.

 

I’ve been riding them hard.

The swells have been timely as of late,

their action and motion subject of debate,

these look offshore, glassing off nicely,

but they suck.

Up close they reveal their true break,

they are the children of onshore,

birthed in nasty political winds.

 

Yeah, I caught one on the left I thought was good,

started my take off at what I thought a good peak,

but it went to section on me, watery sneak,

so I busted a floater trying to break free,

and it got me.

This selfish wave of “free” philosophy,

began a taxing riding, began tubing me.

Ubi Est Meum.

 

Then another break from the right gave me a slam,

pulling me under, in turbulent Darwinian dark,

this one’s acting like a greedy corporate shark,

taking compassion and busting it on the reef,

and it disillusioned me.

This heavy wave of “compassionate” politics,

began drowning me, making me wonder, is this

E Pluribus Unum?

 

I got back in, powering a bottom turn,

from the top of the waves I could impress,

seeing down the line and reducing their petty arguments,

allowing a glorious re-entry on each type,

rebuilding confidence in me.

Taking their quirks to a gnarly extreme,

gave opportunity for radicals, gave me the win.

Reductio ad absurdum.

 

I’m stepping a board of Freedom now,

I’ve found the balance between the swells,

using their awesome power for Us,

the way it is meant to be, All riding Free,

it all empowering we.

If We learn to surf the political waves,

as opposed to the political waves surfing Us,

Per Licentia nos fio Unus.

 

.

.


In full comprehension of nada,

sometimes absence can contain,

yet we often find it will sustain,

without it balance cannot maintain,

this unusual lack of something,

that we in irony call "nothing."


In hearing the music of nada,

sometimes absence hums a melody,

often we hear an eerie harmony,

for without it meaningless is the symphony,

this macbre lack of sound,

that we in irony deem as "silence."


In observing the visage of nada,

sometimes absence appears as blindness,

yet we still discern light in darkness,

this discomforting situation of sightless,

that we in irony point to as lacking "vision."


So you see that when you hear,

after stating to someone "gracias,"

and receive the reply of "de nada,"

perhaps finally comprehending the lesson,

that nothing is truly something.


.

I flipped through an astrology book yesterday at a bookstore.  This is rare for me, but since I didn't manage to find Ken Wilber in the philosophy section, and gave a whirl at the "New Age" section (yup, there were some of his books), and astrology was co-located with "New Age."

Well, let me take a step back from what would then cause for the browsing of the book.  I was somewhat passionate about the fact that in the middle of the store's "feature" area, this one quite timely with the candidates, I found the following:

1) Not a single book regarding the Libertarian Party (or their candidates), independents, or other third party nominations and/or processes;

2) 1 book each on the Democratic nomination process and the Republican nomination process, both books satiric;

3)  2 books regarding McCain (none about Palin);

4)  all the rest, 17 volumes, regarding Obama/Biden.

I was somewhat inflamed about the lack of balance displayed in the store.  Mind you, I would be equally passionate (if not more)  if the stats were skewed so obviously to McCain.

So, what makes me tick?  What makes me passionate?  What makes me take up for and argue for the underdog in any debate or in a situation of strife?

Hence, the astrology book.  Here it was - the answers to your life, as reasoned by how one is driven by which date they were born.

Hmm.  Ah, here it is.  July 21.  Left column on left page  - notable people born on this date, and an italicized notation above them - "People born on this date are tragicomic,  with most notable people born on this date having committed suicide."

WTF?!?!?

This is a great start.  Superb.  Yippee.

I read on, having absolutely no idea what "tragicomic" could possibly be (other than an unusual combination of of tragedy and comedy), but it sounded bad enough that I think I did not to be a "tragicomedian."

I find that apparently folks who were born on this date live life with vigor - too much vigor.  We supposedly like to live on the edge, abusing our bodies and those around us.  When there is no edge, we supposedly create one; we argue a side of a debate simply for the joy of arguing (despite how we actually feel about the issues).  We have a lot of "passion" about life.

