Purple State, USA

Expectations

Most individuals have expectations of the people they let close and rely on. For me, it's honest communication. I have had people express that my ability to throw five well-articulated paragraphs onto a piece of paper in almost as many minutes intimidates them. It shouldn't. I am a writer and I have zero expectation for most to communicate as I do.

No, what I mean by honest communication is much simpler. Let me provide you some examples: If I communicate about an apple, but get an unrelated response about tires... I don't understand; If I ask a direct question and don't get a direct answer... I don't understand; If anyone claims they were less than honest so as to spare my feelings... I don't understand; As much as I love words and believe in the power of words, word games... I don't understand.

These things--I've learned--can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for some people.

For the most part, my communication requirement simply prevents me from getting close to the wrong people. We can likely still be acquaintances, but best buddies we will never be. I think this is fair and logical. There's a reason best friends are best friends after all.

The trouble starts when part of me makes the leap of caring deeply about someone before realizing they can't communicate in any way I understand. It's rare, but it does happen. In those situations, I am left anxious, uncomfortable, and far out on a limb wondering how I got there. Articulate goes out the window, logical isn't even a vocabulary word and all of any intelligence I have is focused on getting off the limb with minimal damage.

In short, anything less than honest, succinct communication Makes. Me. Crazy.

Enter the country I fell in love with long before I realized she has as much going against her as for her. Enter Washington, D.C., enter every state capital, every municipality. Is there any group of people so good at saying so much without saying anything? Does anyone really believe the health care issue is separate from the employment issue is separate from the immigration issue is separate from the education issue is separate from the terrorism issue is separate from the environmental issue is separate from the national defense issue?

I understand the need to simplify to a degree, but the half-truths, back-room deals and partisan bickering that has become as much a symbol of our government and our country as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Well. It Makes. Me. Crazy. We deserve better. When are we going to start demanding it?

545 People (by Charlie Reese)

I received this last week from a former colleague. I want to share it with you here...

545 People by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives  does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its  Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They  have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a  president to do  one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or  reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.  They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall...  No normal human being would have  the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the  President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the  supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted--by present facts--of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable  directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy,"  "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

The Problem with Independence.

Independence isn't just a nice catchphrase associated with the United States. It also happens to be the name of the city I live in. Though not well known outside our local area--despite being home to President Truman back in the day--I happen to like this "little" city that I call home. It is rich in history and has made excellent strides at revitalization and at bringing new businesses in during the past couple of decades.

Last week we had an election. A single item on the ballot. At issue was whether or not to increase sales tax by 3/8 cents to pay for some extra police officers and support staff. It ended up not passing.

The final tally had the result split as 40% in favor, 60% opposed, with apx 9500 people voting. What's troubling about this result is that--according to the 2000 census--the population in Independence is 113,288... which leaves one skeptical whether the outcome of the vote had anything to do with the will of the majority of the population. In fact, the only thing it seems to clearly indicate about the majority of Independence is that, at best, they didn't have time and, at worst, they just didn't care. Everyone I have spoken with says they didn't show up because they figured it would pass.

Everyone I have spoken with says they didn't show up because they figured it would pass.

Independence is a great "little" town... but it also has its blighted areas and only recently has it managed to rid itself of its "meth-capital of the country" designation. So my question is, do we know who those 5,500+ who voted "no" last Tuesday are? And, without that knowledge, are we absolutely certain we are wise to let their voices speak in place of our own?

The next night, from one of the less desirable areas in our city, a news channel reported on a park that has a problem with ultimate fighting gangs. The neighbors want it to stop, they complain that the police don't respond quickly enough. I couldn't help but wonder how many of them were at the polls the day before. It seems odds are good none of them bothered to show up. Why do we complain of being powerless when so often we don't even exercise the power we do have? 

Of course, it would be remiss of me not to point out--before any of the rest of you start feeling too smug about yourselves or your cities--that the civic trend in Independence last Tuesday is hardly the exception to the rule on how involved most of us do (or don't) get in our local governments.

Your city or town or county has likely had an election since the one most of us remember so vividly and lined up for so patriotically last November. If you're shocked to hear that, you're probably already in trouble, so do yourself a favor and do some quick research... When was your last election? What was up for a vote? How many in your population were present (xx of xx)? What has to happen before it matters enough that the rest of us start showing up thoughtfully and reliably?

To the Dismay of the Introvert in Me.

I had an individual comment to me a few weeks ago that I must be "really into politics." It was the first time anyone has made that observation. I surprised us both by answering sincerely that I'm not.

In fact, for those who don't know me that well, I would rather spend my time on endeavors far less paradoxical than the current political environment of our country. The reality is that the introvert in me is always a bit pissed when the extrovert in me doesn't permit us to live in the relative peace and predictability that it prefers.

I went on to explain to this individual that I wrote Common Sense from the Purple State because I believe too many people--such as my more introverted self--aren't talking about what we desperately need to be talking about. They are hoping and expecting that it will turn out fine because in their everyday lives they are surrounded by intelligent, common sense sort of people... the same intelligent, common sense sort of people who--like them--are also too busy being prolific members of society to be bothered by the white noise of our political system.

