Sunday, May 15, 2016

Good leaders make good governments

Every where we turn there is a new emphasis on some new program, some new method that promises to improve and enhance our lives.  This is especially true with education, where every new administration has to have their gold seal of approval for some new curriculum in order to make them selves look good and create some all important reason for spending the millions they spend, even if everyone knows that nothing will change.

Politically the same motivation creates a fervor of activity around useless changes that invariably only affect the bloated psyche of those initiating the change.  The reality of politics is found firmly within this concept of constant change with the ignorant hope of those that follow that true change will eventually occur.  We all know, we have all learned that change for change sake does nothing to solidify a plan of action toward the eventual solution that supposedly plagues our lives, problems that are the direct result of those bloated leaders who rely on the gasping hopes of the insanely ignorant rather than the statesmen like efforts of true leadership.

From a broad perspective even the basic differences of political power have little to do with the reality that each proclaim, leaving most of us with an unfounded perspective of the true nature of these seemingly divergent philosophies.  Is communism really evil?  Are the republicans really only support big business?  Are the Democrats solely responsible for dismal economic conditions of our country?  Is socialism the standard precursor of communism and is fascism the birth place of megalomaniacs?

There are hundreds of other questions that can be asked and to honest there is really no solid evidence that any of the above is absolutely true.  We know that republicans are not all for big business. I am a republican and I deplore the actions of multinational corporations that have only the bottom line to consider when making important decisions.  I know responsible Democrats who are fiscally accountable and I can think of a few successful socialistic countries that serve their population very well.

There are even a few fascist states that do not abuse their countrymen but most of those have “good leaders” that manage their countries affairs for the benefit of the people.  I am however hard pressed to find a healthy example of communism but in history there have been attempts at communalism with some more successful than others, leading me to believe that the possibility for success is their with the right frame of mind and a balanced leadership that enjoys the same level of responsibility as their countrymen, perhaps not unlike the differences between a good and bad monarch…

 The point I am trying to make is that in our convoluted world we have many examples of failures but very few examples of success in relation to the different styles of government.  What we do have are complex amalgamations of all the above with numerous examples of failure within all types of governments but only a few with a track record of continues success.

Capitalism is by far the most successful governmental philosophy.  It may not be liked as the most idyllic but when balanced with the others it has succeeded.  The reason for the success is primarily due to the pursuit of money and commerce and the overriding balance that is forced on all it’s participants that is driven by a monetary rule of law.

Even with these obvious successes with capitalism the need to manipulate, fudge, influence and distort becomes so overwhelming that the elected leaders seem incapable of defending their honor and integrity and fall head long into the game of the bloated psyche, quickly becoming the very person they promised never to become.  So many are called but so few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion”. (D and C section 121)

Good men turn bad, good men become selfish and bloated to their own importance rather than seeking the pleasures of “true service” and devotion.  It is my opinion that almost any governmental philosophy would be effective if the men and women who are asked to lead would do so with the right purpose of mind. 

Even communism would be successful if the leadership was true and devoted, living by the example that they propose.  For in the heights of leadership divine the followers would seek to climb the lofty branches that are made clear only by those who reach down to help them rise.

Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Theocracies and Communist can all succeed if they have “good” people who care about the people they serve.  The difference however is that with Capitalism, money is the arbiter of good and evil, money is the motivator, money creates the balance and in some large measure, at least it has in the past, prevents the evil and bloated from destroying the freedoms inherent through the electoral process of most capitalistic style governments. 

As a realist I like to think that my political choice, in some degree, transcends the bickering and blustering of those who know nothing of the realities and differences of each party or system.  I like to think that even though I am a conservative and strongly believe in metered changes and not in wholesale hope of every new scheme I have the heart to accept the hearts of others and like all others, I hope that our elected leaders will be honest and capable and good. Don’t you feel the same?


It may be too late to seek our and support that “good” candidate but we can still unify and demand whoever is chosen as our leader to be good and act in a way that serves our collected needs and not our individual and selfish desires.  

