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.
Friday, August 24, 2012
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!!!
Thursday, July 26, 2012
SAVE the Children -
FROM salvation!
Where I got this quote is immaterial; it references the millions who think in this way and it makes me so compassionate toward innocent children. The quote (underline is my addition): ...our Vacaton Bible School at our small church. Every night I delivered 4 neighbor kids there, then went back 2 1/2 hours later to take them home. [This line reminded me instantly of the last time I attended a mass in the effort to be considerate of my Catholic friends. The spectacle of a woman carrying high above her head a large, open volume (something akin to the book of life, I suppose), with dozens of young children following her obediently down the isle toward a place to be catechized, hit me as a clear fulfillment of the lambs led to slaughter image.] cont. - ... 3 out of the 4 have hardly been inside a church; not sure about the 4th one. _____, 9yrs old, started asking me a lot of questions about what it means to be saved, what a Christian is, etc. At the end of the first night _____ gave a short talk about what salvation is, what sin is and how Jesus died for us. _____ went up to him afterwards to talk with him, said she wanted to receive salvation. [An emotional, ignorant and innocent 9-yr old wants to be accepted and adored by adults; any concept of salvation, which is an unsolvable mystery to adults, is too remote to even consider.] ____ asked her lots of questions, trying to make sure that she fully understood. [!] She answered as if she full-well did so he prayed with her, and hopefully there's one more little girl on her way to heaven!
Upon reading this comment (in a forum to which I subscribe) someone immediately took issue with the concept of going to heaven, which was cited as a non-biblical idea. My own exasperated, throw-hands-into-the-air thought was simply, it's all hog-wash! Why pick out any part of that whole quote and find singular fault with one tiny ludicrous item? Even if the concept of going to heaven could be shown to be based in a bible verse, so what? That concocted collection of books, written spuriously by various people from questionable, if any, educational backgrounds and from different centuries of life-span, all repeating age-old oral traditions and hearsay (including fantasies and outright lies at times, no doubt), has no realistic bearing on anything! Unless, of course, you choose to place significance upon that source. Your call!
Back in my fundamentalist kookdom days, our church (a small sect which was hyper-everything and fortunately has died away for the most part), thumped the bible heavily. The King James Version, mind you - all others were considered to be faulty and not to be trusted. Why the "original" KJV was beyond examination was never quite clear to me. Good old King James in the early seventeenth century had not been there personally to hear words from a son of god and write them down. The scribes of all eras and of all the various early manuscripts were as much removed from the "original" words as was James, so nobody can claim that all those words in the bible, KJV or any other, were actually worth anything as a purported history and recitation of words from some god-man.
To further the out-and-out emptiness of devoted belief in any of this stuff, the kookery of our little sect went so far as to encourage all of us believers to purchase our new King James Versions in the wide-margin printing style because that allowed us to put tiny printing of our own beside the scriptures - an important step in returning at a later reading of the bible (which was supposed to be repeated often) and recall the interesting and meaningful nuances of these scriptures as explained to us by some preacher or instructor. We also were shown how to use a variety of colored pencils and markers to easily reference from one scripture to another, thereby making it easier (apparently) to find the true meaning(!) of each by cross-referencing them with one another.
I often have wondered how many followers of that particular sect in later years had actually been trained in their beliefs (given their catechism of sorts) from the margins of those elaborate coloring books as much as they were from what was supposed to be "every word of God." I'm sure many of those believers who did that intricate and painstaking notation did so with absolute devotion to the deepest understanding of and yearning for truth and had the best of motives; therefore, the notes themselves, since they were in the bible were thought to be pretty much the same as holy writ.
My point of all this is not to be overly critical of any individual (judging others is very unwise), but to bring attention to the foolishness that has grown over centuries and is often more harmful than helpful. In particular, the idea of foisting off these wildly speculative ideas of heaven, hell, gods, angels, spirit, sin, salvation - any of the varying concepts of belief - onto the young minds of our innocent children is simply a crime. When a young person who has reached his/her best learning years of early adulthood has questions that lead to studies of many religious concepts and traditional beliefs, then that maturing individual has access to abundant resources which can be checked out and evaluated. I do not think it is criminal (even if a waste of time) for capable students to delve into any kind of research or interests on their own; but it is criminal of us adults to force religious ideas onto the unsuspecting and unprepared minds of young children.
