May 20th, 2014

in·de·pend·ent

[in-di-pen-duhnt] 

Adjective

1. Not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2.

Not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3.

Not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

4.

Not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

5.

Not relying on another or others for aid or support.

I love this word for so many reasons.  It defines how I have lived my life and conducted my businesses.  You notice in the definitions the word “not” used quite often.  That explains why so many people have trouble adapting to this principle.  Right or wrong, people in general want to belong to a group, any group.  Feeing wanted and needed is part of every persons DNA makeup.

This word contradicts all those years of trying to fit in and be accepted in our society.  When it comes to politics, the time is now more than ever to learn to adapt to the word independent. We have had a two party system in politics for many years.  The independence of breaking outside those two parties has had people being made to believe they don’t fit in.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The time is now to consider a strong independent candidate to break the two party systems that has been in all honesty failing us as a country. 

The gridlock that is occurring in Washington is nothing new.  It is being magnified due to the fact that we have a black president and a republican party with exceptionally weak leadership.  The head of the national Republican Party and the party itself should be grooming a strong candidate to face the democrats in 2016.  The democrats are in control of the next general election due to many factors, such as 1) they are the incumbent party, 2) have a vice president who may run, 3) have a former secretary of state and a woman who may or may not run.  The point I’m making is they are grooming their possible candidates as we speak.  You hear nothing from the republican side of the aisle except for a lot of “I may” or “may not” run from some of the hopefuls.  The hopefuls by the way will be made up of retread candidates as well as politicians who have changed their course as the wind blows.

The people of this country want and need a third party or Independent party that can produce a strong candidate.  The system is broken and at this point almost beyond repair. The founders of this country never had any intention of seeing lifelong or career politicians.  We can be sure of that.  They saw the need for and wanted it structured as such that it was indeed a government “for the people and by the people”.  That is hardly the case any longer.  A strong independent party would put both the democrats and republicans on notice that we can no longer tolerate the lack of productivity coming out of Washington. 

An independent candidate essentially would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.  They can believe in principles from both parties and actually fit more into the mainstream of this country.  They days of voting along party lines have created such apathy for the process that many people are not exercising one of the most basic and free rights in this country.  If they are lifelong republicans and that party does not have a viable candidate why should they vote in the first place?

The future of politics in this country lies in creating a strong, essential third party.  Call it whatever you like but please make room for the millions of people that want in.

That’s all I have to say about that.

May 14th, 2014

e·piph·a·ny

[ih-pif-uh-nee] 

noun, plural e·piph·a·nies.

3. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience

Sometime way back when as I suppose happens with most kids I began to wonder about the inner workings of politics. And like most kids I was automatically indoctrinated into the party of my parents.  It was “assumed” I would be a Republican because after all my parents were Republicans as were their parents. They were the ones responsible for all the good happening in our country and the Democrats represented everything bad.  Along with religion and sex, politics were never discussed among families.  You were born into a republican family and by god you are going to be a republican is a simplified version of how the discussions with the children usually went in this country during that time.  I not too sure if anything really has changed much throughout the years?  I tried to educate my children on the basics of both parties and luckily enough they had enough interest to do their own research and form their own conclusions.  Which leads me here today to discuss an epiphany I recently had.  With all of the mudslinging and name calling that is going on in politics today I certainly cannot be the only person with these feelings regardless of political affiliations.  The quagmire in Washington D.C. is not serving anyone but the politicians themselves.  I use “they” and “them as a collective name for all of them regardless.  I get the sense that America is fed up with the whole lot of them.  And rightly so, I might add.  These people have been elected to represent their constituents in Washington.  They have been tasked with being the voices of the people they represent.  We cannot get our voices heard without them.  That frustration is what led me here today.  My parents Republican Party has all but vanished in the past 10 years.  With the infusion of obscene amounts of cash the Tea Party has not only bought and paid for current members of Congress but has also allowed Tea Party members to achieve positions of power and influence.  The days of politicians reaching across the aisle from both sides are gone.  It appears the only objective for them is to cause a major disruption in the process.  This disruption and lack of concern for America is happening right now.  With the Tea Party having complete disregard for the welfare of this country and the stalemate within Washington has caused me to shift my allegiances somewhat.  I am not ready to make a complete jump to the Democratic Party due to my belief in certain Republican ideologies.  I believe firmly in my right to bear arms but yet I also feel that magazine capacities for certain weapons should be limited.  I also believe in fewer taxes and less government.  You cannot spend your way out of a recession. With that said, I am going to continue my education on the background of the left and find out for myself what their beliefs are.  I have never believed that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity spoke for me yet there are millions of people that should do their own research to validate for themselves exactly what party best fits their own beliefs.  When those Americans complete their education process perhaps they can have an epiphany of their own?

