Home : Blogs : Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web : Ha Media's Marketing & Advertising Blog

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless the electorate is STUPID.

Stupidity is a sin. Yep, I firmly believe that in a Democracy, stupidity is dangerous, and the one thing that our brilliant forefathers did not foresee to the fullest extent.

I am not a member of MENSA, and only hold a lowly BA, so please, spare me the elitist labels. But I do my OWN research. I watch Jon Stewart as occasion will allow, but do not take what he says as fact - but as entertainment, that at times, presents factual info, in addition to making me laugh. But this isn't about me, it's about what appears to be a huge shift in what we, as a nation, as a people, find acceptable. It's about the need everyone in power nowadays feels to cater to the "average American".

I don't like "average" in anything. I spent my whole life admiring those who were NOT average, whether through talent or will. I don't ever recall aspiring to score a "C" or to not win a game. Since when has it become for us not only ok to aspire to averageness, but to celebrate it?

If Joe-The-Lying-Sack-of-Shit-Plumber is the one who can sway opinions of the politicians who are supposed to represent me, than I am not game. I don't want my life and that of my kids to depend in any way on the opinions and bullying tactics of those who scream the loudest, those who carry the scariest sounding posters to the Town Halls, those who on the best of days cannot string two freaking words together to save their souls (yep, that's Sarah Palin for those who care).

I can put all kinds of trust in a democracy in which I have the ability to make some sort of an impact on my own life, but not the one that is overrun by the mob with combined IQ of a toddler, and not one comprised of people too LAZY to read anything that's longer than a Glenn Beck segment.

So yeah, I want my country back... The one where VOTERS are supposed to be FREE THINKING, i.e. able and willing to think for themselves, able and willing to do their own research, able and willing to engage in debate on matters that affect us all. I want my country back. This is not nor has it ever been an ‘average country'. Why are we allowing it to turn into one?

I think it's time the thinking people of this country come together. The coffee-drinkers, the elitists, the educated-enough-to-think-for-themselves, the ones who don't think colleges and universities are evil, the ones who read at least portions of the health care bill for themselves, the ones who did not think the Patriot Act was going to keep us safe... well, you get the point.

It's time for the rest of us, marginalized by the wing-nuts, to speak out!!!

So let's start a revolution. Let's speak our minds, because there is nothing wrong with a high IQ, there is nothing wrong with being able to communicate in complete sentences, and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to have the morons decide our future.

Are you game?

cause i rock...

Posted by Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web on 08/26/2009 02:09 PM

Comments (67)

coffedrinkersunite, fuck the tea parties, elitist is not a bad thing, free thinkers speak up, average sucks

Post is included in group: Dissent
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Proud to be a Liberal
Post is included in group: Dead Rainers Society
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics

67 Comments on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless the electorate is STUPID.

AUG

Wow, nice post Inna. You mean we don't have to play to the lowest common denominator? I have to agree that the rewards shouldn't be given to those who do "average" work. I want everyone to have a chance and an opportunity to succeed but as we know "the cream rises to the top." It will be interesting to see the sort of comments this post generates.

Amen!

"This is not nor has it ever been an ‘average country'. Why are we allowing it to turn into one?"....Inna, I ask this question all the time. I do like your post and I hope people will read it.

Patrick - thank you for reading. We'd hope cream rises to the top, though once the substance from which cream is to be derived pasturized and diluted, will there be any cream at all?
I am sure the comments will, indeed, be interesting.:-)

Tchaka - thank you! :-)

Inna, the morons have been deciding our future for decades, and they've always responded to those who made the most noise. That is the essence of democracy. That's why it makes no difference which political party is in power, for government in general is of and for little minds. I agree with Winston Churchill that, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Inna - well put as usual! Those of us that are enlightened have an obligation to the "Joe six pack/Joe the plumber" crowd. We must enact changes that bring them away from the amoral abyss of their duplicitous leaders. Some times we must make positive changes with them kicking and screaming against us all the way. Now is just such a time.

John Mulkey, to an extent, you are correct. I just don't want it to remain that way. Of course I also tend to think that we, as a nation, are dumber now than we've ever been.

John Secor - thank you. I think if we don't do something now, we will, indeed, be bulldozed over by the birthers/deathers and screamers. A scary place this will be, if we trade the best values of liberalism for the appearance of political correctness.

So does it mean you are game?