Now I must add that I do understand that someone reading this will try that quoting of scripture thing - will point out that in the Book of Proverbs we are told to "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." Right - the very thing that Catholics have accomplished to a superior level. But I remind the reader that I have already stated my opinion that all those words are at best meaningless and at worst are harmful to the human psyche. I readily reveal my own total disdain for any of those writings as being nothing more than stories that grew into methods of control over humans. And will you train a child in ways known to ancient (biblical) man, i.e., a way of trade (barter) or of construction (cave or simple shelter) or of meat storage (curing with salt and hoping for the best), and then turn him out into a world for which he is ill-prepared? Will you instruct him or her to fear a heavenly being? Again, your call. Hamper a child by loading him with traditional baggage and watch him struggle to carry it through a tough life. Then tell me it was all for the best.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Conscientious and CONSCIOUS Comedian
On occasion, I enjoy introducing someone of character to my readers. Usually it is not such a character! If you have not yet caught an episode of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, (on CBS) do yourself a favor. Record the show one weeknight beginning at 12:35 A.M. (That's after midnight, which is why I personally record it and enjoy it at the sane old man's hour of 9:00 the following evening.) Even if you discover that you don't care at all for his zany type of humor, his ground-breaking concept of a show with a sidekick who is actually a robot, his left-over Scottish accent which he plays to a fine effect - you can't go wrong in checking him out.
Ferguson also leaves his show for a week each year to host one of the large July 4th celebrations in the country. For several years running, he was the face of the Boston fireworks display that included great performances by The Boston Pops on a plaza near the Charles River. He was chosen as the comic to host one of the annual correspondents dinners in Washington D.C. back in the Bush years (a tough job for anyone!). And that was at the very time he was swearing his new citizenship in the USA.
Well, there is plenty online and in books he has written and elsewhere, so I cannot add anything other than to state my personal preference of this very bright man as my all-time favorite comedian. And it isn't all about his twist of comic craziness. Much of my high esteem for the guy is due to the very touching manner in which he handles such UNfunny realities as the deaths of his parents (who died in Scotland about two years apart but both during his 7-year run of his show in Los Angeles) and this most recent tragedy of the theater shootings in Colorado.
If you know nothing about Craig Ferguson, I do hope you will click on the above link.
Ferguson also leaves his show for a week each year to host one of the large July 4th celebrations in the country. For several years running, he was the face of the Boston fireworks display that included great performances by The Boston Pops on a plaza near the Charles River. He was chosen as the comic to host one of the annual correspondents dinners in Washington D.C. back in the Bush years (a tough job for anyone!). And that was at the very time he was swearing his new citizenship in the USA.
Well, there is plenty online and in books he has written and elsewhere, so I cannot add anything other than to state my personal preference of this very bright man as my all-time favorite comedian. And it isn't all about his twist of comic craziness. Much of my high esteem for the guy is due to the very touching manner in which he handles such UNfunny realities as the deaths of his parents (who died in Scotland about two years apart but both during his 7-year run of his show in Los Angeles) and this most recent tragedy of the theater shootings in Colorado.
If you know nothing about Craig Ferguson, I do hope you will click on the above link.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Arrogating Americanism
If Prager speaks for a majority on the political right, then the right is wrong!
My deep respect for a friend (who made a sincere request) has caused me to make a valiant effort to struggle through a recent book by Dennis Prager. The struggle began in the very introduction where Prager labels me - my life, my goals, my very nature - as un-American!
The link I used above directs the reader to the whole Google search for the man because there are many different avenues one may take to discover what he is supposed to represent. What he represents to me is pure arrogance in the name of some imagined fundamental Christianity upon which our nation was supposedly founded. He is wrong, despicable and damaging to any sound future of America!
The obvious fact that this man is intelligent and successful does not make him right; he is merely accepted by and supported by the right. His major battle this book has launched is against the left. And the left he describes quite clearly as all of us who have views other than Christian conservatism.
Prager's claim that the Republican, right-wing political view is the ONLY one representing Americanism and that truth and the American Way are under attack from a sinister secular wave of socialism is the most flawed excuse for thinking I have witnessed in a long time. And I am personally offended to hear that my whole way of life, as a Golden Rule-guided Humanist, is somehow UN-American!