Reflecting on this, I wondered if this was the root of my passion for life, for my direct nature of approaching relationships, challenges, and strife. 

Does this passion come from the date upon which I was born?  Does it come from the environment of my upbringing?  Is it genetic?

Ugh.  Too complex of questions.

I note that Robin Williams is also a July 21st baby.  He hasn't committed suicide, so perhaps this book, while absolutely intriquing, may not be completely accurate.

So, perhaps approach this from the opposite direction (those of us of July 21st fame are good at this, it seems), which would be -

How does one become dispassionate?



(cross-posted here:  How does one become dispassionate?)

Yes, indeed, as each day passes, I realize that I have thought, and continue to think, more and more about the past and the future.

The bottom line is that I embrace the past, and with this under my belt, await the future;  I do this in revelry of today without committing myself to past or future.

"Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment."   - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta

  .

Teaching the little ones

Innocence divine

How the Sequoia grows high

Towering endurance

How fire balances the deep soil

Cleansing earth

Ashes away to their competitors

A new womb

Fires drying their humble pinecones

Planting seeds.

 

Then the winds breath through softly

Through the Giants' tops

And the Redwoods sing ancient songs

And I shut up and listen

And let the trees teach their True Lessons.

 

How their beautifully thick skins

This precious red bark

Provides resistance and protects from fire

A shield of love

While their sweetly smelling resins

Defeat devouring insects

A grand dance of manipulation

Enemies into friends.

One of the very few causes of their death

Is success

Growing so tall, majestic, massive

They fall

Earth reaches in an embrace

Come home

Beckoning the tree to simply bow

And simply topple.

 

I begin anew to give instruction

Provide insight

While their grand toppling thunders

Rolling through my mind

Sinking the deep redwood scent

In my nostrils

A simple truth is sniffed on the wind

Let the trees tell the story.

 

Then the winds breath through softly

Through the Giants' tops

And the Redwoods sing ancient songs

And I shut up and listen

And let the trees teach their True Lessons.

.

  

What is wrong with you people?!?!?  What is wrong with me?!?!?!?

People, chill the hell OUT.

Please do me a favor.  Until we get through November, please try to limit the amount of time we meander through these days wearing our Blue, Orange, or Green tinted glasses.

By the way, if Obama/Biden win, I'd be happy to purchase train and bus tickets for Republicans to escape the horrors that will undoubtedly beset the United States.  This crowd hasn't publically announced in which country their assylum will take place.  Then again, perhaps they don't need a country - they can escape to Alaska I suppose.  Yet, my experience in Alaska was that of Democrats ruling the local elections (most often the state as well), while Republicans taking the Federal spots.  That's a typical Alaskan way of thinking based upon my observations, actually - "We'll take care of our own, thank you.  Oh, keep your greasy Federal paws off us, our land, and our values.  Don't call us, and rest assured we won't call you.  By the way - New Yorker?  Don't give us opinions regarding lands and animals which you have never seen."

By the way, if McCain/Palin win, I'd be happy to purchase train and bus tickets for Democrats to escape the horrors that will undoubtedly beset the United States.  This crowd has stated their intentions for Canada, which quite ironically separates the Continental United States from Alaska.  "Oh, Canada," by the way, I apologize up front for all of the worldview whining with which you will have to listen.  Then again, I suppose you have enough of your own already, so are probably jaded (green, of course) in that regard.  Perhaps they can camp on the Yukon Territory/Alaskan border and hurl insults at the evil conservatives who hole up in the Last Frontier.  Oh, even more juicy, camp out along the Alaskan Highway and wave protest signs at the evil conservatives making their pilgrammages between Alaska and Continental United States.

Oh, see a trend here?  I'd be MOST pleased to purchase tickets for BOTH crowds in the very unlikely circumstance that Barr/Root should prevail.  That would leave the 6% of the citizens (let's not forget the non-citizens who want nothing more than to survive, and could give a rat's ass about politics) with true common sense with quite a lot of nice resources and a beautiful land, thank you very much.