Friday, May 6, 2016

Darwin had a mother

 
I want to pay homage, not only to my mother who passed years ago but to the mother of my children.  I want to do so in a very peculiar way.  When each of our 10 children was born there were differences in the pregnancy and surprises at birth.  We choose not to be informed of the sex of the children, rather relishing the surprise at birth for the child my wife cared for during gestation. 

My humility is enhanced each time I delve into the pain, the joy, the surprise and the ultimate unknown as the responsibility of a new life is placed in our hands.  We all know the mechanics of life but rarely do we discuss the foundational principles that allow life to flourish, in all its diversity. It is for this that I give thanks.  My wife and mothers around the world have suffered the trials of birth just so they can be mothers. 

Being a mother for most woman is a profoundly spiritual and holy experience.  The connection of body and soul, between a mother and child transcend explanation.  There is more than just the physical manifestation of nature and the resulting birth; there is a union of cells, a commonality of genetics and a spiritual blending of one life with another through the ultimate amalgamation of life, in all its diversity.  There must needs be a foundational process that ensures that union and assures the success of life through the process of acceptance and opportunity.

How do we explain the severity of diversity within the universal commonality of our shared genetic similarity?  From the lowly Tree Spine Starfish to one of the greatest minds in over a thousand years, Albert Einstein, (my opinion) the similarities of our related genome motivate our thoughts to conclude a singular source of creation and the subsequent evolution of all life.  How do we justify the diversity within our own families when the commonality of resources is known and somewhat quantifiable? 

There are theories that propose a standard of creation similar to the needed standard instituted ions ago to ensure structural integrity (stay with me), a learned process perhaps, but a process of universal adaptation that ensures protection for all that is built and constructed by man, presupposing natural areas of learned skill beyond those derived solely by man.

The variety of building styles and uses is not as extensive as the genome of humanity but it provides a healthy insight into the ultimate need for a foundational process of creation.  The variety of building styles throughout history, at least the successful ones all have the commonalty of a foundation, the essential aspect of that success being a workable and duplicable foundation. 

There are raised foundations, slabs; stem walls, pylons, etc…Each can be viewed as an essential pinion for constructing the usable portions of any building or habitat.  Failure to adhere to these basic principles negates any process of building and will ultimately ensure its rapid demise. The foundational approach to life is just as essential as our need to create a balance in our lives and generally we learn quite early that without some foundation the tendrils of our experiences either move toward establishing a more permanent foundation or they slowly and inexorably destroy the connectedness of  the cement that acts as a foundational material, leaving our structures weak and susceptible to the elements and invariably weaken our personal resolve toward greater and substantial life events.

3.2 billion, that's how many base pairs—or sets of genetic "letters"—make up the human genome. In order to list all those letters, a person would have to type 60 words per minute, 8 hours a day, for about 50 years! However, humans are by no means the species with the most base pairs. The marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) has about 133 billion of them in its genome.  Comparing these genetic pairs has become a very lucrative process and an essential part of our ultimate understanding of who and what we are as humans and in comparing our DNA with those of other living things. 

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.   This was taken from: 
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. 
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. 
- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans. 
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans, 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome, 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. 

Another resource to consider is: HomoloGene.

The fact of association by similarity is well documented and has been used for decades to support the evolutionary process, considering the unity of our shared genes as a symbol of a common ancestry.  But when compared to the analogy of a foundation the alternate theory of association is only a result of using a pre-determined process of creation rather than the happenstance of a multi-millennial process of evolving from a single cellular creature to the most complex creatures of today.  The water flea just so happens to be the most complex yet discovered with 25% more genes than humans. I guess size does not matter, at least in this case.

The theory of evolution is a formidable philosophy with scientific evidence being amassed in droves and with the support of thousands of scientist and supported by the overall mainstream of education that promotes the process as originally outlined by Darwin.  Almost without opposition, most believe in some aspects of evolution with many theologians siding in part behind the juggernaut of a God driven creation using evolution as His medium of delivery.

As humans we have often generated processes based on replication to ensure continuity.  That continuity saves time and resources and ensures stability in the processes that can be duplicated.  The gaming industry relies heavily on platform design to create the foundational process to lighten the load of creativity by utilizing pre-set programming to establish a matrix of possibilities.  Many of the most popular games use the same foundational programs.  Gamers very seldom know the difference in the creative process and only enjoy the external aspects of the game but like a foundation of any kind the beauty of the finished product is enhances and supported by that essential foundation.  Mostly unseen the structural necessity is essential if the product is to last and to eventually sell. 