Then this Limbaugh in religious garb (crude nuttiness 2.0) has the temerity to invoke our founding fathers as backing for his claptrap.
Well, Mr. Prager - how's this for showing myself to be UN-American: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
At the very root of Americanism is the freedom of speech, and fools of all stripes engage in speech that may or may not offer any edification to mankind. That applies to all I write and all that Prager writes. But as far as my words go, they do not claim to be any authority on anything - only food for thought. Prager wants all to heed his words because they are purportedly the paraphrasing of holy words and he readily claims attachment to a strong Christian heritage. He also freely ascribes that heritage to our nation and wants all of us who proclaim no religious connection to buzz off and quit claiming to be Americans!
Prager fears the left and he fears the fact that progressives are pushing for improvements for our future, which includes the support of better education for our youth. He fears youth itself! He fears too much change will undermine the stable "goodness" of America. Naturally, he has many fears; his whole claim to a sound connection to life is his firm belief in the fantasies and superstitions of religious teachings. Traditional religious belief is to him, sacred and beyond examination. He clearly cites The Enlightenment as the beginning of the troubles of humanity. Those crazy eighteenth century thinkers who preached reason were never to be trusted! Why, they even dared to question the Pope and sought a new foundation for living a good life, without the shackles of ethereal and infallible belief. Prager obviously does NOT fear the infallibility of belief, as reasoning people do.
Yes, I defend even this idiotic blathering as his right to print in books and sell to the public. Never mind that I would like to see this book (Still The Best Hope) reach the top of the non-seller list!
Does Prager, or do any of his ilk, even know that our great nation and powerful constitution were founded on this wave of enlightenment rather than on Christian tenets? The fact that our forefathers were bright enough to assure a freedom of religion (which includes a freedom from religion), has been a major contributing factor to our true Americanism and to our success as a government. Does he even grasp that if it weren't for the secularism built into our government (which is frightfully close to being overwhelmed by Christian radicalism today) we would not likely have survived as a free nation? He probably detests the above quote about free speech because it is manifestly from the writings of the enlightened, whether penned by Voltaire or by Beatrice Hall who edited The Friends of Voltaire - or maybe by some other enlightened soul. The thought is so deeply American in its intent that little else can compare to it in exemplifying the Americanism which Prager so glibly tries to pilfer and turn into some Christian ideology.
It is due to a morality based in enlightened understanding, a much more fundamental and work-a-day morality than Prager's flawed concept of unassailable Christian morality, that even allows him to write such irresponsible bovine fecal material and sell it to other fearful souls for his own profit. Welcome to the real America where we tolerate fools.
My deep respect for a friend (who made a sincere request) has caused me to make a valiant effort to struggle through a recent book by Dennis Prager. The struggle began in the very introduction where Prager labels me - my life, my goals, my very nature - as un-American!
The link I used above directs the reader to the whole Google search for the man because there are many different avenues one may take to discover what he is supposed to represent. What he represents to me is pure arrogance in the name of some imagined fundamental Christianity upon which our nation was supposedly founded. He is wrong, despicable and damaging to any sound future of America!
The obvious fact that this man is intelligent and successful does not make him right; he is merely accepted by and supported by the right. His major battle this book has launched is against the left. And the left he describes quite clearly as all of us who have views other than Christian conservatism.
Prager's claim that the Republican, right-wing political view is the ONLY one representing Americanism and that truth and the American Way are under attack from a sinister secular wave of socialism is the most flawed excuse for thinking I have witnessed in a long time. And I am personally offended to hear that my whole way of life, as a Golden Rule-guided Humanist, is somehow UN-American!
Then this Limbaugh in religious garb (crude nuttiness 2.0) has the temerity to invoke our founding fathers as backing for his claptrap.
Well, Mr. Prager - how's this for showing myself to be UN-American: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
At the very root of Americanism is the freedom of speech, and fools of all stripes engage in speech that may or may not offer any edification to mankind. That applies to all I write and all that Prager writes. But as far as my words go, they do not claim to be any authority on anything - only food for thought. Prager wants all to heed his words because they are purportedly the paraphrasing of holy words and he readily claims attachment to a strong Christian heritage. He also freely ascribes that heritage to our nation and wants all of us who proclaim no religious connection to buzz off and quit claiming to be Americans!
