Oh, I should have written this a couple of weeks ago...

Okay…so I keep hearing how irritated people are with all the election flyers, and especially the automated calls, and the surveys.

Some of you are so irritated that you say you won’t even vote for a candidate who employs the auto call method…

…in which case, I don’t know WHO you WILL vote for…because I think they all do it.

And why do they choose to use this irritating tactic?

I submit to you that these tactics have become necessary because of the irresponsibility of the voters. And I’m not referring to those who are ultimately irresponsible in that they don’t vote at all. No – I am referring to the many which do not know the candidates, or the issues, but feel that they SHOULD vote. They fill out their ballot by ticking the names they recognize, or simply looking for an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ to make a mark by. They are voting in ignorance.

So, in effect, the candidates must find a way to go to the voters, as the voters will not come to them.

And thus, you get the automated calls…and lots and lots of flyers.

Surveys can have a different purpose. They are used to gauge a candidate’s support, and define the demographics in which he is lacking. I suggest that when you receive a survey call, come out strongly for your candidate. You will be identified as someone who does not need to be persuaded by either candidate, and will be less likely to be called again. Help out your candidate by showing him where to spend his money, and where not to spend it.

If you do not want to talk to anyone about anything having to do with the election, hang up on the automated call, or politely interrupt the live caller and say so. You are doing the kind thing by saving their time.

A more important issue when it come to automated calls and the blanket bombing of the flyers is that too many times that votes come down to name recognition. If you have a lot of money, you can buy a lot of name recognition. So the independently wealthy, or a candidate supported by national/regional organizations can, in effect, buy a seat in local government.

This should not be so, and it is possible because people are irresponsible voters. I believe everyone who is registered should take this responsibility seriously and should vote…but if you are voting, do some research! Take the time, first, to know what you believe and support, then seek out the candidate that most closely lines up with that. Go beyond the flyers, as these are often akin to sound bites edited without context.

I can hear your weary sighs…I know you’d rather not have to mess with all the conflict, complex issues, and confusing claims…But it really matters! Every year (not just presidential years) there are people and issues that will affect your everyday life here locally. Have a say – and don’t just brush off the election process because you find it irritating. It MATTERS! You can influence your quality of life if you avail yourself of the opportunity.

“The penalty a man pays for not participating in politics is to be governed by men worse than himself.” -- Plato

It's just like that fairy tale...

…where the emperor had no clothes.

I was embarrassed yesterday as I watched Congressman Adam Smith, from our fair state of Washington, comment on the Benghazi situation. He was a guest of Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Chris challenged him to respond to the newly disseminated facts that talking points about the attack were revised 12 times before they came out with the false story that a demonstration against an internet video resulted in violence and the deaths of our Ambassador to Libya, and 3 others.

Despite early video of presidential spokesman, Jay Carney, insisting that there was only one change made to the talking points about the Benghazi attack – they changed the term “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” – our honorable representative would not admit that it was a lie.

He danced round and round the evidence, obfuscating, and denying that a lie was perpetuated.

He looked absolutely stupid.

I watch this and wonder what kind of a man Rep. Smith is that he willingly supports the lie when clear evidence to the contrary is presented. Does he not have at least a modicum of personal pride and integrity that he would not shame himself? How can he justify denying the obvious? What is the payback to him for making such a fool of himself?

His behavior points to the likelihood that he is committed to some agenda (on which I will not speculate) more than he is committed to truth. What use is he if this is so? He’s willing to play the fool more than he is willing to serve his constituents. What service can he render his country if he will not deal with reality? He’d rather believe a fantasy, than make his government better, or work to defend our State Department employees from further danger.

From what I saw yesterday, I would recommend that his district throw the rascal out! You can’t trust someone who chooses to be blind to truth for whatever reason. He’s wasting the office.

I can’t fathom what he hopes to accomplish by this behavior.

The ban on shame...

Yesterday I heard Dave Ross say this: "We have to know how he {Tamerlan Tsarnaev} got radicalized because, since this is something anybody could do, we have to figure out how to make sure nobody wants to."

This could be pretty difficult because we live in a society that seems to be committed to making everyone comfortable with their choices. Let's make alternative lifestyles normal. Let's make pot legal. Let's reward the lazy with a free ride. Let's explain away evil as the result of a bad childhood ...and so on and so on...

A lot of effort has been spent making shame shameful. I don't think it's helping.

At the base of this is the rejection of absolutes...If you reject shame, you reject that there are truths that apply to everyone. How can you make something unattractive without imposing shame on the activity? How can you make sure nobody wants to bomb innocents without imposing your truth on them?

It seems that moral relativism is all well and good -- until somebody you love gets hurt. Then come the demands to impose your particular belief system on everyone.

But you can't have it both ways...There ARE absolute truths -- absolute morals, and shame is appropriate when they are flouted.

Certainly, every culture has misapplied shame, and probably always will to some extent, but we are foolish to attempt to make everyone feel good by eliminating the emotion instead of the action.

A little bit of shame could go a long way, in my opinion.

Stop talking about the Second Amendment...

I’m weary of hearing about gun control and I think that its opponents are making a fundamental mistake in their argument.

First, let it be said that I am not for more gun control laws. I don’t want our Second Amendment rights to be diminished…And I don’t own a gun.

 

But, correct as it may be, focusing the argument against gun control as a loss of our rights and our freedoms is a mistake. Consider the audience they are trying to persuade.

The right to bear arms is a right most people do not exercise. Frankly, most people don’t care if they can get a gun or not. They don’t see a loss where there is none for them. It’s someone else’s problem. More gun control laws won’t have a direct effect on most people’s lives, and when this is so, they don’t really care about the subject. The loss of rights argument is moot to them.

They do care about 20 little kids who were killed by a madman.

If gun control opponents want to gain support from the general population, I think they should be focusing on the fact that the regulations being proposed will not work. They wouldn’t have protected those kids and teachers at Sandy Hook, and they won’t stop the next madman either. This is what they should be talking about – over and over and over. It should be stated as fact that laws cannot make us safe and secure. Security from the law is dependent on people who have the will to obey it. Madmen are not usually amongst this group…

The protracted discussions on what gun laws to implement; the endless arguments; the laws that will be passed are just a monumental waste of time, and a dishonor to those who died.

We are a foolish people indeed to think that a law about how many bullets you can carry will protect us from evil. If that is our solution to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, I would be embarrassed to look into the eyes of those little angels who faced the darkness and tell them it’s all okay now.

Because it’s not…and until we resolve to meet evil from a position of strength, it won’t be.

And that’s what gun control opponents should be talking about.