I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?

As I sit and write, the GOP Primary race is in full swing. They've already put us through a few debates, and dominated both the airwaves and social media (not to mention both our inboxes and mailboxes). The Dems had a slow start, but don't worry: we'll be pretty tired of both groups of putzes before this is all over.  And look: it is only October of 2015. We have a whole year more of these political shenanigans to go.

(I just read the above to my wife, and she said to "tell me how you really feel!")

Is it just me, or does it seem that the political race starts earlier and earlier every cycle. Pretty soon, right after the President gets sworn in, he/she will hop on Air Force One and hit the campaign trail for the next one.

Who suffers? We the People. That's who. Politicians are so full of themselves, with a lapdog "mainstream" media touting their every breath, that they think that the only thing us regular folks do is think, talk, and s**t politics.

Hate to break it to you "saviors of the people", but most of the time, we don't give a flyin' flip about you folks.

My wife and I were at a breakfast place this morning, with the corner television showing CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or some other useless channel giving us play-by-plays of the current goings on in Washington. I thought it funny. All the Instagram pics I've seen of this country's founding fathers showed them wearing white wigs. According to the cable "news" channel, every current "father" sports their OWN grey hair. This country seems to be run by a bunch of old, mostly white guys, who need a double-shot of "Just for Men".

Let me focus on the title of this post: "I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?"

The GOP has never missed an opportunity to flip the barrel of that gun around and "BLAM!!" Why, oh why, do they start their Primary race so early? The only Democrat I even heard running at the time was Hillary Clinton. Some would say we need the time to weed out the useless. Wouldn't that give us NOBODY? Last I looked, President Obama is no longer an incumbent. Don’t the Democrats need to do the same thing? But they started MUCH later.

Hey, GOP. Let me 'splain it to you. When you start so early, all you do is give the candidates time to screw up over and over and over and . . . And more than that, once the Democrats get in gear, you've given them PLENTY of fodder to work with.

And candidates. Keep in mind that a political race resembles a horse race. My wife and I love to watch the Kentucky Derby. (Yeah, check out those hats!)

From what I've seen, horses that start off in first place rarely finish in first place. The winning horse usually paces at CLOSE to the front and doesn't break out to the lead until the FINAL stretch. If they don't, they usually "wear out" well before they ever get there.

That's what happens to you. We get so tired of you shmoes that the person in the back looks so good by voting day.

Take this advice for what it's worth (you know, not a thing): Wait it out until the final couple of weeks before the Primary. THEN get in the race. C'mon! You don't NEED campaign contributions to run your campaigns (can you say, "One Percenters"?) You can fund them yourselves. And the best part is, you don't give the opposition anything to use against you. Who says that the media needs time to vet you? Oh yeah, the media. Sorry.

Oh, and there is one more way a political race is like a horse race: you always have to watch where you step!

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #62

In recent news, a non-profit organization held a fundraiser where people paid $50k to spend the evening with President Obama. First off, why would ANYBODY pay $50k to spend the evening with ANY president? After all, isn't he a public servant? Isn't he on the payroll? Doesn't that make him an employee of the people? Should you have to pay $50k to meet with your mayor? I know it was a "donation", but try to attend without paying it. See how far you get. And another thing, if you are paying to spend "quality" time with someone, doesn't that make that person a prostitute? Of course, when it comes to politics, those two professions ARE pretty close in comparison . . .

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #51

The major problem facing the Republican Party is integrity. They talk a good talk, but don't follow through in office. We didn't get to $16 trillion by just the Democrats holding the checkbook. I was going to mail a pen to President Bush (GW), but I kept hoping he would find his veto pen. Took way too long for that.

The other difficulty is their message of limited government and spending cuts doesn't sell. But that is politics. You don't get elected threatening to take away all of the goodies that were given out to get elected.