I'm game. I love the Joe-The-Lying-Sack-of-Shit Plumber remark.

Isn't it funny how conservatives seem to only be able to come up with Morons?

They like to nominate movie stars and C-average students...and Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin with her silly communications degree (after she QUIT business school)

But give them somebody that graduated in the top 10% at Harvard Law-- somebody who actually DOES know what the Vice President's job is-- and they all bury their heads in the sand.

Let's take a look at recent history:

Nixon-- criminal who was forced to resign in shame

Reagan-- movie star for goodness sakes, no advanced degree.

George Senior-- no legal education, no advanced degree.

George W.-- very poor business student and not a lick of legal education or advanced degree

McCain-- No advanced education or legal training. War hero of course, but being held captive doesn't make one qualified to run our country. We have millions of war heroes.

Palin-- not even worth mentioning...but I will. She has a "communications" degree (public speaking and letter writing classes) and no clue of legal matters whatsoever. Quit business school. Quit public office.

JFK-- educated at the Choate School, the London School of Economics, and Harvard. His undergraduate dissertation at Harvard, a study of British appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, was published as a book entitled Why England Slept in 1944.

Carter-- Advanced degrees from Georgia Inst. of Tech AND Union College. Author of 18 books. Most of the bigger words he uses-- George W can't even pronounce.

Clinton-- Rhodes Scholar and Law Professor, married to another legal scholar, Hillary

Obama-- Top 10% of his Class at Harvard Law. Eloquent. Well-spoken. Makes George W. look completely illiterate, which I sort of suspect he is anyway. Married to another legal scholar.

I wonder why all of the NEOCONS, carrying their guns to town hall meetings and shouting and screaming... I wonder why they avoid educated people like the plague?

Even after George W ruined this country, they wanted to vote for another movie star in the last election! When they couldn't get the movie star, they went for the beauty queen!!!

It is absolutely hilarious to see how they expose themselves. It's really hard to be racist and to hate the poor and find an educated person to support your beliefs.

Michael - let's do it then. Yes we freaking can.

I am emailing you...:-)

BTW: Thank you for a great look at the history of morns and what the GOP tends to gravitate towards. So much for cultural conservativism...

Michael - It would be hilarious if it weren't so damn frightening.

Inna - I'm always game, GAME ON!

Inna - you're right again. It was demonstrated in the last election how ignorant the electorate that voted for our current President was. And it's demonstrated again in the comments here how repeating a lie now passes for truth... and yet you encourage those who lie, so long as they agree with your political perspective. Sad.

Update: Edited this to more accurately reflect that I am only going to bother disputing one of Michael's lies - which he has now corrected - namely his repeated statement that Obama graduated first in his class at Harvard. Wasting more time on this, is... well... a waste of time.

Inna - you started with a wrong premise. The framers of the constitution were very concerned about making this a democracy. It was a very close call, the right to vote was almost very restricted to an "elite" few, i.e. those that were propertied and paid taxes. Even those who eventually won the discourse over all classes having the vote were very concerned that the uneducated and the uniniformed would be easily swayed by charisma and eloquence. And what makes Joe the Plumber a sack of shit? Because you disagree with his question to then candidate Obama? It is attitudes like yours that are dragging this country to the shitter.

Oh gee whiz John. I didn't mean to lie.

I thought he did graduate 1st in his class at Harvard Law. But your link, which is not a journalistic source, but simply something written by the public, says he might have only graduated in the top 10% of his class at Harvard Law School.

I still think I am right, but I'll concede anyway.

Okay, so Obama graduated in the top 10% at Harvard (thanks John). What a moron he is! How can we possibly expect him to properly engage in strah-tee-jury or new-que-lar matters? I bet those words aren't even in his vocab. What a moron he must be.

But what law school did McCain, Palin, Reagan or either Bush go to?

Oh yeah. None. You voted for them to make law, yet they have no legal education on which to base their law-making. This is especially odd, since you mentioned-- on another post-- that you don't like to make decisions and you want your leaders to do that.

So you vote for the guy with the least legal education? Brilliant! That's one way to get conservative values passed-- vote for the least educated candidate!

Once again, you made me smile today. Other than than your SINGULAR link, what PLURAL lies are you talking about?

And I thought you were "too busy selling real estate."

You little stinker you!

