Ryan which had the opportunity to lay out some positive plan for a way to improve our nation's economy, instead was used to hammer home the lies with more intensity. The very idea that the young man who has done nothing to help the masses with realistic fiscal guidelines is able to take the stage and shout deprecating comments about what the current administration is doing to take money out of Medicare, is pure rot. Unmitigated gall!
In whatever projected plan the Republican team (not yet cohesive in the individual attacks) has shown us, there is a very similar amount slated to be pulled out of Medicare, but their hope is that this amount won't filter back to help the larger body politic but will work on fixing the deficit and all the while cutting more taxes for the wealthy. The young man should be slapped silly. He has nothing to offer to the masses of struggling people in this country.
Worst of all is the nerve this upstart has shown by saying that leadership is lacking in the administration because there should have been more attention paid to the need for jobs. And who placed on the table over the last two years something called a "jobs bill" that was a profound, intelligent and straight-forward effort to do exactly what was needed to build our country's infrastructure, hence provide millions of jobs? The current President who does have the masses in mind when he proposes this kind of solid plan. But where was the young, energetic, "brave" Mr. Ryan during the voting on this opportunity to provide jobs? Sitting with his cronies who had taken a vow to never pass anything in Congress that could aid in the President's success. The whole pile of worthless Republican "legislators," including Ryan and his fearless leader, the inept and bumbling Boehner, should be voted out of office entirely.
The simple agenda of the Republican members of Congress has been devoted to escorting Mr. Obama out of office. They have acted in lock-step to reject any progressive move that we so desperately needed to get our nation back on its feet. They obeyed the commands of the power brokers, the Kochs, and several others, one of whom is named Grover Norquist. Who the hell is this guy? He should not be someone who has any influence on my personal life; neither should the Koch brothers, Adelson or any other wealthy SOB. But when the bridge or highway in my area that is not repaired causes me or my family or friends to be injured or to die unnecessarily, my life is affected. Did Norquist demand obedience (as he did with a pledge to not raise taxes, a pledge signed, allegedly, by all the Republican law makers) from all that group of obstructionists that they do everything possible to unseat Mr. Obama? I do not know.
Is Grover Norquist a rank racist who talks with other Anglos in back rooms about kicking that damned n______ out of the Whitehouse because it belongs to "us?" I do not know. Is Boehner a rank racist? Is McConnell? Is Romney? Or Ryan? I don't know. Are YOU? I do not know because I don't know who you are, now reading this. There are millions who would not categorize themselves as "rank racists," but if you think like them, if you have a prejudice toward anyone of a racial background different from your own, that's pretty rank. I hope you can think this over with honesty. And if you have some actual reasonable objection to keeping this dedicated president in office; if you would sooner entrust the governing of our damaged nation to the lying, cheating, ruled-by-money pretenders to the presidency and vice presidency, then please enlighten me. I am still independent enough to listen if I hear logic.
Back to the convention that is now hyping those pitiful excuses for candidates. To add insult to injury, Ms. Rice, who has kept a low profile since leaving her office in the previous devastating Republican administration, made her pitch for new leadership. Her cute comment that "you cannot lead from behind" was neither cute nor constructive under the circumstances. If this duo she supports, the two puppets who crave the top offices in the country, were actually able to attain their goal and at the same time find themselves surrounded by the self-seeking loons who pass for legislators, then the completely devoted-to-the-rich leaders will have their chance to lead. Where they would lead us is the real threat. If the whole direction of our nation is forced to do an about-face and march away from liberty and justice for all, then these two are prepared to lead us in that horrific new direction.
As far as I can see today, the Republican Party has nothing whatsoever to offer a suffering nation of millions of suffering people. But with enough dedicated lies and enough shouting to force those lies into the minds of the populace, these shills for Adelson and Koch might gain their seats at the top of our government. If it happens, the mess we found ourselves in at the end of the Bush-whacked years will very likely be overshadowed by the worst economic and social disasters this country has ever known.
Then there is the "bright" side. The business moguls of our land might just turn us into a very prosperous and productive mass of slaves to their whims. No, it won't be the U.S. of A. any longer, but it will be a bright new day and a beautiful bed of roses for the overlords!
The convention speech by Paul Ryan which had the opportunity to lay out some positive plan for a way to improve our nation's economy, instead was used to hammer home the lies with more intensity. The very idea that the young man who has done nothing to help the masses with realistic fiscal guidelines is able to take the stage and shout deprecating comments about what the current administration is doing to take money out of Medicare, is pure rot. Unmitigated gall!
In whatever projected plan the Republican team (not yet cohesive in the individual attacks) has shown us, there is a very similar amount slated to be pulled out of Medicare, but their hope is that this amount won't filter back to help the larger body politic but will work on fixing the deficit and all the while cutting more taxes for the wealthy. The young man should be slapped silly. He has nothing to offer to the masses of struggling people in this country.
Worst of all is the nerve this upstart has shown by saying that leadership is lacking in the administration because there should have been more attention paid to the need for jobs. And who placed on the table over the last two years something called a "jobs bill" that was a profound, intelligent and straight-forward effort to do exactly what was needed to build our country's infrastructure, hence provide millions of jobs? The current President who does have the masses in mind when he proposes this kind of solid plan. But where was the young, energetic, "brave" Mr. Ryan during the voting on this opportunity to provide jobs? Sitting with his cronies who had taken a vow to never pass anything in Congress that could aid in the President's success. The whole pile of worthless Republican "legislators," including Ryan and his fearless leader, the inept and bumbling Boehner, should be voted out of office entirely.