That’s all I have to say about that.

May 13, 2014

style

[stahyl]  

noun

1. A particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character: the baroque-style; The style of the house was too austere for their liking.

2. A particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode of action or manner of acting they do these things in a grand style.

sub·stance

[suhb-stuhns]  

noun

1. That of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance.

2.

A species of matter of definite chemical composition: 

4.

The subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.

5.

The actual matter of a thing as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality.

While I am quite sure the practice has been in effect for many decades, the art of giving a “speech” has been finely tuned to include not only the substance but also delivering the address with a style that makes the speech itself seem overwhelmingly believable.  This practice of style over substance causes me to think of President Kennedy and his ability to deliver so many words in a manner that creates “believability”.  This causes many people to get caught up in the manner in which those words are being delivered that they don’t question the words themselves.  Part of the aura surrounding President Kennedy's Camelot mystique is certainly owed to his ability to give a speech so seemingly believable that many people simply couldn't recall the substance of what he was saying.  What I can easily remember about his inauguration speech of 1960 was his challenge to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, and of course his challenge of “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.  His speech lasted just under 14 minutes and a total of 1364 words spoken.  Yet there was something magical about how there were delivered.  So began, in my mind, the art of “style over substance”.  President Reagan a former Hollywood actor had amazing abilities as a speaker.  Much of the same characteristics of President Kennedy were apparent.  The ability to speak to a lot of subjects while not really being able to deliver on any promises made.  There are certainly people I enjoy listening to simply for their talents on the podium.  Bill Clinton, Ted Turner, Donald Trump, Tony Blair and Barack Obama.  With the current President you certainly know he is trying to pander to many groups all the while knowing completely that his words are merely an attempt to hit upon the “feel good” nerve in all of us.  I would certainly like to be able to believe someone’s words as opposed to being caught up in the manner in which they have been delivered. We need more substance over style Presidents which unfortunately do not get elected because they don’t hit that nerve.  It would behoove us as a nation to hold our politicians accountable for promises or comments they made while trying to get elected.  Sadly, until that time comes we will keep believing in style.

That’s all I have to say about that.

May 7th, 2014

Today's Thoughts:

 stand·ard·ize

[stan-der-dahyz]  

verb (used with object), stand·ard·ized, stand·ard·iz·ing.

1.to bring to or make of an established standard size, weight, quality, strength, or the like: to standardize manufactured parts.

2.  to compare with or test by a standard.

3.  to choose or establish a standard for.

verb (used without object), stand·ard·ized, stand·ard·iz·ing.

4.  to become standardized.