Prager fears the left and he fears the fact that progressives are pushing for improvements for our future, which includes the support of better education for our youth. He fears youth itself! He fears too much change will undermine the stable "goodness" of America. Naturally, he has many fears; his whole claim to a sound connection to life is his firm belief in the fantasies and superstitions of religious teachings. Traditional religious belief is to him, sacred and beyond examination. He clearly cites The Enlightenment as the beginning of the troubles of humanity. Those crazy eighteenth century thinkers who preached reason were never to be trusted! Why, they even dared to question the Pope and sought a new foundation for living a good life, without the shackles of ethereal and infallible belief. Prager obviously does NOT fear the infallibility of belief, as reasoning people do.
Yes, I defend even this idiotic blathering as his right to print in books and sell to the public. Never mind that I would like to see this book (Still The Best Hope) reach the top of the non-seller list!
Does Prager, or do any of his ilk, even know that our great nation and powerful constitution were founded on this wave of enlightenment rather than on Christian tenets? The fact that our forefathers were bright enough to assure a freedom of religion (which includes a freedom from religion), has been a major contributing factor to our true Americanism and to our success as a government. Does he even grasp that if it weren't for the secularism built into our government (which is frightfully close to being overwhelmed by Christian radicalism today) we would not likely have survived as a free nation? He probably detests the above quote about free speech because it is manifestly from the writings of the enlightened, whether penned by Voltaire or by Beatrice Hall who edited The Friends of Voltaire - or maybe by some other enlightened soul. The thought is so deeply American in its intent that little else can compare to it in exemplifying the Americanism which Prager so glibly tries to pilfer and turn into some Christian ideology.
It is due to a morality based in enlightened understanding, a much more fundamental and work-a-day morality than Prager's flawed concept of unassailable Christian morality, that even allows him to write such irresponsible bovine fecal material and sell it to other fearful souls for his own profit. Welcome to the real America where we tolerate fools.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The PAT-HUG
Do you watch people who do the pat-hug? It is a curious half-hearted combination of two very personal actions, showing that neither is very sincere.
Just watch the end of a round of golf in the LPGA. The pat-hug has become the de rigueur counterpart to the male hand shake when competitors wrap-up a day's play. (Those hand-shakes can come across as pretty uninspired, too!) The pat-hug is used in many other situations as well, but to me anyway, it seems most practiced and least effectual here in the LPGA.
Perhaps I am totally wrong in this observation, but I do believe I see something that screams insincerity. And it can show up by surprise in varied circumstances.
In my estimation, the whole miss-managed action should be forsaken altogether. Think about it. If you know someone well enough that you feel a proper hug is called for and would not be offensive, then by all means, give a real hug. Let that person know you mean this personal gesture as your outward show of whatever love or condolence or congratulations the situation calls for. If you feel a person deserves a pat on the back, then give a sincere pat-on-the-back. That's it! No half-hug, piddly-pat combination gesture that lessens both in meaning.
Ever notice a referee in a wrestling match when a hold needs to be released? He gives a pat on the back to tell the person committing the disallowed hold that it's time to break it up. When I see a person involved in any hug that includes the little flutter pats on the back of the huggee, it says to me that the hugger is making that referee call on himself to his own desired end - that he entered the hug with the thought in mind that it needed to be broken up immediately. No lingering body togetherness to be endured for more than a split second. That's no hug! And the patting part is not really intended as a sincere pat-on-the-back with gusto. It merely says, "That's it, now I've done what I needed to do; please pull away!"
Recently I witnessed a man giving the pat-hug to his wife. That is really ugly. It literally made me wonder whether they might be fighting but had to show a good front to the public. My wife and I have been together for eighteen years, during which time I do not believe I have ever given her one of these less-than-real hugs. If my arms are around my wife, my hands on her body at some natural position gained when the hug began, the hands stay there, firmly saying "it's good to be next to you, holding you." If my wife deserves a pat on the back, I can also do that, and with full meaning, physically indicating "Congratulations," or "Well done," or whatever the case calls for. But since I am a hugger, she usually gets that full-bodied treatment over the pat because it goes farther to show my warm delight in her. She does NOT get both together in that silly little pat-hug.