The simple agenda of the Republican members of Congress has been devoted to escorting Mr. Obama out of office. They have acted in lock-step to reject any progressive move that we so desperately needed to get our nation back on its feet. They obeyed the commands of the power brokers, the Kochs, and several others, one of whom is named Grover Norquist. Who the hell is this guy? He should not be someone who has any influence on my personal life; neither should the Koch brothers, Adelson or any other wealthy SOB. But when the bridge or highway in my area that is not repaired causes me or my family or friends to be injured or to die unnecessarily, my life is affected. Did Norquist demand obedience (as he did with a pledge to not raise taxes, a pledge signed, allegedly, by all the Republican law makers) from all that group of obstructionists that they do everything possible to unseat Mr. Obama? I do not know.
Is Grover Norquist a rank racist who talks with other Anglos in back rooms about kicking that damned n______ out of the Whitehouse because it belongs to "us?" I do not know. Is Boehner a rank racist? Is McConnell? Is Romney? Or Ryan? I don't know. Are YOU? I do not know because I don't know who you are, now reading this. There are millions who would not categorize themselves as "rank racists," but if you think like them, if you have a prejudice toward anyone of a racial background different from your own, that's pretty rank. I hope you can think this over with honesty. And if you have some actual reasonable objection to keeping this dedicated president in office; if you would sooner entrust the governing of our damaged nation to the lying, cheating, ruled-by-money pretenders to the presidency and vice presidency, then please enlighten me. I am still independent enough to listen if I hear logic.
Back to the convention that is now hyping those pitiful excuses for candidates. To add insult to injury, Ms. Rice, who has kept a low profile since leaving her office in the previous devastating Republican administration, made her pitch for new leadership. Her cute comment that "you cannot lead from behind" was neither cute nor constructive under the circumstances. If this duo she supports, the two puppets who crave the top offices in the country, were actually able to attain their goal and at the same time find themselves surrounded by the self-seeking loons who pass for legislators, then the completely devoted-to-the-rich leaders will have their chance to lead. Where they would lead us is the real threat. If the whole direction of our nation is forced to do an about-face and march away from liberty and justice for all, then these two are prepared to lead us in that horrific new direction.
As far as I can see today, the Republican Party has nothing whatsoever to offer a suffering nation of millions of suffering people. But with enough dedicated lies and enough shouting to force those lies into the minds of the populace, these shills for Adelson and Koch might gain their seats at the top of our government. If it happens, the mess we found ourselves in at the end of the Bush-whacked years will very likely be overshadowed by the worst economic and social disasters this country has ever known.
Then there is the "bright" side. The business moguls of our land might just turn us into a very prosperous and productive mass of slaves to their whims. No, it won't be the U.S. of A. any longer, but it will be a bright new day and a beautiful bed of roses for the overlords!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Surprised? Why?
On television a few weeks ago, one of the long line of commentators on the news- this one a former field officer in the military - expressed surprise over the dichotomy of two events. He observed that wild riots and many deaths resulted in Afghanistan from the unintentional burning of some copies of the koran (or Noble Qu'ran, if you want to show deference) by American soldiers, yet a short time later, it was only seemingly mild anger that was shown over the massacre of innocent women and children there by a soldier.
Why would this response to the two events surprise anyone? Focus on the fact that the first event involved what was seen as an attack on a culture and its holy words. The second event was merely the loss of sixteen lives out of their burgeoning glut of humans. And even the word loss may be slightly misused because after all, it was basically the insignificant lives belonging to women and children that were taken - not many of the truly important males of that culture. So the second event was far more forgivable than the first.
My, oh my!
We in the West look at that dynamic and wonder how those people could be so unfeeling, so dismissive of human life. But stop and consider all of this as if it had happened in our own land.
All of us (no way I can mean literally all here, sorry to say) were saddened to hear of the massacre of students and faculty on the Virginia Tech campus a few years ago. A man with a gun simply opened fire and took many human lives. Now consider this variation on that real event: IF that man had been a foreign soldier, stationed here and providing some service to our own people, his actions would probably have caused a rift in relations between his country and ours, but it is doubtful we would have seen riots in our streets to make a case against that whole foreign nation. But if that soldier and his troop (working on our soil for whatever imaginary reason) were to unintentionally burn a pile of bibles, you can bet there would be riots. Here! Christians are just as worried as are Muslims that people of another culture might show disrespect to their holy words. And Christians would riot, probably armed for battle, demanding retaliation against those infidels(!) who would destroy sacred books. That foreign nation and its soldiers would be rejected from our soil in no uncertain terms and quickly! Probably any isolated individuals who could be determined to have participated in the book desecration would be required to stand trial, assuming they lived through the rioting.
I'm constantly mystified at the presumption by Christians that we are not as war-like as other cultures. The fact that western Christians don't wear silly head wraps or hide women under heavy fabric - don't fall to the ground five times daily when a prayer trumpet blasts, or partake of a variety of ritualistic oddities we see in other cultures - does not mean Christians are more peace loving or less dangerous to humanity. Fear, with it's attendant hyper-active belief in sacred mythology, is equally dangerous wherever it resides.