First we have to find away to convert well thought ideas into sound bites, much like they take lies and turn them into rallying calls and sound bites. It's not easy though. For 5 bucks, a wet brained, addled teabagger can stand with a sign and say "Death Panels"- its hard to take a phrase like "the health insurance companies are robbing this country blind" and turning it into a sound bite.

And Mike is right again- look at how many morons voted for a wannabe cowboy drunk who couldn't run a baseball team, twice.

A drunk cowboy! I love it. Although I am not entirely sure he deserves to be associated with cowboys.

Thanks Nogui.

I jusgt posted at http://activerain.com/blogsview/1212429/my-grandma-is-a-leech-on-the-teat-of-society

Please take a second to comment before the NEOCONS shred me with irrational, illogical stupidity.

And I am so glad you brought up the baseball thing. What an all-around loser that man is.

Inna, didn't use to be this way. Joe the lying sack of shit would have been laughed off the stage, but most likely not allowed on the stage all together. Our society has morphed into a society that reveers (AR spell check, gotta love it) the sensational. Take a look at the news, any substance there anymore. Michael Jackson, Jon and Kate. Thinking people don't care about that crap. Thinking people want the real news and the facts, not links to non-journalistic websites. Unfortunately for us thinking people, sensationalism wins everytime. GREAT post!

Terry - but shouldn't we then be able to beat this horse with the same weapon? I think Nogui is onto something here.

Be back in a few with comments to all of you.

This is not really the rational discussion of the topics at hand that I was hoping to witness following Inna's post. Just more of the same gratuitous bashing of people who don't toe your line. Oh well, I hope it makes you feel better.

Inna,

An anger management counselor could make a fortune just counseling your fan club. Seriously though the only thing worse than the Obama haters are the Obama supportors who hate anyone who questions him.

Inna,

"So let's start the revolution"

You already won the revolution. Remember January and the hype? So why now you want the rest of us to be hyped? Let us be stupid and not hyped.

You are happy with a 1,000-page bill? Great. That's the biggest achievement in health care that you would get, so be happy.

Those who refuse to be happy with whatever is there, do we need to bring our diplomas so that we do not need to join the ...other mob.

Inna - You know that I enjoy our on-line conversations and my too rare direct conversations with you and your husband. But you also know that we do not completely agree.

I am not sure what your complaint is with Joe. My recollection is that his questioning brought the only admission by Candidate Obama that his intention was income redistribution. That rather important point seems to have been lost in the subsequent personal attacks on Joe who was not running for office.

I agree completely that competition and attainment of excellence are and should be the goal of our society. Freedom and innovation are the key ingredients of our economic system of capitalism that has made thie country great. But are you sure you haven't changed sides since the last time we talked? The liberal arguments seem to tend more toward the side of the people being incompetent and in need of government supervision. It is, in my view, the conservatives that believe that individuals should advance according to their merits.

The current electorate has more access to information than any generation in history. We will see how this may influence the results of the 2010 elections. There is a genuine and legitimate difference between the basic ideology of the liberals and conservatives. Our views of the proper role of government are very different. I hope the abuses and policies of the present congressional leaders and the President's administration will move the group of independents back to the right in 2010. We will see.

I seem to agree with most of what you say in your post - but arrive at somewhat different conclusions. I like the Glen Beck segments - not because I want to accept everything he says but because he encourages me to go out and do my own research. It is my own independent view that the current leadership is severely damaging the Country with crippling debt, that every bill signed or planned is little more than a political payoff to campaign contributors and that this administration has more sacred cows than Bangledesh. But we will talk again over a pleasant dinner.

On the other hand, I disagree more strongly with Michael (whose name doesn't appear in his signature so I had to look it up). It is my view that President Nixon had one of the finest political minds of the 20th century. I agree that he had a flawed personality which led to his downfall. As is frequently the case in government the uncontrollable urge to cover up one's mistakes may be worse than the crime. But Nixon's accomplishments in foreign policy were constructive.

Michael seems to think that an advanced degree is the only qualification for public service. Horsefeathers ! Ronald Reagan, a movie star ? He seems to forget that Reagan cut his political teeth as President of the Screen Actors Guild and was the governor of the largest state in the US (California) for eight years before being President for 8 years.

President Bush (41) had probably the best resume for President I have ever seen. Military service, business man, congressman, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Envoy to China, Director of Central Intelligence, Banker and college professor. Graduate of Yale University (Phi Beta Kappa, by the way).