I know a man who started a company years ago. He took an idea he had, risked his own money, devised his own plan... and through painstaking perseverance and more than a few sleepless nights, he turned that company into a multi-billion dollar firm. This was a man who possessed the kind of qualities most of us would hope our own children would emulate. What he didn't possess, though, was the time to get involved with our government on any level. As a result, he found himself subject to the taxes and the legislation of people with--in my opinion--half the intelligence of him, simply because he was too busy, too tired or too confused to pay attention.

Can you imagine a country where the only thing the people not making money--not innovating, not pouring their own sweat and blood into making a living--have to figure out is how to tax everyone who is so that they can benefit? As we strive to become productive members of society--at the same time accumulating debt, paying taxes most of us are only vaguely aware the destination of--are we so sure it hasn't already happened?

I am tired of politics as well. I am often confounded that it takes paragraphs to spell out legislation that requires only a sentence. I would like very much to retire to the beachfront or a quiet mountain and rid myself of all of it. The problem is, I always think of that man, of everyone I have known with a story similar to his. And I think, if we don't speak, if we stand by and we don't at least present our version of reality, then aren't we as much to blame--for doing nothing--as those drilling the hole in the bottom of the ship? Why do we assume they have the good sense to stop before sinking us all?

If we aren't talking, who is? And, in the absence of our voices, why shouldn't our children, outsiders, those easily influenced, listen to the voices of anyone else who might be speaking, regardless of whether they are spewing fact or fiction?

I believe silence can often be the most risky and damaging proposition of all. For now, that is why--at least in my case--the extrovert is trumping the would-just-as-soon-sit-quietly-by introvert.

It's not that he cheated.

Though it has been over 230 years since our founding fathers penned the Declaration of Independence-- thus placing into our national history a very clear rejection of the infallibility of one ruling party--it seems we, as Americans, often still try to place our elected representatives at some level a bit higher than ourselves. Perhaps it's because we prefer to think that the individuals making such profound decisions about the direction of something as important as our country's future are somehow bigger than us, better than us, not--in other words--as inclined to the vices of the average man or woman walking down the street.

In reality, we have often only made life harder on ourselves and those we elect by continuing to perpetuate these fantastical notions. Mark Sanford, the most recently "disgraced" political figure headlining the news, has watched his very personal decisions become very public fodder. As he is having to deal with his own personal crisis--having to answer his own difficult questions--he is also having everything he has said to his family and this woman exposed for the entire country to stop and gawk at as if witnessing some sort of horrific train wreck. The general message seems to be that he has somehow let us, as Americans, down... else why would we need to hear about it at the top of every newscast?

Truth? Unless Ms Argentina is an international spy hell-bent on starting the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the innocuous state of South Carolina, I don't really care who Mark Sanford is or isn't having sex with. I don't think he needs me contemplating his personal emails from last December or lamenting what he might have done right or wrong in his marriage just so I can feel a little bit better about myself. I don't think I need to see his life picked apart by vultures trying to secure the next rung on their political ladder.

Those are the things I don't care about. That said... I do, however, care what Mark Sanford is doing with American taxpayer money, even if I am not a resident of South Carolina. I do care if he is wasting time on congressional theatrics that produce more headlines than results. I do care if he is diverting time away from more pressing issues by thinking a governor can disappear for a week without anyone noticing (and I wonder if that means he's not very smart to begin with). I do care if he is using taxpayer money to finance any part of his personal ventures--whether they truly be trips to hike the Appalachian Mountains, visit a mistress in Argentina or anything else.

In short, I don't really care what he or anyone else in the government has going on in their personal lives so long as they are getting their jobs done and not using my money to pay for it. Or--if they truly think it's okay or that they are entitled to perks such as free vacations for themselves, their kids or anyone else they fancy--that they at least respect my financial contribution enough to get on the evening news and, say, "Look, I'm taking a vacation to see my mistress, you don't know how stressful this job is on me or what impossible bosses you all are. I am leaving the lieutenant governor in charge, taking a holiday and you're paying for it. If I haven't done enough good to offset any hard feelings you have over this fact, then don't re-elect me next term."

It reminds me of a guy I worked for several years ago. He told me he and a co-worker were at a conference and were walking between the hotel and the convention center. They were approached by a very drunk, very homeless man who said, in summary, "Look, I ain't going to lie to you, I've had a bad day and I would just like a couple dollars to go get a drink." My manager said he was so dumbfounded by the guy's honesty that he went from being about to say "No," in response to the anticipated question to reaching in his wallet and giving the guy a twenty (yes, yes, we hear you AA, but that's not the point of this story).

What do you think of the coverage of Mark Sanford's situation? Are we focusing on the correct thing? Or are we guilty of perpetuating the problem by not noticing that politicians like Sanford often have many other, more significant shortcomings that most of us just don't pay attention to until some scandal breaks and leaves us gaping in self-righteous disbelief?

-Juli