Evolutionary theory studies the effects of change from one species to another and relies upon those innate similarities to enhance its viability and continues to rely upon the premise that from a single cell and billions of years the plethora of life now exists.  Would we look at a building as an evolutionary change from one house or building to the next just because their foundational processes agree?  Or would we see commonality and association of life from a singular bag of cement and some nearby trees?

As you’ve probably already guessed I am not a geneticist, nor am I a scientist but when we’re looking at the process of creation over billions and billions of years I doubt many would be qualified to view the reality of what happened and how life actually got started.

I am a religious believer, hence the spiritual bent and the need to discuss the possibility of an alternate avenue of thinking that includes the creation of man and in this case the joy of motherhood with life in general from the planned process of a foundational network of standards that in the least guides the genome into their specific purposes.  Modifications of life do occur and will continue to take place within the programs foundational guidelines, allowing life to improve and to adapt or evolve in order to enhance our collective experience.

All life reproduces and those standards of reproduction can either be seen as a result of a common genome and the evolutionary process or the foundational principles that allow life to flourish.  Since man tends to move toward organized processes in all that we do the assumption, at least for me, is that we inherited that design and promote the practice as it was used to create our life and all life. 

The question can be asked, is the drive of mothers to have children simply a “natural” result of evolution or a planned process of procreation?  Evolution may suggest that the need for mothers is nothing more than a billion year old process to ensure life continuity but the overall process of life in general demands more than just a singular drive to procreate.  Mothers are an essential part of the foundational fabric that was designed to ensure a connection between both mother and child and mother and the creator.

The process of creation can be seen most acutely with the mother and child relationship.   In all aspects of life when the passage of genetic material is complete and the consequent life has been instituted the process should be considered as a planned and not haphazard or by chance.  The foundational process was established and continues to build upon itself with the unimaginable opportunities that all life has in store.


Happy Mother Day…. 

Sunday, May 1, 2016

No one hears

Over the past several months I’ve been dealing with a dilemma at work.  Most of you know that I am a teacher and I spend all my time helping those with special needs (that is not my problem).  The problem is with some of the other teachers who I believe are in need of special services… just kidding of course. 

These are not major problems by any means and I want to emphatically state that to a person I enjoy a majority of our conversations and enjoy the perspective that many bring to the table and in this case there really is a table, the lunch table where we often engage in spirited conversations.

The problem is, as long as I tone down my rhetoric everything is fine and when I say tone it down I mean refuse to honestly open up about my politics or even my religion.  On the few occasions that those topics were broached the very nature of the conversation changed.  I often sense a drastic cooling in the room when I start to mention my personal beliefs and on a few other occasions had I not backed off the conversation would have turned heated, not from my end I am proud to say.

The problem is in the democratic sharing of ideas that are to me the foundation of our great country and the only way I believe to develop a solid foundation for alternating beliefs.  But the dogmatic rhetoric within this school and most schools is disturbing as it presents a wholly one sided view and not the preached eclectic openness of liberalism that is espoused and supposed to helps all to learn.  It’s ok for me to sit and listen while other spout off their likes and dislikes about this candidate or this policy but when I interject with a more conservative view the process of democracy is quickly stifled. 

Ooh their polite and many would rather walk away then have to confront someone who thinks differently than they do, but when a discussion is sidelined by non participation then the process of discussion is over, leaving every one less informed and less able to overcome the major differences that exist in every avenue of life and work.

I am one who likes to discuss and I like to banter back and forth with the idea that I may actually learn from the others point of view, but the opposite is very rarely true with the others spewing their lines like automatons programmed to respond only in a very specific and pre-planned way, with their ears turned off so that if any divergent ideas seek audience in their brain it can be summarily removed before any real damage can occur. 

I have purposely left off all reference to my school and will not even mention the names nor change the names to protect the innocent.  The specific individuals matter little in relation to the overriding void of openness that should exist as the educated speak and ponder those ideas presented.