President Bush (43) is a Yale graduate and also earned an MBA from Harvard Business School - and an eight year governor of Texas - gaining his second term by winning 69% of the vote.

John McCain was a graduate of the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and trained as a Naval Aviator. in addition to his service in Congress and the Senate.

President Carter despite his intellect and education may have been one of the least effective Presidents in my lifetime - which takes us back to Truman (a fine President in my view, by the way). Clinton - a Rhodes scholar and Law Professor who was impeached by the Congress and disbarred for perjury. More facts you seemed to leave out.

I agree with you on the education and intellect of JFK - but note that he was more of a fiscal conservative than most Republicans of today.

I also agree with you about the achievements of President Obama and his wife. But where are his Columbia transcripts and his Harvard writings. Strange, isn't it, that you put so much store in these items and your President refuses to release them?

Michael - I am qualified as a Mesna member and I do have JD degree. And I wouldn't credit either as being important in my opinions or qualifications (unless I seeking to be employed by you as a lawyer) from your point of view. I don't ask you to accept my beliefs or opinions - but I try to take the time to present a cogent argument with some background research to back up what I say here or elsewhere.

And, by the way, Inna, I think we can both agree that the Country suffered a loss today with the death of Senator Kennedy.

You all take care.

AUG

Michael - Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, perhaps that's what you mistook for him being #1 in his class.

Ted - As always, it's good to read your posts and comments. I do agree with a lot of what you've written above and will make the following comments of my own:

1. I too agree with Nixon's political acumen. He was not very charismatic and we all know about the Watergate, but the guy ended up in China at a time when our countries weren't the best of friends. And once he took over from Johnson, our performance in the Vietnam War did improve significantly.

2. President Bush (The Smart One) did have an impressive resume. And it should be noted that his military service was distinguished. I wasn't a big fan of his while in office (though I wasn't overly opposed to him), however as time passed I came to believe that his actions in Iraq were wise. I understand why he didn't seek to take out Saddam.

3. Dubya had no business getting into Harvard and I'm sure it was a favor. In due time people will recognize that he did less for the advancement of our country than James Buchanan.

4. I don't really count Clinton's impeachment as much because a) it had more to do with his personal life (not that I condone his 'adventures'), and b) it was extremely partisan. Unfortunately, that's the way politics in America has gone. At least the Senate had the brains to put a halt to this nonsense. People let the escapades of the First Member overshadow his accomplishments as President.

Inna - I forgot to tell you that this was featured in Dissent (11 hours ago). Congratulations.

Ted,

This is a terrific comment. I do not think it would make our liberal friends (and our enfant terrible in particular) think as this was just the case of épetage, but you taking the time to so respectfully lay out your position, and keeping your cool when there is a lot of screaming, is commendable. And enviable.

Thank you

Tchaka,

that was very surprising. I thought the fact that he did not take out Saddam in 1991 was Bushes biggest mistake. He didn't achieve much in that war just because of that. Another story that he did not have to stay there, but taking Saddam out was something that they failed to understand and to do. If you listen to the interview with Norman Schwarzkopf, it is pretty clear that their understanding of the future development in the region and Saddams behavior were absolutely wrong. They simply were in the wrong shoes (not that ones that were thrown at the younger one-LOL)

Tchaka - I do not need to tell you what you already know. Mr Clinton's Articles of Impeachment were for perjury and obstruction of justice - not having sex with an intern. As I commented about Mr Nixon, the cover-up is generally more of a problem than the underlying incident. But I will tell you that I opposed the impeachment proceedings at the time - and would oppose it now. I agree with you that impeachment is not an appropriate remedy when the vote is along party lines. When the House was working on impeachment articles for Nixon - there was honest bi-partisan support for the action. This was not the case with Clinton. If such an action is taken on a party line basis, it will tear the fabric of politics in this country - and I think that is part of the problem today.

Always glad to hear from you, Tchaka.

Thank you, Jon for kind words.

Jon - I would defend Bush 41 for his limited war against Iraq. Cheney (as Secretary of Defense) and the President worked hard to put together a coalition of Arab nations (and others) to oppose Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. (which Iraq tried to break up by sending missiles against Israel - knowing if Israel responded, the coalition of Arab states might fall apart) If we had gone to Baghdad and toppled the regime, I don't believe we would ever have had the trust of the middle east nations again. We did what we promised to do - we removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait. To go further would have been a breach of our guarantees to our Arab allies. But I realize it did leave us with another war to fight.

