I've mentioned before that I'm a registered Republican but in essence a small "r" republican. What I mean by small "r" republican is that I retain faith in the US Constitution and the wisdom (and intellect) of America's founding fathers. You know . . . guys like Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, et al. For quite a few years now, I've pretty much had it with both the Republican and Democrat parties. And at this point, I consider myself to be a political independent. I would love to vote for a serious third-party candidate, however the two controlling political parties have such a financial hold (via lobbyists, etc.) on our political system that a viable third-party candidate (that has a chance of winning) doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
I am sick and tired of the political idealogue's "my party is better than your party" nonsense. Blind adherence to political ideaology and dogma is not helpful to the nation. Indeed, the economic mess that America is now mired in is a result of actions (or inactions) on the part of both Republicans and Democrats. With that said, however, George Bush was in the White House for eight years and for you dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, out there, to beat up on President Obama's policies at this very early stage in his presidency is ridiculous. When the Republican Party alienates guys like me, then the party has a major problem. It's going to take an awful lot of work for the Republican party to recover from the disaster that it inflicted upon itself and the nation.
In theory, I prefer the "free market system" and capitalism over socialism. But the reality is that the "free-market" capitalists apparently can't be trusted to do the right thing. Does anyone doubt that assertion in light of recent events? Yes! I know that the government can't be trusted to do the right thing either! So where does that leave the average American? Mr. and Mrs. America: you need to turn off American idol and the like, get up off your collective butt, and start educating yourselves in regard to the state of your nation. Things are not going to get any better until you start taking an active role in your government and in your community. . . . .
Friday, February 6, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
"IT'S A GOOD JOB TO LOSE!"
YES! It's a good job to lose! Seems like I've heard that statement before . . . . The quote is from John Irving's book, Until I Find You. I Googled the quote, and what I came up with was a bunch of stuff about people losing their jobs and I've yet to find a mention of the quote within the context of Irving's book. You'd think that a quote from a best-selling author, that sold millions of books no less, would pop up on the first page of a Google search. That it didn't, is indeed a sign of the times and an ominous portent. The more that I read and hear about what the big-wigs in the banking and financial industries have done (or not done) with the American taxpayer's "bail-out" money, the angrier I get. The arrogance on the part of American CEOs and corporations, in general, is an outrage! And I'm now starting to apply that old 60s term, PIGS, in reference to not only the CEOs, but to the entire hierarchy of the American corporate world.
The merchant has no country . . . and if the present-day American corporate hierarchy continues acting like PIGS they will, in fact, have no country and no one to sell their shit-on-a-stick to . . . .
The merchant has no country . . . and if the present-day American corporate hierarchy continues acting like PIGS they will, in fact, have no country and no one to sell their shit-on-a-stick to . . . .
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Selling Shit-On-A-Stick (or Try My Combo Barbecue Special)
The following thoughts are in response to a sociopath that identifies himself as Ed S. His last name is Strnad, however I more appropriately address him as STUNAD: 'We all swallow "shit" in one form or the other--literally and figuratively. Indeed, in order to survive we, as humans, have no choice but to. I've been of the opinion for many years that one can get rich by selling excrement--if the proper marketing and advertising techniques are applied and if the product's stench is neutralized. In other words, a "good" businessman/salesman can sell "shit-on-a-stick" and have people begging for more.
The selling "shit" concept first occurred to me back in the eighties during a conversation that I had with a Russian immigrant by the name of "Steve". Steve and I were standing in the main kitchen of the Waldorf Astoria and Steve was telling me about his restaurant management experience. He told me a number of stories about his experiences and one of his stories was this: Steve managed a mid-sized restaurant in Brooklyn. Late one Saturday night, after the restaurant had closed, his walk-in-meat-box (the large refrigerator where a restaurant's meat is stored) malfunctioned. His restaurant was closed on Sunday. On Monday, Steve opened the door to the meat-box, and as soon as he opened the door the stench from the rotten meat overwhelmed him. There was about two-thousand dollars worth of meat (steaks, pork, chicken, hamburgers, etc.) in the box. Steve didn't throw out the meat though . . . he just did what most enterprising American businessmen do if they can get away with it--he exercised creative mangement skills in order to turn his losses into profits. Steve, simply, held his nose, and got his kitchen crew to throw all the spoiled meat into a large crock-pot along with ten gallons of cheap barbeque sauce. Steve left the spoiled meat to marinate in the barbeque sauce overnight and the next day, he "marketed" the spoiled meat as a "Combo Barbecue Special". And Steve's customers couldn't get enough of "the special" . . . imagine that!