For many years I have been vocal about the issues I saw as important.  It’s easy to do as a blogger but almost impossible to do as an educator.  If I did decide to voice my opinions almost immediately a cloud of discord showers down the liberal line, drenching me in a diatribe of illogical and honestly, irrationality, that stems from too many years of following the wake of some great ship, thinking that the waves will protect if only we stay in close proximity to those ideas, never realizing the true danger of those waves and the easy in which they can pull you under the boat and shred you to ribbons by the powerful propellers.  The wake of the boat increases in danger the closer you actually get to the boat.  In other words, the more inline you are with one singular thought the less able you are to accept the truths that are so often in abundance, if one is really able to or willing to listen.

There are only a few teachers that would even entertain a discussion of voting for the conservative or even the non democrat, most getting visibly disturbed by the very act of breaking their life long bubble of perception with no variance available toward consideration of another’s point of view to ever consider the possibility of change.

Just the other day I was in a polite conversation with a language teacher who I have talked to in the past with most of our conversations surrounding the unconcerned areas of life and the safe areas of politics, meaning I simply agreed and let them talk while I nodded my head to be polite, not wanting to offend in any way.  But the conversation turned to religion and I was asked what church I attended?  My answer was direct and to the point as I stated that I was a “Latter Day Saint” with the needed attachment that we are also called “Mormons”. 

Almost from one breath to the next the conversation went from cordial and friendly to the other party standing up and making excuses for having to leave and a subsequent issue of no contact with only a polite but curt greeting in the hall.  The question arises, why would my choice of religious offend another?  Do they not have that same choice and why is it that my choice is not as valid as their choice?  Does not the same logic follow all of our choices? 

I know politics and religion are two volatile subjects that are often encouraged not to be broached but my question is why?  I feel strongly about who I am and how I can retain my understanding of myself and my fellow man though the process of self examination and study.   I enjoy learning from others and receive great satisfaction when profitable discussions can be achieved with the almost mandatory segregation due some illogical discord based on inaccurate perceptions.

The problem is not just around my work room table but seems to be a rampant issue across this great land.  We as a country have lost the ability to openly discuss and share, holding the principles of mutual respect to guide our thoughts into learning from each and with no overall principle of conversion from either side.

Many shed their logical skins when Mormonism is even mentioned, feeling uncomfortable with the whole idea that as a Christ centered Mormon I can have profound feelings for the Son of God.  So often parishioners have heard the propaganda of horns on our heads and lecherous activities within our temples and the ideas of having multiple wives leading many to conclude that the Warren Jeffers crowd and the LDS Church are one in the same….Not even close.

It’s not in the misunderstandings that bother me but in the ignorant refusal to discuss our differences.  In both religion and politics the inner sanctum of ones mind often overshadows the practical as screaming priests or politicians can be heard in the minds of the weak telling them to ignore whatever is being said, regardless of the truth. 

It is primarily due to my belief that I seek to further my foundations of truth.  I can read, ponder, even pray to find the truth but only when I live what I believe will the truth of my decisions be known, for “faith has to proceed the miracles of belief”…Spencer Kimball. 

Even within politics the religious fervor of one party over another transcends the common sense and destroys all rationality.  One of the teachers asked who I was voting for, thinking that I would have taken the Educational side and chosen either Sanders or Hillary,  When I mentioned Trump the room went quiet before the storm of reprisal and the negative slurs began in Ernest and unabated until I either stopped defending my life or I left the room.
  
When was it OK to disregard the beliefs of one over the beliefs of the others?  When was it OK to demand a belief prior to participating in a conversation?  Do we all have to agree on everything?  If I like blue and you like red does that make me wrong or you conversely more right than me?  When did this country become so rude and inconsiderate?  And when did my beliefs create in others the need to lambaste and condemn me for those beliefs? 

I will most likely continue my soft footed approach to lunch room discussions but I will never back down when my thoughts or my beliefs are converted to hate and revulsion from others that do not agree.  Let me close with this.  I am a Mormon.  I believe in Christ as the Son of God.  I am a Christian by all rights and would like to remind all who disagree that the name of my Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.  What’s the name of your church and what does that say about your devotion?