I also wanted to mention that the high percentage of lawyers in Congress and the state legislatures is more part of our problem than any sort of solution. No action comes out of the legislatures at state or federal level that is bad for lawyers. In the current situation, how can you seriously discuss reform of the health care industry with a claim to reduce costs without addressing tort reform and caps on medical claims. No serious medical cost containment will be had without curtailing litigation, in my view. So I could argue that the President's legal background may actually be a disadvantage.

Patrick, the "minority" is all over the "majority" for not toeing the line they've drawn. So you prefer the few should shout down the many then?

Jon, you still do not understand, that those thousand pages you keep referring to are NOT the health care bill, they are one of 5 PROPOSED health care bills. None of which include concentration camps in their verbage.

Hugh, this has nothing to do with anger management. I'm totally surprised at your comments about "us" being angry about the "others" because we disagree. What we are upset about is that a few people in this country have hijacked any debate on health care, or any programs Obama is trying to implement to HELP the country, and are shouting down anyone who has something to say that the "others" disagree with. If you're all for free speech, then I would assume that I have the right to speak as well as you do. Or is it another case of I've got mine screw you?

Terry,
You are not upset about the few. Ther are many people who are not convinced, who are not happy, watch the polls. Do not try to fool yourslef more than you have already done.

And if they are angry, listen. Do not try to shut them up. The administration tried to shove it up the people's throat, and yo are unhappy that it is not wiithout the opposition.

David- so by your rationale the smart one last election gravitated toward Palin/McCain ticket, right? The bottom of the class, barely made it through the Academy (with help from family, of course) McCain, and the illiterate beauty queen Palin... Hmmm, yep, smart indeed.

PS: If you read what is actually in that link you point to, it'll be pretty clear that Obama was not just in the top 10% of his class at Harvard, he was at the top of this top ten (to have graduated Magna Cum Laude, that is). He was also the President of the Harvard Law Review, in case you forgot.

Mike S. - I appreciate your interpretations of what the framers thought and struggled with. I am well aware that it was an issue, and the only point I was trying to make was that I am not sure the framers anticipated that the populace would ever be so lacking in basic knowledge and ability to think, that those who don't know enough to make an informed decision woul outnumber those who do.

As for Joe-the-lying-sack-of-shit-plumber - the dude lied, about everything, including being a plumber, got himself on TV and thrown himself into the political mix to make money on his lies. Hence, in my humble opinion, he is a lying sack of shit, who happens to also be an opportunist. :-)

Inna - bottom line; we get the leadership we deserve. In my opinion, the majority of politicians go the way the wind blows and pay attention to the loudest group. That leaves the rest of us marginalized unless we, as you suggest, take action.

Inna - Not at all. Nowhere in my previous comment did I say anything about McCain and/or Palin.

With regard to stupid electorate, I was only pointing out one bit of evidence that Obama got elected by a very stupid electorate... an electorate that was too lazy to read anything even as short as a Glenn Beck commentary, an electorate that was so foolish as to mistake a SNL sketch for news.

I'd like to see a basic qualification test put in place to move us in the direction of assuring we have an educated (or at least informed) electorate. Maybe a short quiz asking the prospective voter to identify which party currently holds the majority or office of the executive and each of the legislative branches. Maybe even go so far as to ask them to identify their current Representatives. And maybe even a question asking them to identify at least one of the significant issues on the ballot. At least then there'd be some assurance that people who were voting would have shown that they know something about what they're expressing an opinion on.

With regard to Obama's class rank, the point of the link was that without his transcripts no one knows for sure what his exact position was. However, given that he didn't graduate suma but "only" magna", it's very unlikely that he was #1. And repeating that "Obama was #1 in his class" doesn't make that true. Repeating the true statement "Obama graduated near the top of his class" wouldn't be true because of repetition, but would be easy to verify - by trotting out "magna". That's all.

Nogui - I think you are on to something here... Let's outscream the screamers then.:-) I'm emailing you...

Ted,

Do we need to worry about President's legal background? Was he a successful lawyer?

Maybe it is just a background. Inna's background is Literature. She writes beautifully. She puts whatever substance in such a beautiful form, that we feel it. It is not the words, it is a different dimension that she creates. It is very subtle...