The very meaning of the word brings to mind a common thought or action for all things.  When we were children our parents, grandparents, teachers, religious leaders and heck even the older neighbors would teach us to believe that we could be anything we wanted when we grew up.  From the time they heard the voice of a songbird come out of the mouth of a 2^nd grader or a 3^rd grader whose artistic abilities were just blossoming the individual teachers have been allowed and even encouraged to develop and tutor those students with special gifts.  Those days it seems have long disappeared with the notion that all students must take the standardized test for their grade level.  The teachers themselves have long known that “standardized testing” was the beginning of the end for allowing their students to grow into the special passions they had.  The teachers do not have the time to nurture these gifts as the classroom has become a political battleground involving the Federal government and thusly the state and local governments as well.  With the mandated testing comes mandated teaching.  Teachers are leaving the profession in droves in protest to the practice which of course only affects the students.  Caught in a political firestorm these kids have no idea that the schools are becoming a factory to produce standard students.  The arts categories are going the way of the dinosaur to allow time for the teachers to teach to the questions appearing on the standardized test.  As with most issues of this kind the students themselves are being forgotten.  Most times when you have an educational mandate the students are the ones suffering.  It matters not the level of education whether it elementary through higher levels the students are on the losing end.  There are libraries closing in schools around the country due to funding issues, there are schools without a nurse on campus.  The list goes on and on but what matters most is the level and experience of education professionals is dwindling right before our eyes.  Money that schools could fund their arts programs or staff the nurse’s office or better yet allow money for the school library to remain open is being used on testing.  The notion that a “one size fits all” test is ludicrous.  Try to tell me a child taking a test in Rhode Island is the same child that will take a test in South Los Angeles.  That argument will never hold water.  Kids are different neighborhood to neighborhood much less 3000 miles apart.  The financial disparity is only one of the differences.  There are cultural, regional, and even local differences that make all children different in their own right.  The educational opportunities on campus should and must be the same across the country.  Instead of a standardized test how about standardized campuses allowing for an even playing field for the students?  Why is there no outcry over the lack of evenness involving campuses or at least learning opportunities?     Kids go to school to learn.  It is shameful that the greatest country in the world has substandard education.  Kids want to learn.  They are like sponges and will absorb everything you put in front of them, providing it is the right thing. Whether it is the No Child Left Behind Act or anything else, the Federal government should stay out of our local schools and let the districts run their campuses how they see fit.  The parents in the district can dictate how they want their child educated.  They have the student’s best interests at heart as well as knowing local and cultural differences.  How about we just let kids be kids?

That’s all I have to say about that.

May 6th, 2014

la-bel  [ley-buhl] noun

a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual 

movement, etc.

As I begin my journey into the blogosphere I am reluctant to jump into the deep end of the pool but I am finding that this subject is at the forefront of all we do while leading and living a normal life.

While labels are used on a daily basis to categorize every human being we come in contact they are nothing more than a way to help us compare ourselves to them and thus prove ones superiority.  And while the very basic of labels are used in grade school they are nonetheless apparent, i.e. tall/short, skinny/chubby, smart/stupid.  The more advanced labels are either taught at home or picked up from many different outside sources.  Sitting around the dinner table as a family you can remember when your father would talk about someone in such a way that the other person was Jewish, Republican or worse yet a homosexual.  While as a child these labels meant nothing, nonetheless the labeling process had begun.  Going off to college or beginning a career you could begin to sense the groups your parents spoke about around the table.  You began to create subsets in your mind and start fitting people you came in contact with into one of those subsets.  As you read this you are surely looking back into all of those times.  From religious preferences to sexual orientation they continue to manifest themselves as we get older and broaden the scope of our experiences.  Gay/straight, Jewish/Baptist, White/Black, Republican/Democrat they have all meant one thing or another to someone.  This is extremely unfortunate as we hone our daily living skills as best we can and to see past those labels that have caused so much harm.  If the human race were more tolerant, this would not be such the problem it is today.  If we could see people for who they are and not try so hard to label them our interactions could be so much more productive.  Think of practicing more tolerance and less hatred for people.  Open up your mind and delete the subset labels to truly become a better person.  Open-minded people are often happier and better adjusted because they practice such tolerance for everyone.  I am a white Republican male yet I am sometimes automatically labeled as intolerant because of the Republican parties’ principles which I do not practice.   Sure I would love to see smaller government and fewer taxes, but that is not what defines me.  I have never pretended to know the anguish of the black slave or living my life as a gay man.  Unless you have walked in their shoes you have nothing to comment on and frankly you have no right to.  If your mind was clear of hate and bigotry than you would be more accepting of the pain and suffering certain groups have had to endure.  Stop pretending you know all about labels and the harm they caused if you have not been on the receiving end of a beating because you are black or because one man chose to love another man or ones faith is different than yours. These behaviors all started at the dinner table.  As a society we must begin to look deeper within ourselves and clean up our own house prior to looking in someone else’s windows.  For not only the sake of today’s society, but for the future of our children.

That’s all I have to say about that.