So, here sit a passionate few on Gaia who attempt to look at all of this objectively being assaulted and harrassed by constant opinion from the "Left."

Eve Ensler on Sarah Palin is one fine example.  Isn't that just a wonderfully "balanced" article?  Here, I'll save you a mouse click:

---

  
"

'Drill, Drill, Drill'  by playwright, Eve Ensler

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story - connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, 'It was a task from God.'

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, 'Drill Drill Drill.' I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?

~~~"

---

  
To which I heartily respond:

"So, what is the point? 

If I understand the point appropriately, I think I got it - in spades.

Democrats' ranks are full of folks who are REALLY green and REALLY angry and detest lower memes.  Republicans' ranks are full of folks who are REALLY blue (shades of orange) and REALLY don't appreciate all percieved rule-bending and status-quo boat rocking by hippie granola munchers.

Oh, wait. 

The first part of that point hardly gets mentioned (linking democrats to a CG of green) on Gaia.  What?

Sigh.


But wait, there's more.  At least one fact, I have experienced first hand in recent years (months, days, hell, MINUTES), as stated in the article quoted, that I know for fact is bunk. 

"'Drill Drill Drill.' .... I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent." 

Goodness, Ms. Eve, when was the last time which you have participated in such an exercise to where you can make an informed observation.  Um, dear Eve?  When's the last time you partook of military "drills"?   For that matter, when was the last time you witnessed such an exercise to make an educated guess?  Oh, nevermind, we probably watched a movie or television show that informs us all.

My experience points to the antithesis - drilling of procedures, but within that basic foundation, very intelligent people continusously analyze, assess, question what they observe, thrive in abiguity (since, after all, the "enemy" does have a vote!), and quite often voice their dissenting opinions - and are encouraged often to do so.

Now, at least one "fact" as portrayed by Ms. Ensler is greatly misleading, which causes me to conduct active research on the other "points" of "fact."

Can we not take a step back, for both sides wanting to buy tickets out of this Valley of Death, woe be unto us, yeah though we rent and gnash our teeth in this Hades that is called the United States of America that it will continue to slide into if either side should prevail in this election? 

News flash!!!!!!  No matter who wins, 1/2 of the folks in this country will be completely pissed off.  In the eyes of a partisan, we are in a loose-loose proposition here, unless, of course, our side wins!  In my eyes, we are win-win, since we have a programmed change of leadership upon us that causes us to re-think the way we allow ourselves to be governed.

Oh, by the way, it has always sucked.  Or, should I say, the politicians have always been sucked and do the sucking?  Every four years, it is the end of the world as we know it, for at least 1/2 the US population.  Ok, ok, if a Republican is elected, then it is four years of doom for the rest of the world, too (well, at least Europe, but then again, from their eyes, is there really a world beyond Europe?).

How about a more objective view of this Palin et al business (Lisa Nesselson on Sarah Palin - and JFK, Marilyn Monroe, us.... )? 

" more objective, non-partisan, view of Sarah Palin and the current state of affairs.  Indeed, there's thinkers out there who transcend the current polarized political schemata....

JFK, Marilyn Monroe and, uh, Sarah Palin - The French Recollection

---

When I was a little girl, one still heard the inspiring slogan that America was a place so full of promise and equal opportunity that "Any boy can grow up to be president."

(The 21st century corollary, "Any flag lapel pin-sporting attractive outdoorsy conservative female with five children one of whom is being deployed to Iraq can grow up to be nominated for Vice President" was not yet being bandied about.)

Having just finished the unfussily titled Marilyn et JFK, a brand new French-language tome by prominent journalist Francois Forestier, I have to think that, above all, a president-to-be needs extraordinary organizational skills.

Because it's difficult for me to understand how a head of state could have such frequent sex with so many different women in so many places and still run the country.

JFK initiated and completed encounters with the fair sex in the amount of time I might dedicate to eating a small Hershey bar. Mr. Kennedy's relentless extracurricular pronging is now common knowledge, but was not well known to the nation when he occupied the White House.

Reading Mr. Forestier's book - which, on September 11 at the Deauville Festival of American Film, will receive the 34-year-old event's Literary Prize, (an award that has previously gone to Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer and Budd Schulberg) - one is reminded that the field of journalism has changed quite a bit since "Camelot."

And not just because it is possible for Sam Zell to continue to wield power and influence after stating that the most valuable reporters are the ones who crank out the most stories. (One word is as good as another, apparently. That's certainly going to save ME a lot of time as a reporter from now on.)

And, since people who read newspapers probably enjoy reading, getting rid of the book review section of the LA Times seems about as bright as trying to kill Castro with poison pens and exploding (or LSD-laced) cigars.

In Kennedy's day, the electorate was spared too many potentially upsetting details about the president's penchant for swift horizontal exercise.

Forestier describes Washington Post publisher Phil Graham's champagne-fueled outburst at the AP convention in 1963. Although he and JFK were friends, Graham blew a gasket wanting to know why the president's seemingly bottomless appetite for having sex with women other than his wife was conspicuously absent from print and the airwaves.

