Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
As in, the first tests.
This week has already seen two candidates officially enter the race for President of the United States, neither one of whom is actually for anything, just running on their big, big names. I noticed over on the Hello Kitty of Blogging that a lot of people who lean in all sorts of different directions seem to be unable, or unwilling perhaps, to recognize this key distinction among candidates. Actually, none of the candidates are even mentioning it, even the ones whose prospects would be helped by making an issue out of it.
As usual, it falls to me:
Very first test I apply to any presidential candidate is they have to be FOR something.
Bernie Sanders passes the test, Hillary doesn’t, Carly Fiorina does, Jeb Bush doesn’t, Ted Cruz does, Lindsey Graham doesn’t, Sarah Palin would if she was running, Ben Carson probably not, Chris Christie definitely not.
This is just the very first test. It’s asking so little. A candidate’s long-held personal-pet-peeve, would suffice.
It is positively shocking that half the candidates, on both sides, flunk. They’re just outspoken and so wonderful, with name recognition, and it’s their turn! But, they don’t stand for anything.
We just don’t need it.
Sanders and I don’t agree on much of anything at all, so note: This has nothing to do with my own fors-&-againsts. It’s a baseline. It’s the very first filter.
And I see we have a need to impose it. Everyone wants to be the big-name, it seems; everyone out here wants to rally around that guy. I guess when all the hubbub about a “constitutional republic” has died down, at the end of the day we’re just electing a dictator or something, is that it? Some oracle who’s going to mull over the tough questions four years at a time, do whatever it is he wants to do, think it over during a golf game, shake a Magic-8 ball, and when he comes up with an answer well that means we’re all obliged to support it because we voted for him. Or, lost to the people who voted for him. That’s how it works now?
Not in my world. But, I have more tests.
Second test is, if I wake up tomorrow morning a billionaire, that presidential candidate wouldn’t make me into the enemy. Because I want the economy to do well. That means we’re going to have rich people. If you’re running for President and you think it’s a problem when people are rich, then you just keep right on running…off a cliff.
So, everyone on the left can vamoose. Along with quite a few on the so-called “right.”
Maybe I should broaden this to say: Be pro-people. We don’t need any more arguments about how making money is bad, or we need to learn to get along with less, or the planet can’t sustain any more of us. It isn’t, we don’t, and it can.
Naturally, I’m not done at two. And, at that point, it ceases to be a matter for the Hello Kitty of Blogging…although, perhaps, that is where the people are who really need the input. But most of them have already “unfriended” me or were never on my friends list in the first place.
Third test: I want someone who can argue. I think it would be written right into our Constitution, but back in those days the ability was just sort of assumed. And I don’t mean snicker charismatically at everything or make it impossible for anybody else to do any talking, like Joe Biden did at the Paul Ryan debate. I mean, on an intellectual level, to forensically and methodically attack or defend a position.
The third test would put us in dire danger of having for our next President someone who was champion of the high school debate team, and we’ve had plenty enough of never-never-land already. This country needs like the dickens to start living in reality again, so the fourth test would have to be: The ability to learn from mistakes. I’ve said before how I sometimes completely derail the opposition by saying things like “I make five to ten mistakes before most people even wake up in the morning”? Whoever I’m just baffling by saying that, would fail this test, and we don’t need ’em. Being unable or unwilling to absorb new or unwelcome information, is not a strength. It isn’t precious either. It’s common and cheap, like pigeon shit on top of a statue. We’re born with that. Toddlers have that.
For the fifth test, I want the next President of the United States to recognize, and believe in the simple truism that, life is not fair. Has that ship sailed already, is it too late to ask this? It seems to be a popular thing to say to white males who were born way too late to ever own slaves, or keep their wives locked up in the kitchen, and are being asked to go without to pay for the past sins of our forebearers. We’ve given women their day in the limelight, and blacks, and gays, and transgenders, I think it’s safe to say that anyone needing some sort of “turn” to “catch up” has had it at this point. And these special privileges have a cost. It’s embarrassing to have to mention it, but it seems lately to be something that needs mentioning.