Why would this response to the two events surprise anyone? Focus on the fact that the first event involved what was seen as an attack on a culture and its holy words. The second event was merely the loss of sixteen lives out of their burgeoning glut of humans. And even the word loss may be slightly misused because after all, it was basically the insignificant lives belonging to women and children that were taken - not many of the truly important males of that culture. So the second event was far more forgivable than the first.
My, oh my!
We in the West look at that dynamic and wonder how those people could be so unfeeling, so dismissive of human life. But stop and consider all of this as if it had happened in our own land.
All of us (no way I can mean literally all here, sorry to say) were saddened to hear of the massacre of students and faculty on the Virginia Tech campus a few years ago. A man with a gun simply opened fire and took many human lives. Now consider this variation on that real event: IF that man had been a foreign soldier, stationed here and providing some service to our own people, his actions would probably have caused a rift in relations between his country and ours, but it is doubtful we would have seen riots in our streets to make a case against that whole foreign nation. But if that soldier and his troop (working on our soil for whatever imaginary reason) were to unintentionally burn a pile of bibles, you can bet there would be riots. Here! Christians are just as worried as are Muslims that people of another culture might show disrespect to their holy words. And Christians would riot, probably armed for battle, demanding retaliation against those infidels(!) who would destroy sacred books. That foreign nation and its soldiers would be rejected from our soil in no uncertain terms and quickly! Probably any isolated individuals who could be determined to have participated in the book desecration would be required to stand trial, assuming they lived through the rioting.
I'm constantly mystified at the presumption by Christians that we are not as war-like as other cultures. The fact that western Christians don't wear silly head wraps or hide women under heavy fabric - don't fall to the ground five times daily when a prayer trumpet blasts, or partake of a variety of ritualistic oddities we see in other cultures - does not mean Christians are more peace loving or less dangerous to humanity. Fear, with it's attendant hyper-active belief in sacred mythology, is equally dangerous wherever it resides.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Plop Fizz
Conservatives - listen up. I'm one of you!
Not really, in the way the word is typically used. I am a strong conservative in practical living but I honestly don't know what folks even mean any more by referring to themselves as conservative as opposed to liberal. Both of these terms are charged and pre-disposed to bring pejorative jabs thrown by someone of either persuasion.
My conservatism is expressed in actually thinking of ways to conserve. Very likely, I use less water than do most of my fellow countrymen. With no detailed evidence offered as to this assumption, I will simply state that it would be difficult for a typical citizen of this American society to use less water than I personally use. I also try not to be a constant consumer of anything that can be used more efficiently. I gladly eat left-overs and rarely throw away any food or other consumables. My wife and I recycle, in just about every way we have discovered that recycling actually works. We even wear a good many thrift-store clothing items, dressing in good quality rags for which others paid the big bucks and then grew tired of wearing. We buy many household items including furniture at garage sales or Goodwill. Certainly much of this is done in an effort to just get by financially, but if I suddenly became wealthy I would not totally cease to buy recycled goods because I think conservatively. The cosmos needs humans to think in that vein.
In our home, you will find half-sheet paper towels on the rack. Yes, they (Bounty, if I recall) are a little more expensive than some others, but with that half-sheet option, I find we use little more than half as many full sheets as we once used. Ergo, a net savings results (and less to throw away). You will find re-sealable plastic bags kept for multiple uses, sometimes even washed out and dried by a half-sheet paper towel. We find tap water to be quite drinkable. The thermostat in our home is at 79 degrees when cooling and at 68 when heating.
Many years ago, I began to notice how often humans do things not because we have clearly thought out a plan and followed it, but because some clever marketing idea got established in our heads. Remember the television commercials for Alka Seltzer a good number of years ago? Plop,plop - fizz,fizz, oh what a relief it is - all set to a jingle tune that stuck in the brain? How many more antacid tablets do you suppose they sold over the years simply by planting that idea of two tablets dropping into the glass to create that fizz-fizz? It simply occurred to me one day that I - a person who never needed two aspirin for a minor headache relief - did not need to use both tablets from a packet to gain the acid relief I desired. So for decades, I have dropped one tablet into the glass and waited for the one fizz while folding over the packet tightly to await my next antacid need. And I have never had any problem created by refusing that second plop & fizz. Same for those fizzing cold or allergy medications.
Label me liberal if you like because I believe it's best to live-and-let-live, to help the masses where possible with whatever generosity I can offer but to leave individuals alone with their personal pursuits of happiness; yet when it comes to how I govern my own use of resources available for my consumption, I am so conservative I would probably shock the average person. And how many conservatives do you know who make much effort to actually conserve? Labels are typically narrowly focused and often extremely misleading.
Thinking of the whole business gives me heartburn; I may need to try a plop-fizz.
Not really, in the way the word is typically used. I am a strong conservative in practical living but I honestly don't know what folks even mean any more by referring to themselves as conservative as opposed to liberal. Both of these terms are charged and pre-disposed to bring pejorative jabs thrown by someone of either persuasion.
