He's Still There

In recent weeks the eyes and attention of the Republican Party has shifted to Mitt Romney, but thankfully the race continues.  Ron Paul is still in the race and looks to gain delegates in the primaries that are coming up in June and July.  Paul did win Maine and has gained in the delegate count. Many have asked why Paul continues in the race, but I think it is brilliant. Why you ask?

First and foremost his continued effort shows some serious flaws in the system of picking a nominee.  After the early primaries, it becomes a foregone conclusion as to who will win, but is it really?  As we have seen with the Romney train as it leaves the station, not many people are jumping on board, and those who are are reluctant.  If we were to seriously overhaul the nomination system, and allow the best candidate to mature in the race, perhaps both parties could begin to nominate candidates that we the best rather than those with the most stamina.  By Paul remaining in the race, the party is forced to continue listening..even if faintly..to those on the outside wanting in.  It's good for the party, and the country as well.

Secondly, it is setting Paul up for success.  Paul, as annoying as it may be to the Republic power, is the person the Skynyrd concert yelling "Freebird!" It's the song everyone came to hear, and eventually the band will play.  Paul standing up for what he, and obviously a growing number of Americans think is right, is a good thing.  Eventually the party will morph to include those like Paul into the mainstream.  It worked for the Tea Party (I hardly call Paul a Tea Partier), and can work again.


Finally it points out serious flaws in how the media covers politics.  This is more subtle than the previous two, but it is there if you look.  How quickly has the media moved away from the race for the nomination, and really the general election?  Yes, elections are terribly long and hard for the media to cover, but it is a must for the public.  When the media suddenly stops covering politics (or seriously covering it), the public stops caring.  We go back to worrying about America's Got Talent or the Kardashians.Congressman Paul staying in the race and not receiving the coverage deserved shines an unflattering light on the media's coverage of politics. Is Kim Kardashian (I refuse to research the spelling of their name) more important than the leader of the free world?


Ron Paul understands that it is impossible for him to win the parties nomination. His continued campaign is however a wake up call for the Republican Party, and America's two party systems as a whole.  The way we pick nominees, and out President has been called into serious question.  How each party answers that question may have an effect not only on 2016, but 2020.  Learning to meld, and formulate a lasting candidate void of serious flaws is going to be a key component to success

The Politics Of Scandal

I have recently become a devotee of the ABC series SCANDAL which is a fictionalized version of what I can only hope be a a fictional character charged with "fixing" problems created by political players.  The show has sparked a conversation with several of my friends over the need and necessity of such a person in the political realm.

Fictional President Fitz "Flandering Fitz" Grant and Unfortunately All To Real Olivia Pope

My dear friend pointed out that since the beginning of power, there has been a need to maintain that power through rough means i.e lying about affairs, covering up affairs, killing off those who find out about affairs and the like.  I contend that those not cunning or smart enough to remain out of need for rough measure ought to be taken down by the very rough measures they seek to employee.  If you believe Shakespeare, even Caesar was warned to "Beware the Ides Of March," and look what happened to him.

Take the John Edwards case as a study in my philosophy.  Did Edwards really think that he would get away with fathering a child out of wed-lock AND the subsequent cover up.  The Romans had a word for that: Hubris. In an age of 24/7, tell-all books, and insta-celebrity, would any high profile politician honestly think they would be able to cover-up an affair? Much less a child from?  The last President who could and did successfully hide his affairs was John F. Kennedy, and he just barely did.  Need I raise Bill Clinton as further evidence of my case?

I purpose that those foolish enough to see the Edwardes or Kennedys of the world and think 'That won't happen to me" ought not be elected to high office.   Thus those same people ought to be caught be any means (above board or below) and run out of office.   And what kind of paradigm does a falandering politician place the rest of us in when the most we are going to hear of them is bad?  Suddenly, we are left to hang on to the tiny morsels of good they do. Thus who attempt feebly to defend Kennedy say "We look at what he did in the Cuban Missile Crisis" or Clinton buffs saying "He balanced the budget and overcame poverty to become President." Good evidence for just how good those Presidents were, but I argue they could have been better if they had not had to put out the fires in their personal lives.