Yeah - why DOES the press discuss some things and ignore others? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's obituary in the NY Times said of the Russian writer's acceptance speech for the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature :

"He wrote that while an ordinary man was obliged 'not to participate in lies,' artists had greater responsibilities. 'It is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie!'"

Consensual peccadillos involving genital contact needn't be a blight on anybody's resumé - except maybe the Pope's.

And adultery, the use of call girls - or boys - and out-of-wedlock underage pregnancies needn't make headlines. Unless, that is, the people caught with their pants down (or their skirts up) have made "family values" or "chastity" or "fidelity" or "accountability" a cornerstone of their presumed moral superiority.

You know, moral superiority, virtuous conduct, an iron grip on right and wrong - the stuff from which flows the privilege to lead, be it from a pulpit or a government office.

Maureen Orth's recent Vanity Fair profile of France's first lady Carla Bruni Sarkozy tells me - and anybody else who can read English - the names of quite a few of the men with whom Ms. Bruni went steady. But Madame Sarkozy doesn't have the wisp of a problem with her prior romances being public. She has nothing to hide. The only danger is to her feelings or those of her former paramours.

It would be premature to put blackmail on the Endangered Species List in American politics, but in decades past, having the "goods" on activities considered bad was as potent as having a nuclear warhead and the means to launch it.

Forestier neatly lays out that JFK and RFK (and select Mob kingpins and J. Edgar Hoover and the KGB, to name but a few) had such a problem with their literally dangerous liaisons that, Forestier implies, people died. Marilyn Monroe just being the only household word.

In the introduction to his 90,000 word hardback essay Marilyn, Norman Mailer wrote, "For Marilyn, so soon as one attempts to classify her too neatly, goes to phosphorescence and dust."

Sarah Palin on the other hand, seems to have been manufactured in a lab for the express purpose of being "classified neatly."

Life experiences garnered beyond America's borders - not to mention, facts - are just too confusing for some voters.

For example, a poll cited last month in the international edition of Newsweek says that 12 percent of Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim - and this despite frequent coverage of his churchgoing. (That Muslim rascal - trying to pass himself off as a Christian.)

Forestier's book reminds us that Joe Kennedy had goons ask Sammy Davis Jr. (who had one glass eye) whether he "wanted to lose his other eye" in order to dissuade him from attending JFK's inaugural, to which he had been invited. Apparently the filthy rich ex-bootlegger was not offended so much by the color of Davis' skin but by the fact that he was Jewish. Gosh, it's good to have priorities in one's prejudices.

(Deauville is presenting a complete retrospective of films by Spike Lee, who was not yet three years old when Mr. Davis was warned not to show his ebony face at the inaugural bash.)

In his introduction, Forestier says "And they expect us to believe that we don't know who killed Kennedy? That it's just one of those eternal mysteries... where we'll never ever know what happened?"

Well, yeah - that IS what they expect us to believe. Only some ornery European with an attention span and a fondness for examining evidence would question Oswald as lone nut assassin and find a reputable publisher for his breezy roundup. Pesky foreigners like Forestier probably think Sarah Palin was manufactured in a lab - or pulled out of a hat - in order to pander to specific demographics.

Literally hundreds of books have been written about the Kennedys and about Monroe. Forestier connects the dots.

I was surprised to learn that JFK dropped acid just a few days before the Cuban Missile Crisis. In retrospect, that makes it a little nutty to have pilloried Bill Clinton for pot smoking (albeit of the purely cosmetic variety, unburdened by the effort of inhaling) or suggesting that Obama may have suffered character-stunting brain damage from youthful drug experimentation.

Like I said, volumes galore have been written about the Kennedys and about Monroe. I'm not planning to read them. Which frees me up to read about the accomplishments-to-date and outstanding legislative feats of Sarah Palin.

Okay, I'm done.

If one were flippant and cynical, one could argue that Marilyn Monroe, who was intimately acquainted with many powerful men, was as qualified to run for the next-to-the-highest elective office in the land as is Ms. Palin.

Of course, Ms. Monroe had many, many abortions and no children.

But she was pretty and talented and extremely American. She was an effective public speaker, too. When asked what she slept in, Ms. Monroe had the wit to reply "Chanel Number 5." We needn't ask Ms. Palin the same question.

First off, whether she's Pro-Birthday Suit or staunchly Right-to-Pajamas might be too hardball as questions to government officials go these days. And secondly, we know the answer: She sleeps wrapped in a little number Betsy Ross whipped up. And even if the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate does have a favorite fragrance, she would not broadcast that it was a perfume made in - horrors - France.

This November 22nd will mark 45 years since John F. Kennedy was fatally shot.

There is reason to believe that the accurate tabulating of votes in U.S. elections has been shot for quite some time.

As a nod to unreliable electronic voting machines and to (paraphrasing Henry Kissinger's remark about oil and Arabs) anybody who thinks voting is too important to be left in the hands of citizens, dare we re-name one of Ms. Monroe's better known efforts?

"Some Like it Shot."