I'm so fascinated by the power of marketing and advertising and what it takes to be a successful businessman that I wrote a novella (unpublished . . . who the hell would publish my shit) entitled "A Little Brown Commodity And The American Dream".'
I pose the following question to you, America, in reference to the above comment: were Steve's "creative management skills"--skills that resulted in his turning "losses" into "profits"--a bad thing or a good thing in economic and social terms?
The above is by no means a trick question . . . but before you attempt to answer the question, I'll offer you a few hypothetical "small-business scenarios" that Steve may have, in fact, been confronted with: Let's suppose, for the sake of the scenario, that Steve's uncle owned the restaurant that Steve managed. And that Steve's uncle had full faith and confidence in Steve's loyalty and Steve's ability to make a good buck. Let's suppose, further, that Steve's uncle was getting on in years and he was not up to spending the remainder of his days in Brooklyn running a restaurant. Steve's uncle came to the conclusion that it was financially feasible (and financially safe and secure) to retire to Florida and, therefore, hand over full control of his restaurant to his trusted nephew. Steve's uncle was content with playing golf, putzing around the house, and, in general, soaking up the Florida sunshine. He retained trust in his nephew's loyalty and abilities, because he received frequent and cheerful business updates, from his nephew, and on the first of every month his nephew sent him a check for a few thousand dollars along with fifteen-hundred in cash.
Let's also suppose that Steve's "book-keeping" methods were no different from the "book-keeping" methods of many small businessmen--and that Steve kept three sets of accounting "books": One "book" that would pass the scrutinity of his uncle (and the authorities if the need should arise); one "book" that he kept locked up in a safe at his home; and one unwritten "book" that he retained solely in his heart and mind. Let's further suppose that the latter book was the only true "book"--in that it is was the only "book" that contained accurate facts and figures. And let's further suppose that Steve purchased seventy-five-percent of his "meat" on a strictly cash basis from a couple of guys that had the talent and peculiar ability to supply him with meat at a cost, substantially, below market prices . . . . It was a sweet and compelling deal for Steve; for his substantially below-market-meat-costs enabled him to mark-up the price of seventy-five-percent of his hamburger patties, steaks, chicken, and pork as much as two-thousand-percent; and even after the obligatory kick-backs and "palm-grease" Steve was still able to maintain a nice two-hundred-to three-hundred-percent skim "off the top" of his trusting uncle's business.
But there was a potentially bitter component to Steve's sweet deal; and it was this: in order for Steve to maintain the "sweet deal", and the uninterrupted flow of meat at a cost "substantially below market prices", he entered into a tacit agreement with his meat suppliers. The tacit agreement was that the "meat" transactions never occurred and that Steve would continue to purchase, in perpetuity, the majority of his meat from a "couple of guys". Steve knew full-well the downside of the "tacit agreement" . . . but in Steve's opinion, the rewards of a two-thousand-percent mark-up were worth the risks.
The "tacit" agreement precluded Steve from writing off the meat losses. i.e., he couldn't risk claiming a loss on inventory that was obtained via a transaction that "never occurred". Steve was therefore on the hook for two-thousand bucks--but not for long. Steve was a sharp businessman; and like all sharp businessmen, he came up with a plan to recoup his losses and he passed off those losses to his customers without even raising his prices. A "Combo Barbecue Special" . . . what a concept!
The selling "shit" concept first occurred to me back in the eighties during a conversation that I had with a Russian immigrant by the name of "Steve". Steve and I were standing in the main kitchen of the Waldorf Astoria and Steve was telling me about his restaurant management experience. He told me a number of stories about his experiences and one of his stories was this: Steve managed a mid-sized restaurant in Brooklyn. Late one Saturday night, after the restaurant had closed, his walk-in-meat-box (the large refrigerator where a restaurant's meat is stored) malfunctioned. His restaurant was closed on Sunday. On Monday, Steve opened the door to the meat-box, and as soon as he opened the door the stench from the rotten meat overwhelmed him. There was about two-thousand dollars worth of meat (steaks, pork, chicken, hamburgers, etc.) in the box. Steve didn't throw out the meat though . . . he just did what most enterprising American businessmen do if they can get away with it--he exercised creative mangement skills in order to turn his losses into profits. Steve, simply, held his nose, and got his kitchen crew to throw all the spoiled meat into a large crock-pot along with ten gallons of cheap barbeque sauce. Steve left the spoiled meat to marinate in the barbeque sauce overnight and the next day, he "marketed" the spoiled meat as a "Combo Barbecue Special". And Steve's customers couldn't get enough of "the special" . . . imagine that!