Clinton and "That Young Lady"

There is one President which I can hold as beacon in my argument for a clean cut President that was even more successful because he was able to keep his pants zipped.  Besides being a devout and square Freemason, Harry S. Truman never had to hire the likes of a Olivia Pope (the main character in SCANDAL).  Truman was notorious for being a prude, and was known for running away from situations where he might be alone with a women not his wife.  There was the infamous photo of Truman playing a piano mounted by Lauren Bacall in 1945, but that is the only known scandal of the female variety Truman faced.  The photo was staged and a far cry away from any meeting Bill Clinton might have had with "that young lady, Ms Lewinski."

Truman and Bacall

By no means am I trying to preach morality, but Presidents should content themselves with the political conquests possible for a person in such an office and let those of a bedroom nature alone.  It is better for the office (or in Clinton's case the office furniture) and better for the American public.  Energies devoted to the covering up of scandal are not energies devoted to leading the free world.  That being said, SCANDAL is a thrilling show that is perfect for the political junkie who needs a fix of intrigue with a less than subtle hint of immorality.

He Who Is Without..Fire Away

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-ruben/prank-or-pattern-why-romn_b_1513555.html
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Mitt-Romney-s-hijinks-seen-as-bullying-today-3552617.php
http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2012/05/why_the_romney_bully_story_mat.html


In the Bible, or shall I say the Bible I read, there is a story about a women who is going to be stoned for adultery.  Jesus comes along and utters the famous line "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"
This story came to mind when I first heard it break sometime last week.  After that, I took a long hard look back in my memory bank to think of the things I did in school.  Some good, some bad, some just plain ugly


None of us really want to be judged for what we did in high school, good or bad.  The things we did that seemed great at the time though many look dimmer when compared to the good things we do now.  The bad things would be best forgotten.  The ugly are things that you would like to have a Men In Black mind eraser for.  So is the case with Mitt Romney, and this bullying that he took part in.  I am sure he did it, he was after all a Mormon (as much a perspective target for bullying as someone who was gay), and a guy in high school.  Having been around teenagers for the better part of the last 5 years as I have, you notice just how dumb they are, but there is something more to this story.

While bullying is bad, and I do not support bullying, there is a second line to this story that we seem to be forgetting.  That storyline is just how hungry the media is for bad news.  It seems to matter little that it is bad news from the 1960's, or the 1980's (Barack Obama's ex-girlfriend has recently written a book describing him as aloof), the news media is just grasping for any bad news they can get.  This is not anything new, particularly with politics but it really reaches a new low.  Again I go back to the fact that it was high school, and who wants to be judged high school. 

As I read over the media storm over this, I asked myself why it really matters?  The conclusion I deduced was that it was simply to sell papers and draw yet another line in the sand.  On one side will be those, who feel sorry for the young man bullied, on the other will be those who say "get of Romney's case..it was high school after all."  You can guess which side I stand..though I still don't like him. 


So what if Mitt Romney bullied in high school? If you looked at the presidents in high school you would have a regular Breakfast Club.  Nixon could be the aloof/darker artsy type (bringing to the table problems of his own). JFK, or maybe Franklin Roosevelt could play the popular/ preppy type (that has problems of their own). I bet Jimmy Carter saw the inside of a locker or two as the uber-nerd (again with problems of his own).  I guess that leaves the jock (Ford maybe..with problems of his own), and the trouble maker (we could cast Romney as such for the sake of argument..though one cannot forget problems of his own). Stereotypes form on facts after all and all of the Presidents would fit into one or the other.  We all do. It's best if we move on to the things that matter.


We all did stupid, mean, dumb things in high school.  It is part of high school.  What matters is what we do with those experiences.  If you grow, you are better for it.  If you do not, then you aren't.  Romney seems to have felt sorry for bullying, and grown from it.  He may not have grown out of the opinions behind the bullying, but he at least is not bullying people now..or to the extent of holding them down and cutting their hair.   Maybe in the future we can stop worrying so much about the media's negative news craze and more about what there is to be learned from information.  The attention should be less on what the person has done in the past, and more on what they will do. While we are at that, perhaps we could ignore the negative Nellies in the news. 