~~~~~

---

 
See the difference between the articles?  If you cannot see the objectivity in article #2, then welcome to Green.  Neither are commendatory, yet #2 does it without outright and blatant endorsement.

The partisan viewpoints are getting to me.  I admit it.  They completely sicken me - make my tummy roll and rumble, make my visage turn a bit greenish (oh, God, any color but GREEN!).

My family is right.  I should just post poetry a couple of times a week and keep my egotistical mouth shut. 

The problem is -  hardly anyone appreciates poetry these days. 
.

 

I sat in a very boring meeting today and sketched an outline of this blog in my trusty Moleskine.  Save collecting a few direct quotes, no further editing has been applied.  So, it is off the top of my head, thus if the logic seems askew, you have "the rest of the story."

This blog is a clarification of a statement made on a discussion pod (link is here).  In this discussion, I pointed out "then again, President and Vice President is supposed to be 1 and 2 of the electoral vote, not a "one party" ticket."  I have had two requests via mail to expand upon this statement.

The current practice of lumping a President and Vice President in a singular voting action does not seem Constitutional.  At the very least, it probably is not aligned with the vision those who framed the Constitution probably had in mind.

The original wording regarding the election of President and Vice President was outlined in Article II, Section 1.  It states -

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President."

Here is a compact "EXSUM" for those who breeze right on by lengthy quotes or any script in italics.  It basically says in a Presidential election, the person having the greatest number of electoral votes is the President, while the person with the second most electoral votes becomes the Vice President.  Kind of lost in the 18^th Century "fluff" of vocabulary is the implication that each elector could vote for two candidates.   I think the best thing that could further the "good" in the memes presented and/or championed by disparate political parties would be a President of one party and a VP of another since that would force the continuing dialogue of differences, and force the true leadership of wrestling with those underlying Integral truths.  Further, if the US should tire greatly of one party or another, then the voters through their electorates could purposely select both the President and Vice President out of the same party.