Some say the problem is that Republicans are too right wing. Some say they are not right-wing enough. And still others say the secret sauce is to move to the center. I think the Republican party has the center in their sights and have steadily been moving that direction. From George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (a.k.a. "liberalism"), to John McCain's not knowing on which side of the "aisle" he belongs, to Mitt Romney's flip flopping so much he's worn himself out evenly on both sides, the Republican party has been moving closer to the center with hopes of capturing more voters. Keep in mind, for the Republican party to move to the center means they have to move to the LEFT.

Republicans don't need a new message; they need to follow through on the one they've touted for years.

© Emittravel 2012

Carrot & Stick

I have a friend where I work that is the polar-opposite of me politically, and I have to brag: I love this guy. He is articulate, very funny, and makes me think. I'd like to say he possesses qualities lacking in most liberals I've met. I overheard him having a conversation (yes, also known as "eavesdropping") with another coworker, where he maintained that the wealthy among us should pay a higher percentage of taxes than those making less income. Since I wasn't part of that conversation (did I mention the eavesdropping"?), I decided to hold my opinion for the blog. Of course!

Here is why that concept, though sounding morally superior, fails in the "real world". Let's call it "Carrot and Stick Taxation". My friend believes that because a person has become wealthy under the benefits provided FOR him (again, I'm using "him" for grammatical purposes only - don't get all weird on me), he should have to "give back" for those benefits. Get it? Okay, let me explain.

The "carrot" is the benefits provided. The "stick" is the "give back" - or higher taxes. The government provides an environment where one CAN (that is up to the individual to make it happen) succeed, in order for that same government to take of that success back into its own coffers. Some of the benefits include tax "loopholes" that wealthy people have.

For one thing, those same tax "loopholes" exist for everyone equally. Those who have become successful are in a position to benefit from them. I for one, since I am not self-employed, am unable to partake in many of the write-offs provided in the tax code. I know: how unfair! Someone has gotta be punished for that!

Where is the incentive, under that philosophy of taxation, to succeed? Why work harder, put in more hours, and sacrifice more, to turn around and hand over the fruits of your labor (involuntarily - you know, like a robber at gun point)? Isn't that one of the reasons communism NEVER works? The State tells you how much you can make. "Wait, J.P., the government isn't telling anybody how much they can make." Really? You want to think about that statement a bit? Isn't that what happens when the government "lets" you keep "so much" of your income (after they take what they believe they are entitled to)? This line of thinking is already taking place: look at ObamaCare, where the government will tell which procedures can take place at what price - thereby limiting the amount of possible income for physicians (and everyone else in the medical profession).

Carrot and Stick Taxation has never worked in practice, though it sounds so "nice" in theory. But again, class warfare always sounds good - unless you are the one under fire!

© Emittravel 2012

Nanny-state-ism

Nanny-state-ism: where the government takes care of us because we are incapable of taking care of ourselves.

If you have ever watched television a month or two before a major election, you would have noticed that almost every ad was a muckraking ad about how bad the other candidate was. What this means is that every candidate on the ballot is a lying, cheating, stealing, back stabbing, kick-granny-when-she's-not-looking, jerk. So when you go in to pull that lever (or create that dangling chad, or complete the ACT, or whatever) you are going in to choose the lesser of two evils.

Muckraking . . . mudslinging . . . it's all better in a Jeep!

Now this is how the system works: People who are incapable of taking care of themselves have the responsibility of choosing those to take care of us by selecting the lesser of two evils who will then take care of us because we are incapable of making good decisions on our own.

Got it?

In other words, the next time a government "official" wants to ban something like trans-fats because he doesn't believe people have enough brains to decide on their own to stay out of the restaurant (or order something healthy), he needs to be reminded that the only reason he is even IN a position of authority to make such a cockamamie proclamation in the first place is that the very people he feels that can't take care of themselves voted his sorry ass INTO office.

(Note: I've ignored many a grammar rule in order to give the above more "punch". I ain't that bad an administrative assistant. Honest!)

Thanks to my friend Mark at the Cutting Edge of Ecstasy for inspiring this entry.

©Emittravel 2010