In her political writing it looks the same, little substance and all form, and she comes out as a very angry person. I think this is the wrong field for Inna.

Leo Tolstoy was a great writer. Genius. He was also a political activist, and community organizer. Do we know or care about it? Writing was what we know him for. But Lenin, attorney by education, was a community organizer, and we know him for that, not for his legal victories, which did not bring him any accolades. But I digress, sorry.

And what the heck is MENSA? Will Google it now, never heard about it.

Inna... I am not a screamer - I am a whisperer.

You all have fun.

Jon, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Inna's writing in the arena of political and social commentary. First of all, to me, she does not sound angry. Spirited and concerned, yes, angry, not even close.

Further, regarding the substance/form ratio, I see it so differently. If one ventures to make a point, in a non-sledge hammer fashion, there is a method in which to engage the reader to acknowledge the premise and then take the leap. Get the reader acquainted and familiar with the position, approach from all sides of the box, until they end squarely up in the box with you. In other words, it's how you move the reader, how you layer on your information to create the faculties of reason, outrage, honor, remorse or just plain common sense to rise and percolate. This is what I see. It may not be done in a cozy fashion, but it is done effectively and powerfully.

It's about time we had someone speak up with a talent other than a)purely making noise to demonstrate how smart they are, or think they are. b) insulting their opponent to self-render themselves more powerful. c) copy and paste and repeat. d) spelling lessons.

Wow! You stirred up a lot of people! My Father used to say that a person may be pretty smart, but that PEOPLE are stupid. What he meant was that when you actually talk, one on one, most people make some sense; but that too often in large groups something else seems to take over.

The town hall meetings have shown this still true. No matter how many times some people are told there are NO death panels they still think they are. I saw video of one meeting where the Legislator (don't remember which one) said that neither the President nor he (the Legislator) beieved something about a particular issue, and the crowd was shouting back "yes you do" and he was saying "no, we don't" and they were still shouting "yes you do". I'm sorry- that's stupidity, not to mention rude behavior.

Patrick - I don't have a "line", but I can understand your disappointment.

AUG

Jon - I am firm on my view that Bush (The Smart One) did the right thing. I do agree with Ted's response - Bush had a relatively fine line to walk with trust being important. It was a big step for some countries such as Saudi, Jordan and Egypt to convince other countries as to the US's role.

The second part has to do with Saddam's role in the region. I did not hear Gen. Schwartkopf's interview and while I do respect him greatly as a leader and American hero, I also recognize him as a military man. I studied the region under political academics and as much as I personally may have detested Saddam for what he did to many innocent people, his removal would have almost certainly created a much bigger problem in the region. Iraq was the buffer between a Revolutionary Iran and the Middle East. Don't think for a second Kuwait and Saudi weren't very concerned. By default we could toss in Bahrain and UAE (not so sure about Yemen). I haven't even brought Israel into the equation yet.

And as twisted as it may seem, Saddam's interwined certain good acts (such as secularism, tolerance for Christianity, some women's rights, etc.) along with his killing of Kurds and elimination of suspected enemies. Imagine how Iran felt about that. The guy was truly screwed up, but as I've said many times over: he served a purpose.

Hugh - Hate is a pretty big word here, my friend. I don't need an anger management consult - I am not even angry:-) I am just disappointed:-(

Jon Zolsky - you seem to miss the point of most posts on here, and that's ok, but you should allow some room in your rather cynical mind for a possibility that I don't post (or rant, as you'd put it) because I just want to scream and yell and stir crap. There is not that much disconnect between my heart and my pen.

PS: Pontius Pilate was an attorney and Jesus was a carpenter line of philosophical comparatives is no more logical than comparing the virtues of Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc because they were women in funky clothes.

Ted - thank you for taking the time, and yes, your cool as a cuke demeanor - but that's you, in a nutshell:-) I do agree with you on Ted Kennedy, of course. Everything else is better whispered over a plate of chow.:-)

I will stick up for the point I think Michael was making, though: if we elect people to enact laws that will govern us, should these people really be 'carpenters', if you will? I don't think he suggested that the righy kind of a diploma was the ONLY qualification, but shouldn't education and intelligence matter in those we elect to office? Just a thought.

PS: Supposedly, Pontius Pilate had a headache of the worst kind, and since this was in the days before there was a magic pill for everything, he was in a rather dreadful mood that day...