My conservatism is expressed in actually thinking of ways to conserve. Very likely, I use less water than do most of my fellow countrymen. With no detailed evidence offered as to this assumption, I will simply state that it would be difficult for a typical citizen of this American society to use less water than I personally use. I also try not to be a constant consumer of anything that can be used more efficiently. I gladly eat left-overs and rarely throw away any food or other consumables. My wife and I recycle, in just about every way we have discovered that recycling actually works. We even wear a good many thrift-store clothing items, dressing in good quality rags for which others paid the big bucks and then grew tired of wearing. We buy many household items including furniture at garage sales or Goodwill. Certainly much of this is done in an effort to just get by financially, but if I suddenly became wealthy I would not totally cease to buy recycled goods because I think conservatively. The cosmos needs humans to think in that vein.
In our home, you will find half-sheet paper towels on the rack. Yes, they (Bounty, if I recall) are a little more expensive than some others, but with that half-sheet option, I find we use little more than half as many full sheets as we once used. Ergo, a net savings results (and less to throw away). You will find re-sealable plastic bags kept for multiple uses, sometimes even washed out and dried by a half-sheet paper towel. We find tap water to be quite drinkable. The thermostat in our home is at 79 degrees when cooling and at 68 when heating.
Many years ago, I began to notice how often humans do things not because we have clearly thought out a plan and followed it, but because some clever marketing idea got established in our heads. Remember the television commercials for Alka Seltzer a good number of years ago? Plop,plop - fizz,fizz, oh what a relief it is - all set to a jingle tune that stuck in the brain? How many more antacid tablets do you suppose they sold over the years simply by planting that idea of two tablets dropping into the glass to create that fizz-fizz? It simply occurred to me one day that I - a person who never needed two aspirin for a minor headache relief - did not need to use both tablets from a packet to gain the acid relief I desired. So for decades, I have dropped one tablet into the glass and waited for the one fizz while folding over the packet tightly to await my next antacid need. And I have never had any problem created by refusing that second plop & fizz. Same for those fizzing cold or allergy medications.
Label me liberal if you like because I believe it's best to live-and-let-live, to help the masses where possible with whatever generosity I can offer but to leave individuals alone with their personal pursuits of happiness; yet when it comes to how I govern my own use of resources available for my consumption, I am so conservative I would probably shock the average person. And how many conservatives do you know who make much effort to actually conserve? Labels are typically narrowly focused and often extremely misleading.
Thinking of the whole business gives me heartburn; I may need to try a plop-fizz.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
ONE-TERM PRESIDENT
History has always been - well, in my more mature years, not so much in my youth - of great interest me. And we all are aware of the curious fact that history repeats itself. Usually this is due to the unwillingness of people to learn from the past.
The continuously repeated proclamation coming from Republicans today is that President Obama has to be defeated at all costs. This makes no sense at all based purely on facts and seeing that the dismal condition of our nation, following the dismal lack of leadership over two previous terms, has finally begun to slightly mollify. And certainly people (opponents) do not want to admit there is a substantial list of actual accomplishments produced by this current president; such an admission would reveal to themselves that they are thinking not of sincere desire to help our country but of their own private advantages and their own damnable prejudices. The added fact that the opposition has no reasonably competent person in position to take over the enormous job of the presidency, once it's handed to him by piles of money poured into the "beat-him-at-all-costs" coffers of whatever candidate, seems to also elude Republicans. The candidate they have finally (well, almost) settled on is not even satisfactory to most of his party. It would not shock me if the Republican convention turns into one of those like they had more than a century ago, in which some dark-horse candidate finally is chosen due to unrest in the ranks. At this juncture, Mitt Romney appears to be one of the least straight-forward, possibly downright dishonest, persons to ever seek the top office in our country. Republicans have proven themselves capable of dumping the guy they once believed it - in fact have done so multiple times in the past.
So all the rhetoric being bandied about nowadays concerning making sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president made me curious about those who were our one-termers from history. I took a look back:
John Adams
Amazingly capable in so many ways and a vital cog in the wheels of independence for our nation, he nonetheless failed to gain a second term as president. Because of actual failures during his one term? No. Because of a failure to curry favor of other men. He cared more for the country than for his own popularity, and that basically cost him a chance to continue. This first one-term-president had so much more to offer our fledgling nation than have many of more recent presidents, yet he was voted out because some powerful people simply didn't like him. Fortunately for us all, it was a Thomas Jefferson who was available to take the helm.
John Quincy Adams
Much like his father, he failed only in gaining popularity. His utter devotion to his country shows in that he returned to Congress following defeat for a second term and served eighteen more years before dying in Washington DC, having worked in his office until physical collapse. His lack of people skills (the Adams curse) made him a total mis-match for the rugged Andy Jackson, a war hero who had fought even in the revolutionary war and had risen to rank of general by the war of 1812. He was something of a Lincoln type (log-cabin born) with the added public exposure attendant on his battle prowess. Naturally, the unimposing Adams lost the race.
Martin Van Buren
Here was the strong and detail-oriented politician who helped Jackson do a better job in his second term and who then took on the big job on his own. But the first debilitating economic downturn in our history began during that same year he took office and his (unfairly placed) blame for that condition, coupled with his Adams-like lack of personal popularity, spelled his demise for a second term.
John Tyler
This man probably would never have been elected to the highest office. He was put into the vice presidency in a Whig party political maneuver and then became the first to ascend to the presidency due to the death of a president. He possibly was as incompetent in the top office as was the second Bush, and the populace back then weren't as easily duped or as threatened by the party line backing him. Then in a cruel twist, he suddenly had no party backing at all. The Whigs, due to Tyler's policy decisions, readily disavowed any relationship to him. He was ousted easily.