On June 15, 1804, the 12^th Amendment was ratified, thus changing the election verbiage to the following-

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum  for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

EXSUM time again - the difference here is that there would be one ballot for President, and that there would be another ballot for Vice President.  In other words, the election process for President and Vice President would be separated.

The reason for the change of process requires, for me at least, an understanding of history.  First, the Constitution was written before parties were a player in American politics.   This process of selecting #1 and #2 candidates made great sense for the citizens.  The Constitution was finally ratified by a majority of states in 1789, but by the mid-1790s, the US already began the dangerous dance with Political Parties (some state this became a grotesque dance of stylization and a patina of make-up in a metaphor as a Kabuki Dance, but I think that this metaphor is grossly disrespectful of that fine Japanese cultural tradition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabuki). 

When John Adams was chosen for President in the 1796 election, the second-place candidate, Thomas Jefferson, became Vice President - but Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican.  Lo and behold, Adams and Jefferson had a number of political viewpoint differences, some of them wrought in the new political party process, and hence clashed a bit.  Some perceived that this was not healthy or efficient for the Executive Branch.  However, I disagree with most of the esteemed Doctorate of Philosophy historians in that I nod to the differences and clashes between Adams and a fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton that probably caused the nation - not to mention Adams - much more concern. 

Apparent flaws in the original system outlined above seemed to come to light in the election of 1800.  Electors could vote for only the President, but could vote twice.  Due to public discord of open differences within the Federalist Party, Democratic-Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got an equal amount of "winning" votes (73) in the Electoral College, forcing the House of Representatives (majority control by the Federalist Party) to choose. The problem?  #1 and #2 candidates were of the same party; Jefferson and Burr were candidates of the same opposing party of the House members.  So, the problem, defined, is the one of the first "spite" votes, with Burr chosen to be the Vice President; some states preferred Burr, and neither was able to get the required majority until the stalemate was ultimately broken.

The result of all this scuttlebutt was the 12th Amendment, approved in Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804 (189 days), in time for the new process to be in place for the 1804 election. With the 12th, Electors are directed to vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than for two choices for President.  The intent, in my view, for this Amendment probably was not to ensure the President and Vice President to hail from the same party, but to ensure the election would not again be hijacked by political parties (Jefferson, by the way, had a 22.8% lead on the popular vote) and back into the hands of the people.  It probably intended to allow for a same-party selection, but to no intent to ensure it.

I have no doubt they did not intend to force voters into a one-vote selection for both offices, hence making the electors' work that much easier.  I don't have enough historical knowledge to know when this system became bastardized after the 12^th Amendment, but it quite obviously has been bastardized, and in the context of the original Constitution and the 12^th Amendment, our current practice does not make sense nor does it seem Constitutional.  At the very least, the Executive Branch only spans two memes at best (Repulical Amber-Orange or Democrat Red-Green) where a combination of candidates, as the people of the US would probably support given recent polling, would at least force a President and Vice President representing two memes each to collaborate.  We'd at least span more memes in representation in that branch...

Regardless, we managed to ensure the entire Executive Branch to be monopolized by solely one Party each four years.  George Washington, in his written Farewell Address letter of September 17, 1796, clearly articulated the dangers of political parties -

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Amen, George.  Your wisdom certainly provided an insight to the future which bore true.

I found a delightfully thought-provoking blog here:  It's Time to Act 

In this blog, I found a statement to which I provide a verbose diversion  -
 

I want the rich to spend their money responsibily, and take into consideration that maybe it's not necessary to for two people to live in a house that is big enough for 10 people to live with room left over.  That doesn't make since to me.

As is probably evident in my writings and observations, I am staunchly against a State-mandated social system.  Now, I am in no way inferring here that is what you are advocating, since your post obviously transcends the "normal" party divisions and thoughts on "being neighborly."  State directed redistrution of wealth has consistently failed - remember, this goes far, far beyond "socialism" and our experience with this concept in the 20th Century; this concept goes as far back in Western history as Medieval times (where both wealth and safety - safety as a "commodity," now there's something for me to reflect upon if not expand upon in the future - were redistributed).