Six: I want the next President to love the United States as she is right-here-and-freakin’-now. Again, too much to ask? I want the President to love the country the way a man is expected to love his wife.
After those six, we can proceed to the issues…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well I would move your 4th test to #1 or #2 myself. But otherwise spot on.
- Nate Winchester | 06/19/2015 @ 06:47So, Mr. Trump, or Ms. Fiorina, then?
- CaptDMO | 06/19/2015 @ 07:54Back when the first George Bush was running for president, someone said — and I couldn’t find the exact quote, but this was the gist of it — “The problem with George Bush isn’t that he doesn’t stand up for what he believes in. It’s that he doesn’t really believe in anything.”
When I heard that, I thought, That’s probably true. Some people go into politics because they have a vision for where they think the country should go, and they want to lead the country to this glorious new land. (Some of those people I agree with their vision, others I think it’s a nice fantasy but impractical, and others I think their goals are in a totally wrong direction.) But there are many in politics who don’t want to be president (or senator or governor or whatever) because they want to lead the country to this great vision, but because it seems like a good job. It’s like they looked around and said, “Doctor? No, too much work. Policeman? Too dangerous. Office worker? Doesn’t pay enough. Politician? Yeah, that sounds like a good job. Lots of time off, good pay, easy work, doesn’t need a lot of education. Yeah, that’s what I’ll go into.”
- saneperson | 06/19/2015 @ 08:01The trick, Saneperson, is that we have been told from birth, not to discuss Politics or Religion, so it can be hard to tell the difference between someone being polite, a “gentleman”(George Bush), and a amoral pile of trash (Bill Clinton). The easy rule of thumb is, if they are a Republican, they believe in something, and probably are a good person. If they are a Democrat, probably don’t have any beliefs that would survive a talking to by the party leadership, and probably a bad person…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/19/2015 @ 08:29@saneperson –
In many cases, it’s less a matter of “What cushy job can I do?” and the worse case of “Time to go into the family business!”
In the old days, “Spaghetti and Sons” would be a carpentry shop, or a supermarket, or maybe a law firm or other clerical trade. Nowadays, it’s a string of relatives who all “go into public service,” not to serve the public but because it’s a great sinecure, with sweet bennies and all the perks of a rock star or famous athlete without the bother of any actual talent or long, hard practice. The only difference between this and the inbred European royal families are the elections, and since those sometimes result in Wrong Outcomes, the Legacy Pols try to game the system wherever possible.
The misery of it is, if (say) the Clintons ran an Arkansas car dealership, then they’d still have to wear out some shoe leather, hit phones, hire and fire people based on competence and sales goals, and they’d be directly responsible to the brand maker – objective standards would force them to pass many of the tests Morgan wrote about. They could still be shady charlatans, but they’d get away with a lot less (“Local Businessman Charged With Rape, Consumer Fraud”), and do less widespread damage; they may also wind up being much nicer people (or at least less unpleasant) than otherwise because social pressure could reach them and influence them. Chelsea might not have been spoiled, insufferable, and clueless if there were anything at stake to her behavior… she’d possibly have to appeal to people on some level beyond “We can get Made by the Clintons, or they can ruin us utterly.” And that carries the risk of learning that it’s kind of nice to genuinely be liked and genuinely like others, to be honest and hard-working and humble.
- nightfly | 06/19/2015 @ 13:32@nightfly: Sure, much truth in that. Need I point out: The difference between a corrupt or lazy person in the private sector, versus a corrupt or lazy person in government, is that once you — the average guy on the street — figure out that the private sector person is corrupt or lazy, you can refuse to do any further business with him. If your neighbors are still duped, too bad for them, but you can take your money elsewhere. But when the corrupt or lazy person is in government, you can’t just decide not to obey the laws he gets passed, or not to pay the taxes to fund his programs. As long as he keeps getting re-elected, you’re stuck. At worst he has to fool 51% of the people. At best he just has to convince 51% of the people that while he is corrupt, the other guy is even more corrupt.
If the Clintons ran an auto dealership in my town, maybe I would have gone there once. When they ripped me off, then I would have known better and not gone back.
- saneperson | 06/20/2015 @ 19:06