James K. Polk
Another very capable politician and a protege of "Old Hickory," former president Andy Jackson, Polk was popular enough to be nick-named "Young Hickory." He was forceful in his expansionism, an effort that consumed his term in Mexican wars and the settling of the Texas annexation, as well as pushing the northern Oregon Territory border to its eventual position. He literally wore himself out in four years, dying only three months following his term. But his one term ended because the still strong Whigs made another push for dominance by nominating the swash-buckling and popular General Zachary Taylor - who proved a good choice for his party because he soared in the popular vote.
Millard Fillmore
No plan by the political machine had been made for him to ever hold the office. He came to the job after the death of Zachary Taylor and no matter how hard he tried, he could not impress his own Whig party bosses. They didn't even allow him to run for a second term.
Franklin Pierce
Stumbling into the presidency as no one's favorite candidate, on the convention's 49th ballot, he then suffered unspeakable personal tragedy prior to his inauguration, followed by virtual abandoning by his wife who hated politics. Pierce was a damaged man and never popular; another incumbent dropped by his own party.
James Buchanan
Sixty-five years old at the time of his election, he announced in his very inaugural address that he would not be a candidate for a second term. Then he managed to split his party due to indecisiveness over the states that began to secede from the union prior to 1860. No chance he could have served another term.
Andrew Johnson
Another man who was thrust upward from the vice-presidency due to the death of the president. Uneducated and not very well-liked, he began early to offend many in his own party. Some of these, the Radical Republicans, began to fight him at every turn and eventually impeached him, failing his conviction by only one vote in the Senate. His party could hardly wait to get rid of him when his (Lincoln's) term ended.
Rutherford B. Hayes
Assumed the office as a result of the first "stolen election" for president. It was all arranged by the strong Republican party, still powerful following Lincoln and Grant and unwilling to let the Democrats take the office. Yes, the popular vote showed the Democratic candidate had won; so did the electoral college. But back-room deals were to be made. Conniving Republican power brokers threw together a deal that utilized a 15-man committee that was supposedly impartial, made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and five justices of the Supreme Court. You guessed it, three of the five supposedly "neutral" justices were Republican and the committee's weight went to the backing of Hayes. Shocking? Oh, sure it is! His term was turbulent in many ways but ended without a chance for re-election mostly because it started as an exercise in chicanery and the public never fully accepted Hayes.
Chester A. Arthur
Once again, we have a man no one expected to be president but who succeeded a slain chief executive. He was in the vice presidential office only because of the powerful Republicans who had to thank him for his great organizational skills behind the scenes. Then when he had to take over the top spot and actually used his management skills for the betterment of the country, those same Republicans hated him. They even started a rumor that he was not actually qualified because he was born in Canada. That's right, birtherism was alive among Republicans 130 years ago. Arthur was so honest and dedicated to the nation's governance that his own party could not allow him to continue carrying their banner. Instead, they undermined him and placed the commonly mistrusted and known political crook, James G. Blaine, into nomination. The country knew enough to reject this man and the Democratic candidate won the office.
Grover Cleveland
I'm listing him here because, though he served two terms as president, his were the only two terms interrupted by four years. He was unseated after his first term because once again, the powerful Republican party (and especially the New York Tammany Hall corrupt political machine) could not abide his reforms. He vetoed more than twice as many legislative bills in his first term than had all 21 former presidents combined. And he created the Department of Labor, trying to protect workers and promote equality. This was not something Republicans could accept.
Benjamin Harrison
The guy who Republicans were able to push into the presidency after Cleveland's four amazingly prosperous years for the country, was a man with an impressive political pedigree but with practically no ability to govern. The Republican-heavy congress ran the country for his first two years as he took little notice of their destructive new bills. But the nation was watching and the midterm elections saw a sweep by Democrats who came back to power and began halting some of the drain of the national wealth. The same electorate had wised up and when Cleveland ran again, this time he was elected in a landslide.
Wm Howard Taft
"Big Bill" Taft never cared for the office of president and was goaded there by his wife and his brothers. For some reason, Teddy Roosevelt had groomed Taft as his successor and the party nominated him. He won handily. However, he soured most of the more liberal Republicans and angered Roosevelt early in his term. By the time he ran again, his Republican party was split in its support of his policies and when Teddy started a third party movement, running as a "Bull Moose" candidate, the vote was split and Democrat Woodrow Wilson won easily. Party in-fighting to blame once again.
Warren G. Harding
I have not been including men who died in office, but in this case, his death was a relief to the presidency and to his party. He almost certainly could not have been given a second term. There was never a clear cause of Harding's death and some believed he might have been poisoned to hide much of his failure to the nation. Corruption was rampant throughout his three years in office. He was in the office only by default because the Republican convention couldn't decide on a more qualified candidate, and they (in their typically facile way of using whatever advantage they can grasp) put him into nomination because he was likable and handsome - and the 1920 election would be the first one to allow females to vote! Fascinating.
Herbert Hoover
Not much to be said. He inherited a high-flying economy but no fiscal course corrections had been made since before Wilson's administration. When the market crashed after seven months of Hoover's term, he naturally got blamed for every financial woe of the great depression. Probably a good man and he had many personal accomplishments in life - but no one could survive in office after the country took that fall.