My politics are Christ centered with the overriding belief that teaching a man to fish is ultimately the goal of any social or welfare system.  I believe in honesty and integrity and search the candidates for those who are honest, capable and electable.  I believe in the constitution and its divine origination. 


So if you don’t agree with my stance, at least have the maturity to agree but disagree and leave the name calling to those who are truly ignorant.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

The poor in Mind

When Bernie complained that he would be winning if the poor would simply vote, says more about him then most of us realize.  I’m not sure even he understands the gravity of that simple grumble.  If the poor were to vote in mass what would be the result? 

When we think of voting, those who vote take great pride in casting their choice toward their chosen candidate, but the poor have never really voted.  There are some who may be poor financially but have the wherewithal to ascertain the pros and cons of a candidate without the singularity of one issue over all others. 

Bernie was right in hoping that the poor would rise to the occasion and support his socialist agenda and if they knew of that agenda they should flock toward Sanders and fill the polling places so that their choices could be made into a reality of social programs that might directly affect their lives.  But the thing is they don’t understand.  They do not follow the news.  The poor are generally, at least in this country, ignorant of the realities of a democracy and the need for intelligent participation.

That same statement might also be true of most of our voting blocks who continue to support the issues based on a singular attitude rather than looking for the best leader.  The fractured process of voting fails to funnel the capable into the final process of an election it rather forces those who may like to run, running away, not wanting to subject their lives to the scrutiny of the ever present public.

Being poor is not the issue, it’s what happens to the mind when poverty is a choice rather than a temporary condition.  I’ve been poor, many times but I fail to let my mind become slovenly, resentful, hateful or lazy.  These are not natural attributes of poverty.  They are however the choices brought on by a generational process of destruction, one that has been perpetrated by their government and the political parties that want to subjugate them and their posterity.

There are a few facts that should be understood. 

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.


In other words if the poor were to vote for Bernie then we would all be poor.  The blessings of work are universal and undeniable.  Take away the incentive to work and you take away the souls of the men and women who refuse to improve.
There is a lot we can all do to improve ourselves and help those around us.  Life is difficult enough but when our government chooses to redistribute the efforts of those who work for those who do not then our nation will cease to exist. 

The old wives tale says that “idle hands are the devils plaything” teaches all of us to stay busy, work hard, and be productive.   I know there are times and reasons to be poor, to be depressed and be in a situation that seems impossible but doing nothing is never the answer and voting for Bernie would be almost as bad as voting for Hillary, at least he seems genuinely concerned for the plight of man.  The only problem with his outlook is his desire to turn our country into a socialistic hothouse of dead and dying desires, with only the hope of someone else working hard to fund their ignorant and helpless lifestyle. 


In South Korea they have a simple saying that seems to go along with their all they do….”Work Hard…” simple yes, but profound and impossible to argue.  I rest my case, at least until my alarm goes off at 4:30 and I have to get up and go to work.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Sore Looser or Sour Politics?

Whatever you may think of Trump or his campaign the way the Republicans are treating his candidacy will create a black hole of confidence that may not be able to be recoverable and will assuredly cause the Democrats to win the election.

We supposedly live in a democratic society where anyone can run for office as long as they meet the minimum requirements.  Trump calls himself a republican and under that broad umbrella lives the diversity that has for so long been the hope of the Republican Party.  With one fell swoop and a wave of some unseen hand that hope will be dashed and replaced with the already perceived ideals that make up the current republican leadership.

They, the leaders are hoping for a brokered convention that will allow them to disregard Trumps prominence within the party and replace him with a candidate of their choosing.  We are then allowed to vote for their choice, not much of a choice if what you want does not fall within the strict conventions of “what a republican should be”. 

Trump in my opinion is not the best candidate but he is the current leader in that campaign.  He has shown an ability to gather followers and to win elections.  Has it always been this way with in the Republican Party and is it this way as well within the Democratic Party?  Are we simple pawns to their battle of political supremacy? 