I'm so fascinated by the power of marketing and advertising and what it takes to be a successful businessman that I wrote a novella (unpublished . . . who the hell would publish my shit) entitled "A Little Brown Commodity And The American Dream".'
I pose the following question to you, America, in reference to the above comment: were Steve's "creative management skills"--skills that resulted in his turning "losses" into "profits"--a bad thing or a good thing in economic and social terms?
The above is by no means a trick question . . . but before you attempt to answer the question, I'll offer you a few hypothetical "small-business scenarios" that Steve may have, in fact, been confronted with: Let's suppose, for the sake of the scenario, that Steve's uncle owned the restaurant that Steve managed. And that Steve's uncle had full faith and confidence in Steve's loyalty and Steve's ability to make a good buck. Let's suppose, further, that Steve's uncle was getting on in years and he was not up to spending the remainder of his days in Brooklyn running a restaurant. Steve's uncle came to the conclusion that it was financially feasible (and financially safe and secure) to retire to Florida and, therefore, hand over full control of his restaurant to his trusted nephew. Steve's uncle was content with playing golf, putzing around the house, and, in general, soaking up the Florida sunshine. He retained trust in his nephew's loyalty and abilities, because he received frequent and cheerful business updates, from his nephew, and on the first of every month his nephew sent him a check for a few thousand dollars along with fifteen-hundred in cash.
Let's also suppose that Steve's "book-keeping" methods were no different from the "book-keeping" methods of many small businessmen--and that Steve kept three sets of accounting "books": One "book" that would pass the scrutinity of his uncle (and the authorities if the need should arise); one "book" that he kept locked up in a safe at his home; and one unwritten "book" that he retained solely in his heart and mind. Let's further suppose that the latter book was the only true "book"--in that it is was the only "book" that contained accurate facts and figures. And let's further suppose that Steve purchased seventy-five-percent of his "meat" on a strictly cash basis from a couple of guys that had the talent and peculiar ability to supply him with meat at a cost, substantially, below market prices . . . . It was a sweet and compelling deal for Steve; for his substantially below-market-meat-costs enabled him to mark-up the price of seventy-five-percent of his hamburger patties, steaks, chicken, and pork as much as two-thousand-percent; and even after the obligatory kick-backs and "palm-grease" Steve was still able to maintain a nice two-hundred-to three-hundred-percent skim "off the top" of his trusting uncle's business.
But there was a potentially bitter component to Steve's sweet deal; and it was this: in order for Steve to maintain the "sweet deal", and the uninterrupted flow of meat at a cost "substantially below market prices", he entered into a tacit agreement with his meat suppliers. The tacit agreement was that the "meat" transactions never occurred and that Steve would continue to purchase, in perpetuity, the majority of his meat from a "couple of guys". Steve knew full-well the downside of the "tacit agreement" . . . but in Steve's opinion, the rewards of a two-thousand-percent mark-up were worth the risks.
The "tacit" agreement precluded Steve from writing off the meat losses. i.e., he couldn't risk claiming a loss on inventory that was obtained via a transaction that "never occurred". Steve was therefore on the hook for two-thousand bucks--but not for long. Steve was a sharp businessman; and like all sharp businessmen, he came up with a plan to recoup his losses and he passed off those losses to his customers without even raising his prices. A "Combo Barbecue Special" . . . what a concept!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Do The Presidential Polls Really Reflect The Outcome?
Throughout the years, I've often paid attention to the various pre-election poll results--i.e., the compilation of statistically filtered and "weighted" answers, to questions such as, "Which presidential candidate would you vote for if the presidential election were held today?" I am, by no means, an expert in political polling--however, I'm familiar with the ingredients that make up a poll and I have somewhat of a background in statistics along with a hobbyist's interest and knowledge of American politics and history. In other words, I'm no one to question the professional pollsters--I'm merely an American citizen that makes a sincere effort to ascertain the political facts. On the basis of those facts I go into the voting booth and pull the lever (or touch the screen or punch the card) and hope that I made the right decision. What disturbs me , however, is that my vote is more often than not based on which candidate I believe will have less of a detrimental impact on the future of our nation. In other words, my vote is cast for the lesser of two evils. Obama will, therefore, be America's first minority president. I have many concerns about both presidential candidates and the effect that their leadership( or lack thereof) will have upon the future of the nation. One of my concerns is one-party rule. In other words, if Obama wins the election, the future of the country is, virtually, in the hands of the Democrat party. I'd be just as concerned if the Republican party held the presidency and majorities in the house and senate.