When I hug a good friend, female or male, my hand on the back does not flutter in a method that calls the hold "disallowed." I hug meaningfully or I do not hug at all.
Have I ever committed the pat-hug? Yes, I confess to having done it, which is how I know what it means. Maybe it isn't the same for others, but it was clear to me that I was about to hug someone I didn't really want to pull against my own body, yet the circumstances seemed to say I should. Well, I don't do that nowadays. Because when I did it I felt myself allowing a "should" concept to override a desired (lack of) action, I gave myself permission to drop such half-meanings in the future. If you're getting a hug from me, prepare to be hugged, not patted! If you deserve a meaningful pat-on-the-back, I will stop short of knocking the wind out of you, but you will know I sincerely mean the pat!
Just watch the end of a round of golf in the LPGA. The pat-hug has become the de rigueur counterpart to the male hand shake when competitors wrap-up a day's play. (Those hand-shakes can come across as pretty uninspired, too!) The pat-hug is used in many other situations as well, but to me anyway, it seems most practiced and least effectual here in the LPGA.
Perhaps I am totally wrong in this observation, but I do believe I see something that screams insincerity. And it can show up by surprise in varied circumstances.
In my estimation, the whole miss-managed action should be forsaken altogether. Think about it. If you know someone well enough that you feel a proper hug is called for and would not be offensive, then by all means, give a real hug. Let that person know you mean this personal gesture as your outward show of whatever love or condolence or congratulations the situation calls for. If you feel a person deserves a pat on the back, then give a sincere pat-on-the-back. That's it! No half-hug, piddly-pat combination gesture that lessens both in meaning.
Ever notice a referee in a wrestling match when a hold needs to be released? He gives a pat on the back to tell the person committing the disallowed hold that it's time to break it up. When I see a person involved in any hug that includes the little flutter pats on the back of the huggee, it says to me that the hugger is making that referee call on himself to his own desired end - that he entered the hug with the thought in mind that it needed to be broken up immediately. No lingering body togetherness to be endured for more than a split second. That's no hug! And the patting part is not really intended as a sincere pat-on-the-back with gusto. It merely says, "That's it, now I've done what I needed to do; please pull away!"
Recently I witnessed a man giving the pat-hug to his wife. That is really ugly. It literally made me wonder whether they might be fighting but had to show a good front to the public. My wife and I have been together for eighteen years, during which time I do not believe I have ever given her one of these less-than-real hugs. If my arms are around my wife, my hands on her body at some natural position gained when the hug began, the hands stay there, firmly saying "it's good to be next to you, holding you." If my wife deserves a pat on the back, I can also do that, and with full meaning, physically indicating "Congratulations," or "Well done," or whatever the case calls for. But since I am a hugger, she usually gets that full-bodied treatment over the pat because it goes farther to show my warm delight in her. She does NOT get both together in that silly little pat-hug.
When I hug a good friend, female or male, my hand on the back does not flutter in a method that calls the hold "disallowed." I hug meaningfully or I do not hug at all.
Have I ever committed the pat-hug? Yes, I confess to having done it, which is how I know what it means. Maybe it isn't the same for others, but it was clear to me that I was about to hug someone I didn't really want to pull against my own body, yet the circumstances seemed to say I should. Well, I don't do that nowadays. Because when I did it I felt myself allowing a "should" concept to override a desired (lack of) action, I gave myself permission to drop such half-meanings in the future. If you're getting a hug from me, prepare to be hugged, not patted! If you deserve a meaningful pat-on-the-back, I will stop short of knocking the wind out of you, but you will know I sincerely mean the pat!
Friday, July 6, 2012
What Do ____ Want?
No, this is not another installment of my series, Rattle of the Sexes. It might better be billed under Prattle of the Nexus - or some other contrived creation of an ethereal heading. That's because the query I am posing is not one for which I can clearly produce an answer. Unfortunately, there may never be a clear answer forthcoming from any quarter.
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
We all can actually answer the age-old question of what do women want; we merely have to re-answer it hour-by-hour or perhaps with some, minute-by-minute. One minute it's merely a hug, next minute it is a new house.