Like so many other instances where the people chose and then the choice is negated through the courts reminding all of us that the spell of democracy is now broken and replaced with a tyrannical process of outlawing free choice and forcing the public into accepting their choices as the only ones that matter.  If Trump is removed from his place as current leader of the Republican Party the choices that Trump has will inevitably lead to a third party run and a fractured republican ticket that will leave the path wide open for Hillary to win.  (See my article “A Trump in Sheep’s Clothing”…Aug 2015)

I had hoped I was wrong but it seems so much more likely when the party of the candidate has turned their backs on that candidate and are openly moving toward marginalizing that candidate.  This is and will be an unprecedented action of power over democracy and the republicans will suffer as a result.

Since my August article, I have had hopes of a Maverick coming on the scene and really changing Washington in such a manner that level heads can prevail and common sense becomes common again.  But with this move by the republicans the notion of “politics as Usual” will once again be the power play of the day.

I like what Trump says, and I like what Trump represents and for the most part I can understand his allure but let the democratic system chose, let my vote count.  Regardless of the democratic republic that has the tendency to over regulate our choices, I don’t want someone else making these decisions for me, not this time.  Let the democratic process run its course.  Let those who vote matter and let their candidates swing it out in the general election. 

If the leaders don’t like it, make changes for the next election and prepare for the eventuality of this happening again, but don’t change the rules mid stream, which is dishonest, manipulative and smacks of self preservation over the needs of many. 

It’s not that I want Trump but I want the idea of a Trump taking charge, being a leader, speaking his mind and having the ability to run and get elected as a result of an open and free election.  The Republicans are wrong to censure Donald Trump and when the eventually do the wrath of the public will hand the republicans a defeat that they may never recover from. 

Call your congressman, call your senators, your local leaders as well and put them on the spot to support Democracy over the tyrannical machinations of this republican forced 2016 election.  


Sunday, April 10, 2016

The Muted Trump

I would like to make a simple and straight forward statement about the “Panama Papers”. If you haven’t heard about these breaches in security they are from the law firm Mossack Fonseca, A Panamanian firm who specialized in creating off shore accounts.

If you’re already getting a little antsy from the term “off shore” I think you have every right to be.  Off shore does not mean illegal and many off shore accounts are completely legitimate, but when the list of names was revealed the high and mighty of the world were prominently displayed. 

I do not want to spend my time naming names, I really don’t have the time nor the space… but the quick and short of it is this:    When corruption is the rule, democracy and freedom cannot exist.

With some of our candidates listed in the Panama Papers we really need to worry about our basic tenets of freedom.  Nothing will probably come of the association with Mossack Fonseca and any major political figure but the inferences toward corruption are as plain as a bright summer day. 

I have always been a staunch conservative with a passionate ideal of what it means to be a caring and rational person (Not implying that if you’re not conservative you would logically fall within the non-caring and irrational spectrum of life).  My ideal of conservatism is a based on service and gratitude with the bonus attributes of discovery and profit requiring a balance of commerce and charity in order to stifle the natural man’s tendency to exploit. 

Honesty is an integral attribute of conservatism, or it should be.  Honesty has morphed into a personal view or perspective based on the needs and wants of that specific time.  When billions and billions of dollars are hidden by our leaders, regardless of their initial intent (which I wish to state is probably nefarious) the idea of shuffling money from this account to another in order to hide those funds is dishonest to say the least and criminal as it concerns Putin and few others that squandered billions.

Maybe the Panama Papers are nothing to worry about, perhaps there only the beginning of the craft of graft and deep seeded corruption that will be revealed in the months and years to come.  Perhaps these papers are nothing more than a weak warning of the disastrous events that will be revealed forcing us to make a choice.  Go along and hope that you can open your own off shore account, being satisfied with the corrupt and money hungry leadership, or take a stand against the self appointed hierarchy, vote for the most honest and capable among the candidates, regardless of the party. 

If you don’t vote accordingly then you will be the one to suffer as all of us suffer from your neglect.  I’m thinking that the best at this point is John Kasich of Ohio.  He has led Ohio in a profound manner.  He is a party favorite and will therefore be given the support of that party.  He is, as far as I can see an honest and capable leader.

The problem with starting to vote responsibly is the deficit of responsible voters on the others side.  If we vote responsibly and they do not, we loose. 