For just shy of two centuries, America was a shining beacon to others in the world.  Why? It is because of the obvious burning desire of the founders of the American political process to establish a country of historically unprecedented "liberty."  This is little wonder, given the new arrivals to the New World had left behind rigid religious oppression and class systems.  A perceived arrogant and high-handed George the III, with expectations of payment for the 30 Years War expansion into North America, only sharpened the talons of resentment of State control and lack of representation in government.  The United States, soundly rooted in an ideal of liberty for all, marked an amazing step forward in the evolution and meme of human political arrangements.

As evidenced by the desires of non-US citizens to migrate to the US, the nation still provides inspiration to those seeking to shake the shackles of their own country's political circumstance, yet this inspiration does not shine quite as brightly.  Even in the face of obvious remnants of entrepreneurship, invention, and creativity, there remains more criminals, hopeless individuals, those dependent upon society, and outright deliberate parasites. 

Which solution do we throw at this problem?  More State involvement in managing society?  More liberty to allow individuals to shake free of their circumstances?

I say it is BOTH.  The state should be underwriting and protecting individual liberties and simultaneously taking care of those in society who are truly disparate, or suffer from the machinations of the State (such as Veterans as well as those others who may be adversely affected by the "common good") and providing circumstances for ensuring Liberty and preventing parasites.

What is the glue in a society of Liberty that  provides this?  What is the common factor in preventing parasites?

That, my friends, is responsibility.  Since the early 1900's, it seems the ideals of liberty and personal responsibility have been drifting apart.  I believe that liberty cannot exist without responsibility, and personal responsibility is moot sans liberty.  Without the inject of personal responsibility, then our actions in a society is nothing more than formal permission from the State to "do something."  This kind of formal, governmental, permission is known as "license."

Licensed liberty has become almost an accepted expectation in the US - perhaps a good portion of democratic societies.  It rears its head in a plethora of manifestations - the demand for income as a right (income is produced/generated "elsewhere"), the expectation of guaranteed commercial success (witness "bailout" actions in the US in 2008, as well as subsidies and protection from "outside" competition), and in expectation of freedom to do anything anyone wants without restraint and often without cost. 

Here's the problem.  Liberty requires personal responsibility.  Without personal responsibility, it is quite apparent that our political parties and our government become an elaborate means of shifting "blame," then compelling the other "side" to fix our problems, and a sanctioned culture of living off the efforts of others without being a contributor to the holarchy.  The key is that a holarchy is comprised of holons that have a purpose.  By necessity, as responsibility declines, the political system grows in correlation to become increasingly more oppressive and burdensome.  We have more politicians passing more laws telling the citizens what to do, and using a war as an excuse for passing legislation which erodes those basic liberties necessary to a free society.  Insult to injury is taxation initiatives fostering handouts to support not those who cannot give to their society but to those who choose or simply do not want to give to their society.  Before anyone really notices the dangers of eroding liberty that was caused by lack of personal responsibility, we have the State necessarily taking over the responsibility functions and tells the citizens what they can eat, what vitamins they must take, what risks they are allowed to assume, what they can read, what they can paint, and what poetry they can write.

The danger of ditching the hard course of responsibility, which requires perseverance and integrity (in seeing things as we wish to see them, as opposed to how they may actually be and finding the truth embedded in each and every perspective) then we begin to erode the foundation of liberty.  As we find our liberty eroding, we loose the ability to choose our own actions and make our own choices - and in essence loose the complete qualities of responsibility and a unique virtue of cultural quid pro quo that makes us human.  The nature of our species forged through evolutionary and God-given forces requiring us to make conscious choices rather than a simple, instinctual programming for automatic responses.  A beautiful by-product of this nature are distinctly unique individuals who have formed different goals and raison d'etre.  Liberty is the mechanism encouraging us to pursue these divergent paths, and without liberty we quickly find that our choices are constrained or bastardized to fit the goals of others.
 