Tchaka - so glad you jumped into the conversation. It's much appreaciated:-)

PS: How do you always feature me and then it get unfeatured? Hmmmm-

Jackie - yes we do get the leaders we deserve. You are right, we ought to do something about it:-) So does it mean you are game?

Michelle - wow, thank you.... I don't even know what to say to that:-) I can't argue with my dad, or rather choose not to in this case, but your response is very much taken to heart and appreciated. MWA-

Leslie - disrespectful is a mild way of putting it. Sadly, too many look at these outbursts as the epitome of free speech... I think the other voices are needed, if only for some sense of balance.

One way we can stop lowering ourselves is to stop cursing in public discourse. It is extremely demeaning to the person using the word.

"Profanity is the forcible expression of a feeble mind". I do not know who said it but it still rings true.

Kevin, long time no see. So let me see if I understand your logic: if i choose to 'demean' myself, as you put it on my blog by using a few choice expletives, aren't you then demeaning yourself by reading it?

I prefer to be offended by the actual sentiments displayed with so much conviction on your blogs, and those you frequent than an occasional curse word, Kevin. Because you see, words are just that, words, but the ugliness of thought and sentiment goes so much deeper than a papercut the thin skin of the prim and proper.

Inna- Hi.

I do not want to be average either. I can go to Wal-Mart and here foul speech. I can go to the hood and here foul speech. I can watch foolish uneducated teeny boppers talk trash.

Kind of hard to start a "rise up and achieve movement" that way.

As you would end "I'm just sayin..."

My dear Kevin - it's all a matter of starting a conversation - and I am thinking it works, considering even you made an apearance (twice).

BTW: I think you were looking for "hear"

I am just sayin'

Inna- Thanks for the correction.

I'm not going to add much, because the lefties here won't pay attention and the righties already know...

Inna - You are starting from a failed assumption. This country has a constitution that is the framework for its laws (even though it seems to be ignored by politicians of both parties)... therefore it is NOT a democracy. I know, you Democrats are trying to change the meaning of the word, but a democracy is a "majority rule"... we have a republic.

AZLoan - I know that Palin is the favored punching bag of the left, but at least she knew the actual Constitutional role of the Vice President in the debates... Joe Biden was wrong (that shouldn't be a shocker).

And talk about slanted... Clinton couldn't find the truth with both hands and a flashlight... and the impeachment wasn't over "personal issues", it was for perjury... Carter would have been more effective staying in GA. And Obama is showing that he can't handle the job either.

AUG

Hi Inna - actually my point with Michael is that none of the people on his list are morons - on either side of the aisle. The Presidency attracts very accomplished, intelligent and highly ambitious people. All are flawed in some ways (as are we all - but the position seems to magnify the flaws) and all certainly bring diverse backgrounds to the job in terms of education and experience. But to dismiss any of them as unintelligent causes us to miss the points of their policies or actions that should be examined, recognized and discussed critically.

And I am always available for catered meetings.

Kevin - NP.

Lane, ok, point taken. However, the premise, flawed in your opinion or not still stands. We, the people, elect our representatives to govern this fabulous republic, hence I believe the people should be aquaint themselves with the subjects that will affect us all. It appears that this is less and less the case with each passing year, and instead we have a bunch of people screaming and scarying the shit out of the mob, as you put it. That, to me, is pretty darn dangerous.

Ted - I understand your point. I would really be loath to go so far as to say cal of these people intelligent and accomplished in that way, as it implies at the very least that they are of equal intellectual vigor, which is clearly not the case. John McCain BARELY graduated from the Academy, btw, and way too close to the bottom of the class. Had it not been for family connections, he would have indeed been expelled. A pretty far cry from Obama's educational record and accomplishments, I would think.:-)

PS: Just holler, and we'll cater:-)

Jon, the MAJORITY of Americans want health care reform. Just not your kind. I do watch the polls, just not the wingnut polls, and definitely not cluster FOX polls.

Tchaka, regardless of how many Kurds Hussein killed, we have killed far many more Iraqi's that he ever did or probably ever would. You're right, he granted the people freedoms many others in the region do not enjoy. This country took those freedoms from the Iraqis under the guise of democracy.

I am not so sure it's a sin because frankly lot's of folks are just born that way and I will admit, the "stupid cannot be fixed". I guess we have to learn to live with our stupid brethren as irritationg as it can be.