Democrats should vote for Sanders.  I am not sure how capable he is but between the two democratic candidates he is more honest than Hillary.  This is indeed a difficult election.  Not only are we voting for a leader but for the voice of the future Supreme Court and the moral direction of our country.


Make your vote count, make it mean something and if we consider honesty as a guiding principle perhaps we can make a difference, you will have to spread the word though, I don’t have that many readers…..  

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Political Honesty

During these trying and most difficult days of the 2016 election cycle I wish to admit to some degree of imposition and the utter lack of surprise when it comes to political news.  In my defense of this imposition and due in part to my age and experience I have been somewhat put off by the entire political process and the level of insincerity when it comes to providing me with real and substantive information.

I really don’t care that much about what you think or feel at this point, I want the information for me.  I suspect there are a few others like me but the vast majority of political purveyors pursue only the prostrated and plain particulars of political pungency.   In other words they only want the fire and are no longer interested in the essential elements that create those flames.

If you still don’t understand then I rest my case and forego any further postulations pursuant to the popular brand of purgatory.  “Hell is what we make it, while we live on earth” and those who fail to see the urgency behind picking a qualified political leader are destined to live in the shadow of their own hell when they chose to vote out of social exigency rather than the overall and positive qualities of any given candidate.

Many voted for Obama for the simple reason of race.  Many will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman.  Will businessman/woman vote for Trump simply because he is a businessperson….? Will you vote based on one topic or another?  Abortion, race, poverty or economics, will you vote using one issue as your foundation for potential leader?  Voting is a sacred responsibility that I take seriously.  I will never condone the practice of voting within a static singularity and further denounce those who do.

This election, perhaps unlike any before will be the paradigm of our country in the future.  Will we continue to honor the Constitution or will we fall prey to the singular devotees who garner favor based on the superficial aspects of one quality and only one, discounting the negative or the positive qualities that are mostly in abundant in all candidates.

It’s inevitably the substance of a candidate in its entirety that creates the foundation of our ability to judge their motivations and aptitude to lead.  Beyond their individual capacity and availability are the destructive nature of simplicity and the effortless attitude of the electorate.  Decrying the search for truth over a game of chance the voters continue to seek the easy way, the entertaining way and the (sorry for being blunt…NO I AM NOT) most risky way of electing our President. 

Most it seems are willingly ready to put their vote into an app that would tabulate their vote based on nothing substantive but on a social media example of what society should be if every one was on facebook and that kind of thinking was the reality.

A popular President is a good thing but voting based only on popularity is not.   I know that my words will not garner any ground swell of change but I also know that for me this election is important and I at least will think deeply about the three basic principles of being a public servant. 

  1. Are they Honest
  2. Are they Capable
  3. Are they Electable

If they are not honest they will not lead they will push.  Honesty should be a mandatory principle of leadership.  Honesty is the foundation of good character….

If they are not capable then their decisions are guesses.  Experience is an essential part of leadership.  How can one effectively lead when they don’t know where to go or how to get there?

If they are not electable then why bother? In politics the overriding principle has to be if they are electable.  This is not an easy concept to understand, especially in light of the all too often scenario of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.  But no matter the honesty or capability if there is not chance of being elected, don’t waste my time or my vote.

The bottom line to all this is actually quite easy to see.  Look closely at your candidate and do so as you would a business you hope to buy or a used car.  Take your time.  Look at the details.  Try to imagine his or her leadership and those consequences, both good and bad to the country and more specifically to yourself, if they are indeed elected.

Move away from singular voting reasons.  Would you buy a car simply because you liked the color?  If you answered yes, please remove yourself from the voting public and if at all possible move to Mexico…(this is not a slur against my Mexican brothers and sisters, or cousins as it is in my case, but only a quick alternative to living in the USA.)…Canada.

The depth of a candidate is often glossed over by the media and in large measure because of the media the candidates themselves glosses over the essential and important aspects of leadership and the 3 principles of leadership.


Look at life in all its complexity and only then will you be able to see the simple truths of creation.  Candidates are the same and should be viewed with those 3 principles in mind.  And lest we forget, fighting for something inconsequential only leaves you bruised, broken and depressed.  Fight for what is right and no matter how many trials are placed before you, you will always know that the path chosen is the right one.