One of my hopes is that the next president of the U.S. takes heed of the many blunders (some of those blunders continue to be deadly) that have occurred during the past and present administration's watch--especially in regard to present and future "wars". Another of my hopes is that members of the house and senate make a sincere effort to put party politics aside and start thinking in terms of what's best for America, instead of focusing on getting re-elected. Indeed, members of the U.S. congress have a lower "approval rating" than does President George Bush. To say that my "hopes" are not realistic would be an understatement . . . however, I'm entitled to my fantasies.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Blogs Are A Magnet For The Anonymous
One thing about blogs--they're a magnet for the anonymous. Until recently, I didn't give the "anonymous" aspect to blogs much thought. But after I started posting a number of comments on another blog I noticed that most of the comments to my comments were from "anonymous" commentors.The comments were typically negative, devoid of facts, and full of the usual name calling, e.g., you're a fucking asshole, you're a right-wing nut, you're stupid, etc.. Other than an occasional initial at the end of the comments the commentors didn't leave a trace as to their identities. Why would anyone take the time to put his or her thoughts in writing only to post those thoughts in a totally anonymous manner? The obvious reason is that one who writes under the cover of "anonymous" is afraid to let on to others his or her true thoughts about certain people and certain issues. It's the old "What will the neighbors think?" routine. The "anonymous" are insecure and usually dishonest creatures with fragile egos that dread even the slightest ridicule and criticism--and they are, indeed, afraid of their own shadows.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
GRITS and CRACKERS
How Are Yuh?
Fine girl . . . I see you ain't been slackin' .
Aint it the truth . . . Bud please.
Sup?
Fuckin' Hollywood pullin' his stucco shit . . . .
Thought Hollywood and Drywall Mike were up in the Handle?
Yeah, but Hollywood starts talkin' shit and Mike kicked his ass . . . he's down for awhile.
Fuckin' Mike . . . pullin' New York shit on Tim.
It's that Rory guy's fault.
Rory? Rory's a brother . . . .
Rory's bud but he chased down Mike with a cue stick . . . broke the stick! Drywall ain't been the same since!
Who said that?
Jimbo and Big Bubba.
I was there that night Rory broke the stick. . . didn't go down the way you think.
What do yu mean?
Rory broke the stick to get Drywall's attention. Stopped Mike from killin' some sick drugged-out fuck and goin' to jail . . . .
I didn't know . . . .
Now yu know girl . . . Bud please.
Fine girl . . . I see you ain't been slackin' .
Aint it the truth . . . Bud please.
Sup?
Fuckin' Hollywood pullin' his stucco shit . . . .
Thought Hollywood and Drywall Mike were up in the Handle?
Yeah, but Hollywood starts talkin' shit and Mike kicked his ass . . . he's down for awhile.
Fuckin' Mike . . . pullin' New York shit on Tim.
It's that Rory guy's fault.
Rory? Rory's a brother . . . .
Rory's bud but he chased down Mike with a cue stick . . . broke the stick! Drywall ain't been the same since!
Who said that?
Jimbo and Big Bubba.
I was there that night Rory broke the stick. . . didn't go down the way you think.
What do yu mean?
Rory broke the stick to get Drywall's attention. Stopped Mike from killin' some sick drugged-out fuck and goin' to jail . . . .
I didn't know . . . .
Now yu know girl . . . Bud please.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Which Presidential Candidate Should I Vote For?
Which presidential candidate should I vote for in the 2008 election? A simple question that requires more than simple thought. Historical precedent dictates (with a few exceptions) that my choice is limited to only two presidential candidates. My choice is further limited by the fact that one candidate is a Democrat and the other candidate is a Republican. And still further limited in that there is by no means enough of a "political record" on the part of the Democrat candidate in which to make an "informed" voting decision. The same is true for the Republican vice presidential candidate that, due to the Republican presidential candidate's age, could wind up (if elected) assuming the role of the presidency at any time.
