A Futile Cycle of Government Funded Poverty

I'm feeling sort of guilty for laying into the Republicans last week.  My wife says I was "a bit harsh" and that I'd better treat the Democrats just as bad.  So, there you have it., those are my marching orders.   Also, I did want to apologize for calling the Tea Party - "mouth breathers".   Sorry.

As an Independent who use to be a Republican, I am definitely more "right" leaning than left and the contempt I have for the Republicans and their cronyism goes doubly for the "let us help you out" Democrats. The Democrats in many ways are worse than Republicans because their attitude towards the poor is that they cannot help themselves.  At least the underlying philosophy of the Republicans is that all people are capable of bettering themselves.  They have faith in the abilities of the downtrodden.  The Dems, in essence see  the poor as incapable of bringing themselves out of their situation so the only solution is to steal from the rich via "progressive" taxation.  This has two evils;  1)  The highly condescending attitude that certain groups of people just can't make it on their own.  The poor might love the welfare check they've been promised by the politician but they will never know the fulfillment of getting a job and supporting themselves no matter the struggle required.  The pride of success.  (Not to mention the fact that welfare does not work- it is a futile cycle of government supported poverty ).    2)  Much like any socialist their strategy is to get elected by promising everybody without money the money of those that do have money.   Of course they don't put it like that, they say it's the government's responsibility to "help" the poor.  We all know the  real consequence is it's the money of our future and our children's future that they are spending with such glee and abandon.   In the words of  British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".

The frightening  reality of the words in these blogs regarding our country's two political parties is that each side is so far apart.  They are much further apart than I have seen before.    Neither party is really for the middle class or the small business or for the American people.  They are there for themselves.  That is the sad truth.  As long as each of these parties is swapping power in DC,  our government will be existing first and foremost for itself.    All the talk about working for the American people and "saving the middle class" is nothing more than a lot of empty rhetoric.

Maybe, if he wins, Romney will be different.... Maybe things will change....Maybe.  

I Don't Like Your Party- But I Like Your Candidate

Well, I guess since the GOP's big convention is coming up I better start remarking on the upcoming election, after all, this is a political blog !

As an Independent, I try to see both sides of issues.  Someone once implied that I'm a moderate more than an Independent and there's a lot of truth to that.  If there was a party that offered compromise, duality, and an intelligent approach to governing then I would join that party.  Unfortunately, such a thing does not exist today.

Today we have the Republican party swaying more to the right than ever before.  They are joined at the hip with the "mouth breathing" Tea Party.  They are unyielding on abortion and hypocritically push their "no government involvement" philosophy with the glaring exception of the American bedroom.   They dismiss all defense of the environment as a "liberal" conspiracy and deny any problems with global warming therefor leaving our big mess to grow ever worse for our children.  They go on about the "middle class" when in reality, they are in the back pocket of most of the corporate lobbyists on K street and consistently kill any attempt to close corporate loopholes.  They kiss up to the evangelicals with no intention of following through on their promises.  (No group is more used by the GOP than the right wing evangelicals) They are in full support of cutting absolutely everything in government with the exception of the military.  Never the military because they love America being the world's cop, and they have no problem sending our young men to die for the problems of other countries.  They refuse to compromise.  I don't like them.  

But as I have mentioned before during the primaries, I have liked Romney from the beginning.  He is relatively moderate, he is faithful, he has impeccable morals.  He has experience running a business and experience getting companies out of trouble.  Now he has a running mate who also has  impeccable credentials, he is a straight shooting "numbers" guy, he sees the national debt and runaway spending as a very serious problem AND he has realistic solutions to this issue.  I like them.

My support is for Mitt Romney in this election and I will definitely be voting for him. That is assuming there will be no  "Joe Paterno" like shocker occurring.  In my next blog I will elaborate on the problems I see with President Obama and why I think he should be fired by the American people.

Intelligent Government, An Oxymoron? Part 4

Ok, so we've established that the first step is to remove money from the election process (please see "Intelligent Government, An Oxymoron? parts 1-3 if you don't know what I'm talking about).   This is the first step in our "getting government smart" series "Election Reform Amendment".

The first question that jumps in my head is  "How do we implement such a plan?"   In order to draw out the best potential leaders we have to begin harvesting from existing leadership.    So your religious leaders, Toastmasters, Kiwanis, business leaders, any and all local leadership and even military leaders are open to nomination for positions of local leadership.  Once these leaders have gone through a nomination process from those that know them, each person that is interested in actually running will begin the process of speaking, debating, and having their positions and ideas submitted for review through the local media.  No money is necessary because the facilities where debates and speeches will be located would be at local places for gathering such as civic centers.  NO MORE of these mysterious people who come out of nowhere with bundles of money to start doing the bidding of some select group.  Only local leadership who have shown what they can do and accomplish for their fellow citizens as leaders and administrators.   One other great benefit;  not all of our leaders will be restricted to lawyers.  Hallelujah !

What about higher levels of government ?   As each person is elected to a lower level of government then they qualify for the next level of government., there is no way to go higher unless you have served at the lowest level.  With this requirement you will always be getting the best of the best as you go to a higher level.  In theory, within about 30 years we will have a fully, effective, efficient President who has demonstrated through years of work and dedication to his people that he is essentially the most talented leader in the land.  How can anyone argue against such a circumstance?

I know there are details about all this that would need to be worked out but the details could be hammered out according to local custom and preference.  As long as the structure is there that all leadership nominated must start at the very bottom levels, and that no money is needed, necessary, offered or required. It would strictly be the people listening to the candidate and voting on exactly what he or she thinks, believes, his or her composure,  his or her experience as a leader, and his or her position on the concerns of the governed.  Nothing else.

Disrespect for Olympian Lochte Earns My Wrath

A writer for the Orlando Sentinel (well, actually the Tribune company, so he may be in Chicago... I don't know) wrote an article on Friday, August 3 in which he disrespected my fellow Gator, and Olympic hero Ryan Lochte with a nasty little article implying he's nothing more than a self-satisfied playboy and that his 2 Golds, 2 Silvers and 1 Bronze at the London Olympics are not to be cheered.  Like most Floridians, I've been proud to see Ryan on the international scene, rivaling the mighty Michael Phelps and as a University of Florida alumni (like myself) it's all the more compelling to root for Mr. Ryan.  "Jeah!".  Not only a fellow Floridian and Gator but also half Cuban like my kids !   What's not to like !  So..... when I read this babbling, catty article by David Haugh, you all know faithful readers that I couldn't just "let it go".  The Orlando Sentinel was kind enough to print my letter of protest yesterday, Saturday August 4.

Here it is;


"Lochte hardly failed even next to Phelps" 

Regarding David Haugh's column "Another golden day at Olympics" on Friday about Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte: I was disgusted by the bitter commentary on Lochte's so-called failure for bringing home "only" five medals (two gold, two silver and a bronze).
He even went so far as to say that "we may never look at Ryan Lochte the same again." I have been proud to watch a citizen of Florida demonstrate such tenacity in competition and such grace and class in loss (if you can call silver and bronze medals losses).
His close friendship with Phelps seems sincere, and all Americans should be proud that two rivals showed the world what friendly competition can look like.
Although both swimmers certainly have different personalities, both are also well-known contributors of time and money to children's charities, and I don't agree that one can be held above the other regarding scruples, as Haugh implies.
Please stop trying to make everything into good versus bad, moral versus immoral, right versus left and for once focus on that which binds us together during these Olympics — that we are all Americans, and we should be proud of Phelps, Lochte and all the Olympians who do their best in London this summer.

Charles E. Marshall Clermont