My Two Cents

As many of you know North Carolina voted yesterday to not support an amendment allowing gay marriage in the state.  I have but two thought on the subject, and they are worth about a penny apiece in what has been a market flooded with opinions on both sides.

$.01:  Marriage is the craziest thing two people can set out to endure.  Do not take me for a skeptic, I have been married and I want to get married again to the right person. I have that person in mind, and that person is someone I am willing to undertake such an journey..  I support marriages, and want marriages to last, I like marriages, but the idea is damned crazy.  Any two people leveling the burden of commitment on themselves for a lifetime is nuts.  Nothing lasts a life time without changing.  The earth moves and shifts, rocks crumble and all those anologies the 80's hair bands would have you believe. The marriage you enter on your wedding day will not be the one you leave to meet your maker in.  It takes the utmost commitment and dedication to surmount such a fluid relationship. Marriage is the ultimate gamble, so it is not for the faint of heart.  Those who seek it out should be allowed to start down the trail.  I applaud you, and those who have made it work.  You have succeeded in a venture I have failed at once, but am willing to embark on again

+

$.01: Since when was marriage in the United States, North Carolina, or any other state a religious event anyway?  Marriage is a legal contract, if you so chose to allow religious over-tones, then so be it but it is at the very crux a legal entity.  Why we have allowed a specific religious view point govern this or any other public action taken by Americans is beyond me.  Was this country not founded on religious desention and freedom from/of belief?  I see this maneuver not as a protection of religion but one of overwhelming tyranny. Just because one understanding of the Bible says homosexuality is a sin does not mean that all viewpoints do.  Just because some Judeo-Christians see it that way does not mean the Hindu, Budhist, Muslims or Jews of this country, the state of North Carolina, or any other state see it that way.

$.01 + $.01= $.02 so I will draw to a close.

Numbers Do Not Lie

This blog has suddenly turned into a watch dog on the current budget issues in Franklin County Virginia, but that is fine with me.  It makes for good copy, and I honestly need something to write about that I care for.

A Roanoke Times article printed today gave a wonderful break down of school systems in the Roanoke Valley and how they deal with budgeting.  Roanoke City, and Roanoke County  were the featured systems but there was an excellent break down of the purposed changes in the budge for Franklin and Botitourt Counties as well.  The graph along was worth looking at but the article itself is a testament to the possibilities being missed in Franklin County.

Roanoke City and County had the largest budgets with Franklin coming in third at 83 million dollars.  While teachers in both the Roanoke systems are getting 3% raises, teachers in Franklin are not getting anything.  The school system under Franklin on the list was giving raises for veteran teachers and perks on the side for those not effected.

In reading this article I began to ask myself questions.  How is it that the third largest budget in the Roanoke area is unable to repay their teachers?  Why, with that same budget, is FCPS unable to rehire 80 teachers that have received pink slips due to budget concerns?  Is it because Franklin County does not have the tax base to draw from as compared to others in the area? Are the teachers in the other counties that much better?

As I asked these questions of myself, negative responses came up on each.  It is easy to point figures, and usually the finger points goes to the top, but that is fair.  Those in power have the most room for changing a system, and that is there job.  Each school system has curriculum directors to manage that aspect.  They have personal managers, so what is there left to do but manage the grown (hopefully) of the system.  This is where Franklin seems to fall short.

Since I have written extensively about the continuing scandals in the central office of Franklin County, I will not bore you, but the article is a prime example of how well other schools are able to grow and reward teachers in a proper manner (and by proper I do not mean Cheesecakes for the front office).  Perhaps Lackey should drive his county car to the visit the Roanoke schools and take some notes on how to run a school system effectively.  Then maybe 80 highly qualified teachers in FCPS (for the time being) will not have to ask the question :do I have a job next year. The rest of us would not have to ask the questions I did, and more importantly Franklin County can turn it's attention to the actual education of children.  Maybe I'm old fashioned but is that not the job of schools?