Then there's the question of political philosophy. Should I vote for a so-called Liberal (Obama) or should I vote for a so-called Conservative (McCain)? There are many Americans that believe, in their heart of hearts, that Obama is an out-and-out socialist (or even a communist) and that Obama has sympathetic ties to Muslim terrorists. Moreover, those same Americans believe that Obama would like nothing better than to see America, as they know it, destroyed. On the other hand, there are many Americans that believe, in their heart of hearts, that McCain is an out-and-out fascist and war-monger that will not hesitate to send Americans off to their graves in defense of corporate/capitalist interests. So, before I can honestly answer the question, "Should I vote for a so-called-Liberal or should I vote for a so-called Conservative?", I need to know exactly what a "Liberal" is and what a "Conservative" is. And my "need to know" goes way beyond looking up simple word definitions in a dictionary or political science textbook. Indeed, "my need to know" requires a careful examination of what the candidates have done rather than what they have said. That minority of American voters, that have held their noses and have undertaken the effort to scratch through the "politics-as-usual" crap know what John McCain has "done" and know what Joe Biden has "done". McCain and Biden have been U.S. senators for many years and, therefore, members of the Washington elite. Consequently, their voting records, statements in support of their voting records, and virtually anything else connected to their "politics" is easily accessible to any American that can read a newspaper or go on-line.
Prior to 1980, I was not affiliated with any political party. In 1976, I voted for Jimmy ('I'll never lie to you.') Carter. Like many American voters, at the time, I was sick of Watergate and I wanted to see a "fresh" face in the White House. Carter won the election and American voters thought that they got a "fresh face" in the White House, along with what appeared to be an honest and decent man. But Jimmy Carter's "fresh face" was about the only "fresh face" in the White House, for he was immediately surrounded with Washington Insiders and international elitists dictating policy to him. Indeed, Jimmy Carter's face turned from "fresh" to "stale" within a relatively short amount of time. In 1979 I had had enough of Jimmy Carter. Consequently, I registered as a Republican. I, subsequently, voted in the 1980 primaries and cast my vote for Ronald ('Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall') Reagan in the general election. Much like Jimmy Carter, I and many other American voters, perceived Ronald Reagan to be an "honest and decent" man with a "fresh face". Reagan won the election and as soon as he entered the White House he was surrounded by Washington Insiders and international elitists (one of them being his two-term VP) dictating policy to him. After Reagan served two terms, George ('Read my lips; no new taxes') Bush, Reagan's two-term VP and father of our current president, was elected president. George Bush had an impressive (within elitist circles) resume: a fighter pilot in WWII; an Ivy League education (Yale); Texas oilman; a Texas congessman; an American ambassador to the UN; an American ambassador to China; head of the CIA, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The difference between George Bush and both Carter and Reagan is that George Bush was, from day one, a Washington insider and international elitist. Therefore, no one had to dictate policy to him. George Bush ran again only to be defeated by another "fresh face"-- an obscure governor from the state of Arkansas by the name of Bill ('I did not have sex with that woman'/I didn't inhale.') Clinton. Bill Clinton, the first baby-boomer to become president, served two very colorful terms as president. In some circles, he was even described as "the first black president". Clinton was loved by many Americans, but he was equally hated by many Americans. Indeed, many Americans viewed him as "white trash" and, partly, as a result, he was the second US president to be impeached by the US congress. Had Clinton not lied about having sex in the White House he might not have been impeached. And the interesting thing about Clinton's White House sexcapades (lest we forget our history) is that he was more discreet about his "affairs" than was JFK or LBJ (who even bragged about his sexcapades). As for our current president, George Bush (I call him El Presidente Jorge Bush) . . . I can say quite a bit. But for now I'll be kind and just say that George had a tough go at it and, as a result, the American people now have a very low opinion of him. I voted for George the first time around . . . but not the second time around. But please don't take this to mean that I voted for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election . . . for I sat out the 2004 election for a number of reasons. One reason being that getting up off my duff, driving to the polls, and actually voting for either Bush or Kerry would have been an irrational and unconscionable act on my part. As you can see, I'm not a partisan.