It is an ugly cycle, this which we bring ourselves, as we force others to fill the vacuum of this individual nature to act for reasons not of our own, and then we have become enslaved in an inability to choose and pursue our own goals.  If we, or the State, forces a person to "do the right thing" (pay attention, both Democratic and Republican parties!!), the credibility of that forces action is compromised (you cannot "force" neighborly behaviors by redistributing wealth); the very moral worth and the moral purpose for the action has been subsumed and reduced to nil. 

Only when we do the "right thing" freely can we have confidence in our character and that of others.  I you act as I think you should, or vice versa, then it is known that those actions resulted from virtues of integrity, collaboration, benevolence, and productiveness to society, and hence these actions resulting from "good" character.  If an action is taken as a result of force or out of fear of repercussions, then we know nothing about the truth of character behind those actions.

We do know, however, that we have removed the conditions for the free exercise of virtue.

So, yes, indeed.  Let's not only expect the rich to spend their money responsibly, but extend the responsibility to every citizen of free society.

.

(Cross-posted on God Pod and generating great discussion here:  On Liberty and Responsibility )

 

To: (below are my elected officials, insert yours!)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison

Sen. John Cornyn

Rep. Silvestre Reyes

September 24, 2008

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "Holistic Economic Liberation Package for United States (HELP US)" dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.  If you don't like my math, then it is you, after all, who is responsible for census and getting good population counts upon which you are responsible for determining equitable apportionment.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

The dividend that I propose is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as "Holistic Economic Liberation Package for United States (HELP US)" dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. That would make a quite politically marketable compromise.

So let's assume a generous, if not liberal, tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to the Federal Government.

This nets for every adult 18+ a nice little sum of  $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife (or even "married couple in San Fransisco) has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your houseold? Here's some thoughts -

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost into the brave new world for new grads. 

Put away money for college - it'll be there, and our future adults will be that much more intelligent.

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs (I'd not be nervous to lend $100,000 at 7% or higher APR!).

Buy a new car - create jobs and possibly save flailing US automotive industry.

Invest in the market - capital drives growth.

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves.

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else.  

Put up a windmill generator or solar panels in my back yard - reduce global warming. 

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it, as opposed to  trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.  Let's re-distriubte the wealth to those who generate it in the first place!

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

Yours Truly,

Mr. jeepdog

.

 

The Cloud Faeries pranced through sky,

   On beautiful clouds of fluffy white,

They played with joy, and danced with glee,

  Skipping across cloud cotton with true delight.

The People looked to the clouds up high,

  And exclaimed loudly to the air,

‘Oh beautiful faeries!  Oh faeries so fair,

  How gracefully you dance,

       You dance,

       You dance!

How gracefully you dance in the air!'

Sun beamed higher than clouds above,

  Pulling moisture vapor upward, quite profound,

Sapped diligently, evaporated deliberately,

  Pulling the water from the ground.

Higher and higher the water sails lightly,

  Filling the clouds and tickling the Faeries,

Making them happy and playful,

  Giggling with joy and in glee,

        In glee,

        In glee,

Giggling with joy and in glee.

Tickled Cloud Faeries lightly caressing,

  In turn tickling the clouds, their friends,

Causing the clouds to rumble and flash,

  And making them cry in torrents.

This sky-borne cacophony made quite a splash,

  As the rain fell on the brown turf below,

The arid desert lapped up the water with greed,

        With greed,

       With greed!

The arid desert lapped up the water with greed.

The Faeries resumed playing hopscotch,

  On their friends the Clouds above,

Encouraging them in the white march,

  Fluffing along easterly with Faeries' gentle shove.

Finding new lands to the east upon which to drop,

  This water gift of life announced before and aft,

By Rainbow Faeries playing in light and rain,

       Light and rain,

       Light and Rain!

Rainbow Faeries playing in light and rain.

And so beautiful colors washed the faces,

  Of the Cloud Faeries drifting in white spaces,

As they fell asleep in blankets of fluffy white clouds.



.