Gerald Ford
The man was honorable as far as we could tell, but after his finishing of the second term of the de-throned and disreputable Nixon, who had appointed Ford as his recent new vice president, the otherwise acceptable candidate fell prey to a disillusioned public who needed to "Trow da bums out."
James Earl Carter
"Jimmy" Carter smiled his way into the hearts of a nation that was tired of secrecy and dishonorable tactics, even though the tactics were not Ford's but his predecessor's. Still, the nation cried out for change. Carter was one of the most intelligent men to ever hold the office, but he admitted he was unschooled in much of what was required. Chiefly, he could not play that massive and often out-of-tune organ called congress. And he was the second president to be pushed out of office because he was too honest. Same fate that befell Arthur, but it was not Carter's own party shenanigans this time but an electorate stirred by a great communicator with visions of national greatness that sank Carter's ship of state.
George H.W.Bush
The rosy glow in the country as unemployment reached a long-time low near the end of the Reagan years almost propelled the vice president into his own top office. He essentially promised the nation that all the good stuff of the previous years would continue and that we would be a "kinder and gentler America." Following Reagan's eight years and almost a dozen tax hikes, Bush promised no new taxes which was to haunt him a few years later when the economy started to decline. And he urged us "forward, always forward...for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light." I wonder whether that forward encouragement hurt his re-election chances. Republicans today have jumped on the term when used in President Obama's campaign, calling it a socialist slogan. At any rate, G. H. W. Bush was denied a second term and the reason had to be "the economy, stupid!"
* * *
So these are the presidents who failed to win a second term. If our current president fails to win in November, it will no doubt be "the economy, stupid!" that does him in. Unfortunately, there wasn't (and isn't today) a human alive who could in less than four years turn around the horrific economy that resulted from the devastating wars and policies of the G.W. Bush administration. And he had eight years to exact such destruction on our financial well-being, then handed off the expensive wars along with the impossible economic woes to a new president. Obama may not be able to solve all the problems even with a second term, but his dedication to the recovery and the absolutely imperative policies he has fostered for growth and solvency should have the chance to mature. FDR was given two full terms and then elected to an unprecedented third term because he had the capacity to get us back on track. Obama won't get a third term due to the changed law of the land, but he certainly deserves the two full terms to bring us closer to the fiscal health we enjoyed prior to G. W. Bush.
Be that as it may, I wonder whether you noticed any trends through the reading of the history of one-term presidents. Here's one that should glare from the page: Republicans (and their progenitors, the Whigs) were in almost every case, guilty of corrupt practices to fight against all candidates who dissatisfied the party's top strong-arms. And several times, it was their own man they had put into the office that they turned against and failed to re-nominate. It was the group called Radical Republicans who impeached their own man, Andrew Johnson, and narrowly missed this chance to oust the second Republican to ever hold the office. It would seem today that using the term radical when referring to that party is redundant.
For the 2012 election, the Republicans, amid many internal squabbles and dissatisfactions, have nominated a man who does not inspire confidence even among those who are trying to show support. The problem faced by the Democrats then is not that a better candidate has emerged for the opposition, nor the prospect that a businessman background might somehow mount a stronger attack on the problems of our economy. No. The problem for our current election cycle is strictly legalized fiscal corruption. And this is the result of a damnable Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited money to influence the vote. As mentioned earlier, Republicans will use whatever advantage presents itself to attain their desired ends. This time around, we stand to lose all vestiges of our former democratic ideals in a sea of dark money. When any party of the people has no more possibility of competing against the party of the corporation due to corrupt management and ignorant (or purposeful partisan) abuses by our highest court, our democracy is finished.
If the best man for the job can be forced out of office purely under the financial crushing by the wealthy who have a vested interest in seeing Republicans at the helm, then our democracy can kiss it's ass goodbye and from now on, we can kiss the asses of our overlords. The one-man, one-vote concept may very well cease to exist as a practical call to patriotism as of November, 2012. Think! THINK! THINK!!!
The continuously repeated proclamation coming from Republicans today is that President Obama has to be defeated at all costs. This makes no sense at all based purely on facts and seeing that the dismal condition of our nation, following the dismal lack of leadership over two previous terms, has finally begun to slightly mollify. And certainly people (opponents) do not want to admit there is a substantial list of actual accomplishments produced by this current president; such an admission would reveal to themselves that they are thinking not of sincere desire to help our country but of their own private advantages and their own damnable prejudices. The added fact that the opposition has no reasonably competent person in position to take over the enormous job of the presidency, once it's handed to him by piles of money poured into the "beat-him-at-all-costs" coffers of whatever candidate, seems to also elude Republicans. The candidate they have finally (well, almost) settled on is not even satisfactory to most of his party. It would not shock me if the Republican convention turns into one of those like they had more than a century ago, in which some dark-horse candidate finally is chosen due to unrest in the ranks. At this juncture, Mitt Romney appears to be one of the least straight-forward, possibly downright dishonest, persons to ever seek the top office in our country. Republicans have proven themselves capable of dumping the guy they once believed it - in fact have done so multiple times in the past.
So all the rhetoric being bandied about nowadays concerning making sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president made me curious about those who were our one-termers from history. I took a look back:
John Adams
Amazingly capable in so many ways and a vital cog in the wheels of independence for our nation, he nonetheless failed to gain a second term as president. Because of actual failures during his one term? No. Because of a failure to curry favor of other men. He cared more for the country than for his own popularity, and that basically cost him a chance to continue. This first one-term-president had so much more to offer our fledgling nation than have many of more recent presidents, yet he was voted out because some powerful people simply didn't like him. Fortunately for us all, it was a Thomas Jefferson who was available to take the helm.