Prior to 1980, I was not affiliated with any political party. In 1976, I voted for Jimmy ('I'll never lie to you.') Carter. Like many American voters, at the time, I was sick of Watergate and I wanted to see a "fresh" face in the White House. Carter won the election and American voters thought that they got a "fresh face" in the White House, along with what appeared to be an honest and decent man. But Jimmy Carter's "fresh face" was about the only "fresh face" in the White House, for he was immediately surrounded with Washington Insiders and international elitists dictating policy to him. Indeed, Jimmy Carter's face turned from "fresh" to "stale" within a relatively short amount of time. In 1979 I had had enough of Jimmy Carter. Consequently, I registered as a Republican. I, subsequently, voted in the 1980 primaries and cast my vote for Ronald ('Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall') Reagan in the general election. Much like Jimmy Carter, I and many other American voters, perceived Ronald Reagan to be an "honest and decent" man with a "fresh face". Reagan won the election and as soon as he entered the White House he was surrounded by Washington Insiders and international elitists (one of them being his two-term VP) dictating policy to him. After Reagan served two terms, George ('Read my lips; no new taxes') Bush, Reagan's two-term VP and father of our current president, was elected president. George Bush had an impressive (within elitist circles) resume: a fighter pilot in WWII; an Ivy League education (Yale); Texas oilman; a Texas congessman; an American ambassador to the UN; an American ambassador to China; head of the CIA, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The difference between George Bush and both Carter and Reagan is that George Bush was, from day one, a Washington insider and international elitist. Therefore, no one had to dictate policy to him. George Bush ran again only to be defeated by another "fresh face"-- an obscure governor from the state of Arkansas by the name of Bill ('I did not have sex with that woman'/I didn't inhale.') Clinton. Bill Clinton, the first baby-boomer to become president, served two very colorful terms as president. In some circles, he was even described as "the first black president". Clinton was loved by many Americans, but he was equally hated by many Americans. Indeed, many Americans viewed him as "white trash" and, partly, as a result, he was the second US president to be impeached by the US congress. Had Clinton not lied about having sex in the White House he might not have been impeached. And the interesting thing about Clinton's White House sexcapades (lest we forget our history) is that he was more discreet about his "affairs" than was JFK or LBJ (who even bragged about his sexcapades). As for our current president, George Bush (I call him El Presidente Jorge Bush) . . . I can say quite a bit. But for now I'll be kind and just say that George had a tough go at it and, as a result, the American people now have a very low opinion of him. I voted for George the first time around . . . but not the second time around. But please don't take this to mean that I voted for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election . . . for I sat out the 2004 election for a number of reasons. One reason being that getting up off my duff, driving to the polls, and actually voting for either Bush or Kerry would have been an irrational and unconscionable act on my part. As you can see, I'm not a partisan.
When it comes down to prior political experience determining the success or non-success of a president, I'll say this: Lincoln served eight years in the Illinois legislature and one term as U.S. congressman. Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University and governor of New Jersey. FDR was a state senator for a brief period, assistant navy secretary, and New York governor. Harry Truman was a local administrator, a U.S. senator, and VP for less than three months before assuming the role of president. Dwight Eisenhower was a general. JFK served six years as a U.S. congressman and seven years as a U.S. senator. LBJ served twelve years as a U.S. congressman and twelve years in the U.S. senate and as VP under JFK. Nixon was VP for two terms and prior to that he was a U.S. congressman and senator. Gerald Ford served twenty-four years in the congress and was house minority leader. Jimmy Carter served two terms in the Georgia senate and one term as governor. Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat turned Republican, served two terms as governor of California. George Bush (Reagan's VP) served three years as a U.S. congressman and two terms as VP. Bill Clinton served as attorney general for the state of Arkansas and served as governor for eight years. Our current president, George Bush, was governor of Texas.
As to presidential appointments of judges to the various U.S. courts, history supports the following: All of the above presidents have appointed a number of U.S. judges that, on many occasions, expressed contemporaneous written opinions contrary to the political philosophy and actions of the president that appointed them. That's one of the advantages to being a U.S. judge as opposed to a politician per se: i.e., once a judge is appointed, he or she has leeway when it comes to expressing his or her true opinion. I venture to say that if presidents, senators, and congressman, expressed their "true opinion" to the American public, America would be on the verge of a civil war.
It would benefit the country greatly (and perhaps the rest of the world, too) if Americans were to crack open their history books and their "civics" books--and any other book, for that matter--prior to going to the polls and casting their votes for the next president of the United States. At this point, Americans need to take a long and hard look at themselves, in the mirror, in order to determine who and what they are, what they've become, and where they're headed. To not do so means that American's are content with engaging in a presidential "crap-shoot" every four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