I have to say that 75% of americans want this and the folks fighting hardest are the drug companies, health care providers and insurance companies along with the mindless right that just wants to see a defeat for Obama so they will have a better chance of winning in the next election...classic case ofanal myopia.

For the first time the democrats have the majority and the will of the people so maybe they can grow a pair and do this! It make's my head hurt to think down on the level that the right wing fear & noise machine has managed to break the focus on the truth and progress. Just get this dome people!

Hmmm...I seem to have jumped on a soapbox here and probably should have just written a post...

Russell - I'm all for you on that soapbox! Thanks for speaking up.

Russell - I will simply ditto to what Tchaka said. Good to have you on the soap box.:-)

AUG

I gather we switched to health care... I am not seeing the same data that Russell is quoting. The public is not supporting the health care proposals that are on the table and neither am I.

They said the intent was to cut costs - there is not a cost cutting proposal in the package and not even a mention of tort reform. Then they said they wanted to add coverage for millions more Americans - possibly a good idea, but not a cost cutter. But why change health care for the 85% that like what they have to add some additional coverages for those who do not.

Back up, descide what problems we are trying to solve and present proposals that will really impact those problems and you might even see bipartisan support. No government control, no reduction to services already in place, stop deceptive obfuscations about what is really in the bill, and possibly tell us who wrote the bill. How do you address the state prohibitions on interstate insurance.

Be honest about what problems you want to address, make proposals that are reasonably tied to those problems and include the minimum regulation and control to get that done and we may agree.

SEP

Ted - I supposed perception of public support for the proposed bill depends on which polls you are looking at, not that I believe in inherent subjectivity of any... (logic tells me it would be impossible to conduct a truly objective opinion poll).

That being said, there are some points in your comment I agree with.... My issue, if we are speaking strictly of health care, is that for as long as Insurance companies are regulate in that 'minimum regulation to not impede capitalism' way, the populace will keep being screwed. For as long as the imperative of making profict outweighs the imperative of providing care - money will will, hence our current situation of any condition that is deemed high risk not being covered and premiums for the majority of the populations are way too high. It would be wrong of the governemtn to set a limit on how much a private company can charge for coverage (constitutionally speaking, of course), so I highly doubt there is real incentive for these costs to go down any time soon in any meaningful way.

I think public option, which is neither FREE nor MANDATORY, contrary to common belief, will bring some balance to the bizarre universe of health care industry. As it stands right now, the insurance companies are in a unique position over life and death of its payees. I am not sure I am ok with that, knowing that they will ALWAYS make more money if one is not treated. :-)

Hey Inna... Hope you are doing well. I just want to say that the"screamers" that you are referring to are AMERICANS.. they are not all Democrats nor are they all Republicans.. They are AMERICANS who see something happening that they want to stop. And they have the right to speak their mind. WE ALL DO... and no one should ever forget that.

SEP

Well, hey Tana.

I do not recall anywhere in my post where I said anything about democrats or republicans. I was only addressing the stupid factor, and you are absolutely right - in this country we have every right to be STUPID. I was only stating that there should be a counterpoint to the stupidity, that's all.

:-)

Clever but I said "And they all have the right to speak their mind" not that we have every right to be stupid. You know what you are saying and it's just not right. It's not worth my time to argue, and besides that I don't want to.. I like you and I love reading your blogs... All I am saying is that this is America, every single one of us WILL speak our mind whether some think that what we speak is stupid or not.

I hope I never live to see the day where we can't but if I do.. I promise I will stand right beside you and your friends and fight for our rights. Because this is AMERICA home of the free and land of the brave.

My dear Tana - by all means speak your mind... We all should - it just would be a bit more helpful to everyone involved if the level of disourse was not predicated EXCLUSIVELY on regurgitating the sentiments heard on Beck, Rush or Keith, for that matter, et al...

Don't we have responsibility that comes with those rights, including the right to Free Speech? If we are to chant for or against something in a public forum, should we not than have a civic duty to be diligent about what we say?

Hey wait a minute...Did you actually say N.P. ??? I am cracking up and so glad i signed on here!

Tana - then you should understand why I would refer to those "screamers" as stupid, or at the very least, as ones not excercising their civic duty responsibly...

Russell - yep, absolutely:-) What took you so long anyway. Glad you signed on here too!!!

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?