John Quincy Adams
Much like his father, he failed only in gaining popularity. His utter devotion to his country shows in that he returned to Congress following defeat for a second term and served eighteen more years before dying in Washington DC, having worked in his office until physical collapse. His lack of people skills (the Adams curse) made him a total mis-match for the rugged Andy Jackson, a war hero who had fought even in the revolutionary war and had risen to rank of general by the war of 1812. He was something of a Lincoln type (log-cabin born) with the added public exposure attendant on his battle prowess. Naturally, the unimposing Adams lost the race.
Martin Van Buren
Here was the strong and detail-oriented politician who helped Jackson do a better job in his second term and who then took on the big job on his own. But the first debilitating economic downturn in our history began during that same year he took office and his (unfairly placed) blame for that condition, coupled with his Adams-like lack of personal popularity, spelled his demise for a second term.
John Tyler
This man probably would never have been elected to the highest office. He was put into the vice presidency in a Whig party political maneuver and then became the first to ascend to the presidency due to the death of a president. He possibly was as incompetent in the top office as was the second Bush, and the populace back then weren't as easily duped or as threatened by the party line backing him. Then in a cruel twist, he suddenly had no party backing at all. The Whigs, due to Tyler's policy decisions, readily disavowed any relationship to him. He was ousted easily.
James K. Polk
Another very capable politician and a protege of "Old Hickory," former president Andy Jackson, Polk was popular enough to be nick-named "Young Hickory." He was forceful in his expansionism, an effort that consumed his term in Mexican wars and the settling of the Texas annexation, as well as pushing the northern Oregon Territory border to its eventual position. He literally wore himself out in four years, dying only three months following his term. But his one term ended because the still strong Whigs made another push for dominance by nominating the swash-buckling and popular General Zachary Taylor - who proved a good choice for his party because he soared in the popular vote.
Millard Fillmore
No plan by the political machine had been made for him to ever hold the office. He came to the job after the death of Zachary Taylor and no matter how hard he tried, he could not impress his own Whig party bosses. They didn't even allow him to run for a second term.
Franklin Pierce
Stumbling into the presidency as no one's favorite candidate, on the convention's 49th ballot, he then suffered unspeakable personal tragedy prior to his inauguration, followed by virtual abandoning by his wife who hated politics. Pierce was a damaged man and never popular; another incumbent dropped by his own party.
James Buchanan
Sixty-five years old at the time of his election, he announced in his very inaugural address that he would not be a candidate for a second term. Then he managed to split his party due to indecisiveness over the states that began to secede from the union prior to 1860. No chance he could have served another term.
Andrew Johnson
Another man who was thrust upward from the vice-presidency due to the death of the president. Uneducated and not very well-liked, he began early to offend many in his own party. Some of these, the Radical Republicans, began to fight him at every turn and eventually impeached him, failing his conviction by only one vote in the Senate. His party could hardly wait to get rid of him when his (Lincoln's) term ended.
Rutherford B. Hayes
Assumed the office as a result of the first "stolen election" for president. It was all arranged by the strong Republican party, still powerful following Lincoln and Grant and unwilling to let the Democrats take the office. Yes, the popular vote showed the Democratic candidate had won; so did the electoral college. But back-room deals were to be made. Conniving Republican power brokers threw together a deal that utilized a 15-man committee that was supposedly impartial, made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and five justices of the Supreme Court. You guessed it, three of the five supposedly "neutral" justices were Republican and the committee's weight went to the backing of Hayes. Shocking? Oh, sure it is! His term was turbulent in many ways but ended without a chance for re-election mostly because it started as an exercise in chicanery and the public never fully accepted Hayes.
Chester A. Arthur
Once again, we have a man no one expected to be president but who succeeded a slain chief executive. He was in the vice presidential office only because of the powerful Republicans who had to thank him for his great organizational skills behind the scenes. Then when he had to take over the top spot and actually used his management skills for the betterment of the country, those same Republicans hated him. They even started a rumor that he was not actually qualified because he was born in Canada. That's right, birtherism was alive among Republicans 130 years ago. Arthur was so honest and dedicated to the nation's governance that his own party could not allow him to continue carrying their banner. Instead, they undermined him and placed the commonly mistrusted and known political crook, James G. Blaine, into nomination. The country knew enough to reject this man and the Democratic candidate won the office.
Grover Cleveland
I'm listing him here because, though he served two terms as president, his were the only two terms interrupted by four years. He was unseated after his first term because once again, the powerful Republican party (and especially the New York Tammany Hall corrupt political machine) could not abide his reforms. He vetoed more than twice as many legislative bills in his first term than had all 21 former presidents combined. And he created the Department of Labor, trying to protect workers and promote equality. This was not something Republicans could accept.
Benjamin Harrison
The guy who Republicans were able to push into the presidency after Cleveland's four amazingly prosperous years for the country, was a man with an impressive political pedigree but with practically no ability to govern. The Republican-heavy congress ran the country for his first two years as he took little notice of their destructive new bills. But the nation was watching and the midterm elections saw a sweep by Democrats who came back to power and began halting some of the drain of the national wealth. The same electorate had wised up and when Cleveland ran again, this time he was elected in a landslide.