But today's question is to another "W" group: What Do the Wealthy Want? The unlikelihood of a cohesive answer ever coming from them is due to the fact I am asking the question of a group that is not itself cohesive. There is no annual Convention of the Wealthy or Symposium to Satisfy the Desires of the Rich. Or at least not to my knowledge. But naturally, they would not contact me for any reason, so I am perhaps just completely in the dark.
But really, the question is an important one, and the subject is gaining in impact each day as the wealth of our society continues to be siphoned upward to that small point at the top of the societal pyramid while the foundation crumbles under deprivation. Yet again, any meaningful answer may never be attainable because the wealthy do not form a monolithic entity.
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet what they want and even though they may be thought of as similar (they rank #2 and #3 in the world in individual wealth), they will not likely answer in the same way. Yes, they both are, fortunately for the planet, truly interested in a better world and are giving away massive amounts of their wealth to help others. Still, each will have a very individual slant on what he might really want. Ask Mitt Romney and perhaps he will honestly say he wants the power and recognition the presidency could bring. He might say he wants a more impressive mansion in San Diego for his future California White House. Rumor is, he is quadrupling the size of his existing shack there even now.
Ask Eike Batista and he may simply want to return to his higher position in the rankings; he slipped up recently and is now worth only around twenty billion bucks! Never heard of the guy? I hadn't either, but an article points out that he has recently lost over three billions in net worth and the measly $20.5 billions now listed as his personal wealth situates him at #23 in the world. I imagine he wants to climb higher.
Actually, if Batista's answer really is that he merely wants more wealth, then perhaps we have a general answer that could clarify the motives of most of the 1-percenters. It just does not make sense to me that as a class, these folks want more. It is vaguely understandable that each individual tycoon might be competitive with the others and want to ascend to the rarefied atmosphere of richest in the world. But competition over-all cannot be a factor in the general wanting more by the whole class of the very wealthy. They long-since departed the known universe of the rest of us; they have no actual competition.
So what could be the motivation for the most wealthy of the world to want power over governments and influence over elected officials of our - or any - government? Yes, the power to guide policies that allow for the rich to get richer, we know that has to be part of the motive. But why? More is simply more! What can a person do with forty billions that he could not have done with twenty billions?
Or is the internal competition for the very top of the Forbes list actually the main motivator after all and it isn't the whole group of the 1% that is causing the buying votes furor? Maybe the Koch brothers want to influence policies that allow unlimited gains in oil and other areas of business they conduct but are also working quietly to not allow policies that might assist computer software's future successes, thereby making the #2 spot vulnerable. The brothers might think they could one day overtake Bill Gates. Maybe similar political shenanigans are working against Carlos Slim in the vast telecommunications and associated businesses that put him in the #1 richest spot. Perhaps even he could be unseated somewhere down the line. If this is the motive of Charles & David Koch, welcome to the face(s) of pure greed.
As an actor, living in Hollywood twenty years ago and working in film or video wherever I could land a gig, I had a general plan, a dream really, well in mind. If I could only make it over that seemingly insurmountable hurdle of getting into a weekly TV series and hang in there for a few seasons, I would then parlay my good fortune and fame into the start of a business. My thought (probably an illogical one considering success/failure ratios) was to open a classy restaurant near enough to the entertainment industry to attract lots of celebrities. Then while letting a great chef and an honest and capable manager take over the day-to-day responsibilities of the business, I would travel the world, see the sights, play golf in beautiful venues - enjoy the bounty of my success. Fact is, I still harbor that last part of the dream today, the money coming from the big lotto jackpot I plan to win!
So, if I should hit that jackpot, maybe even a huge one that puts more than a hundred million dollars in my account, what would I do with it? Well, besides traveling the world with my wife and securing homes and futures for my family, I would likely follow the good examples of Gates & Buffet and become a philanthropist - just on a very minor scale comparatively. But would I even consider trying to buy influence in order to get new governmental policies enacted that would result in my becoming richer? Right! Why don't you watch when I land the big bucks and then hold your breath until I show myself to be one of the typical greedy bastards. I know myself better. And I'm observing far too many of them nowadays!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)