Wm Howard Taft
"Big Bill" Taft never cared for the office of president and was goaded there by his wife and his brothers. For some reason, Teddy Roosevelt had groomed Taft as his successor and the party nominated him. He won handily. However, he soured most of the more liberal Republicans and angered Roosevelt early in his term. By the time he ran again, his Republican party was split in its support of his policies and when Teddy started a third party movement, running as a "Bull Moose" candidate, the vote was split and Democrat Woodrow Wilson won easily. Party in-fighting to blame once again.
Warren G. Harding
I have not been including men who died in office, but in this case, his death was a relief to the presidency and to his party. He almost certainly could not have been given a second term. There was never a clear cause of Harding's death and some believed he might have been poisoned to hide much of his failure to the nation. Corruption was rampant throughout his three years in office. He was in the office only by default because the Republican convention couldn't decide on a more qualified candidate, and they (in their typically facile way of using whatever advantage they can grasp) put him into nomination because he was likable and handsome - and the 1920 election would be the first one to allow females to vote! Fascinating.
Herbert Hoover
Not much to be said. He inherited a high-flying economy but no fiscal course corrections had been made since before Wilson's administration. When the market crashed after seven months of Hoover's term, he naturally got blamed for every financial woe of the great depression. Probably a good man and he had many personal accomplishments in life - but no one could survive in office after the country took that fall.
Gerald Ford
The man was honorable as far as we could tell, but after his finishing of the second term of the de-throned and disreputable Nixon, who had appointed Ford as his recent new vice president, the otherwise acceptable candidate fell prey to a disillusioned public who needed to "Trow da bums out."
James Earl Carter
"Jimmy" Carter smiled his way into the hearts of a nation that was tired of secrecy and dishonorable tactics, even though the tactics were not Ford's but his predecessor's. Still, the nation cried out for change. Carter was one of the most intelligent men to ever hold the office, but he admitted he was unschooled in much of what was required. Chiefly, he could not play that massive and often out-of-tune organ called congress. And he was the second president to be pushed out of office because he was too honest. Same fate that befell Arthur, but it was not Carter's own party shenanigans this time but an electorate stirred by a great communicator with visions of national greatness that sank Carter's ship of state.
George H.W.Bush
The rosy glow in the country as unemployment reached a long-time low near the end of the Reagan years almost propelled the vice president into his own top office. He essentially promised the nation that all the good stuff of the previous years would continue and that we would be a "kinder and gentler America." Following Reagan's eight years and almost a dozen tax hikes, Bush promised no new taxes which was to haunt him a few years later when the economy started to decline. And he urged us "forward, always forward...for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light." I wonder whether that forward encouragement hurt his re-election chances. Republicans today have jumped on the term when used in President Obama's campaign, calling it a socialist slogan. At any rate, G. H. W. Bush was denied a second term and the reason had to be "the economy, stupid!"
* * *
So these are the presidents who failed to win a second term. If our current president fails to win in November, it will no doubt be "the economy, stupid!" that does him in. Unfortunately, there wasn't (and isn't today) a human alive who could in less than four years turn around the horrific economy that resulted from the devastating wars and policies of the G.W. Bush administration. And he had eight years to exact such destruction on our financial well-being, then handed off the expensive wars along with the impossible economic woes to a new president. Obama may not be able to solve all the problems even with a second term, but his dedication to the recovery and the absolutely imperative policies he has fostered for growth and solvency should have the chance to mature. FDR was given two full terms and then elected to an unprecedented third term because he had the capacity to get us back on track. Obama won't get a third term due to the changed law of the land, but he certainly deserves the two full terms to bring us closer to the fiscal health we enjoyed prior to G. W. Bush.
Be that as it may, I wonder whether you noticed any trends through the reading of the history of one-term presidents. Here's one that should glare from the page: Republicans (and their progenitors, the Whigs) were in almost every case, guilty of corrupt practices to fight against all candidates who dissatisfied the party's top strong-arms. And several times, it was their own man they had put into the office that they turned against and failed to re-nominate. It was the group called Radical Republicans who impeached their own man, Andrew Johnson, and narrowly missed this chance to oust the second Republican to ever hold the office. It would seem today that using the term radical when referring to that party is redundant.
For the 2012 election, the Republicans, amid many internal squabbles and dissatisfactions, have nominated a man who does not inspire confidence even among those who are trying to show support. The problem faced by the Democrats then is not that a better candidate has emerged for the opposition, nor the prospect that a businessman background might somehow mount a stronger attack on the problems of our economy. No. The problem for our current election cycle is strictly legalized fiscal corruption. And this is the result of a damnable Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited money to influence the vote. As mentioned earlier, Republicans will use whatever advantage presents itself to attain their desired ends. This time around, we stand to lose all vestiges of our former democratic ideals in a sea of dark money. When any party of the people has no more possibility of competing against the party of the corporation due to corrupt management and ignorant (or purposeful partisan) abuses by our highest court, our democracy is finished.
If the best man for the job can be forced out of office purely under the financial crushing by the wealthy who have a vested interest in seeing Republicans at the helm, then our democracy can kiss it's ass goodbye and from now on, we can kiss the asses of our overlords. The one-man, one-vote concept may very well cease to exist as a practical call to patriotism as of November, 2012. Think! THINK! THINK!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)