"...Nice Job, Anson...In Fact....Fab..."

John Lennon iconically suggested, years ago, that we all "imagine".

Actor Anson Williams, best known for his work on the 70's sitcom, "Happy Days", posted this on his Facebook page today.

Being involved in the entertainment and product business has given me a clear understanding of how commerce, job creation, a long term, solid economy, etc, is created. Our country's founding and future was always dependent on innovation. The November election has to deal with the greater good, not party loyalty. I voted for President Obama. He is not only intelligent, but also a really good man. However, I'm not voting for him come November. He does not inherently possess the tools that this country needs to monetarily survive. Innovation and invention needs to prevail. Without this, we will DEFINITELY lose the middle class and more. The entrepreneurs need all of the inspiration and help possible to succeed. This is the only way jobs are created for long term growth, and a solid, healthy economy. Without it, we lose our country as we know it.

Anson doesn't mention his party affilliation, political, philosophical or theological predispositions and, both refreshingly and remarkably, refrains from casting any aspersions on anyone.

He has, simply, thought it through, considered his options and made his decision.

A process at the core/heart/center of what was intended when the Founders created our system of government.

Reflection, consideration, weighing of options and thoughtful decision.

Without malice or mayhem.

Imagine.

"...On The Other Hand....There's Only The Other Hand...."

Here's a thing.

Enjoy this and then I'll be back to offer my two shiny Lincoln pennies about it.


Ever since the last Republican convention thousands of Americans have asked me to seek the Republican presidential nomination in ----. I withheld a decision until now, not because of any attempt to be politically coy, but because I have been giving every aspect of such a decision the most serious consideration.

Today, here at our home, in this State I love, with my family and with the people whose friendship and political interests have placed me where I am, I want to tell you this: I will seek the Republican presidential nomination. I’ve decided to do this because of the principles in which I believe and because I am convinced that millions of Americans share my belief in those principles. I decided to do this also because I have not heard from any announced Republican candidate a declaration of conscience or of political position that could possibly offer to the American people a clear choice in the next presidential election.

One of the great attributes of our American two party system has always been the reflected differences in principle. As a general rule one party has emphasized individual liberty and the other has favored the extension of government power. I’m convinced that today a majority in the Republican Party believes in the essential emphasis on individual liberty.

I’ve been spelling out my position now for 10 years in the Senate and for years before that here in my own state. I will spell it out even further in the months to come. I was once asked what kind of Republican I was. I replied that I was not a “me-too” Republican. That still holds. I will not change my beliefs to win votes. I will offer a choice, not an echo. This will not be an engagement of personalities. It will be in engagement of principles.

I’ve always stood for government that is limited and balanced and against the ever increasing concentrations of authority in Washington. I’ve always stood for individual responsibility and against regimentation. I believe we must now make a choice in this land and not continue drifting endlessly down and down for a time when all of us, our lives, our property, our hopes, and even our prayers will become just cogs in a vast government machine.

I believe that we can win victory for freedom both at home and abroad. I believe that we can be strong enough and determined enough to win those victories without war. I believe that appeasement and weakness can only bring war. I’ve asked and will continue to ask: Why Not Victory–why not victory for sound, constitutional principles and government–why not victory over the evils of communism?

I’m convinced that in this year ---- we must face up to our conscience and make a definite choice. We must decide what sort of people we are and what sort of world we want–now and for our children.

My candidacy is pledged to a victory for principle and to presenting an opportunity for the American people to choose. Let there be a choice–right now and in clear, understandable terms. And I ask all of those who feel and believe as I do to join with me in assuring both the choice and the victory.


No reasonable person (and, admittedly, the case can be compellingly made that, these days, that term is a raging oxymoron) can deny that this declaration of candicacy is a thoughtful, insightful, sincere and heartfelt expression of a desire ot offer a genuine alternative to the status quo, an alternative to which politicians traditionally aspire.

The Republican campaign of 2012 seems to have opted to embrace, rather than a central theme, a single obsession.

Anybody but Obama.

Because, at this writing, even the most perceptive of the political pundits, even those who see four more years of Democratic rule as apocolyptic, can't seem to discern the candicacy of Mitt Romney as offering anything more substantial than its being...

Anybody but Obama.

This strategy is going to fail.

Not only as a means of getting Romney elected, but also as a political strategy as a whole.

But, more regrettably, it's going to fail not only Republicans but all of us.

Because all of us, regardless of political stripe, deserve clear, concise alternatives any time we are asked to choose.

Last time I checked, lesser of the evils still doesn't count.

And "anybody but" is an affront, a mentality that replaces pondering with pandering, reflection with reactionism, legitimate debate with illegitimate dogma,cheapening the process and cheating us of a reasonable and reasoned choice between two different paths to walk.

Any one reading this and assuming it to be a pro-Obama epistle is missing the point.

Because it is not.

But just as we were offered "a choice, not an echo" a long time ago, we are entitled to a choice this time around, as well.

And any candidate who, essentially, is saying "well, I can't tell you in any great detail what I will do, except to say that I won't do anything that the other guy is doing" is not offering us up much of a choice.

History buffs will have already recognized the year those heartfelt words were spoken and the candidate who offered them up.

And that, remarkably, he was considered, at the time, a radical.

1964.

Barry Goldwater.

Makes you wish that somebody had put that speech in Mitt Romney's hands sometime before the New Hampshire primary, doesn't it?

"...If I Wanted Your Chest In My Face, I'd Buy You Dinner First..."

I debated a couple of things in my own mind before writing/posting about this.

First, was this a political issue, justifying its inclusion on this blogsite, as opposed to not political, where it would have been more appropriately posted on one of my "civilian" sites, say, Phelpspeak.

Second, was this worth any discussion at all.

The answer to the former is, as evidenced by its appearance here, yes.

The answer to the latter is, likewise as evidenced by its appearance here, likewise.

What is not as obvious is the moral of the story.

At least the moral that you'll find at the end of this piece.

But, first...

>

The easy and, likely, assumed punchline to this little brouhaha, especially on a political oriented blogsite that, more than often than not, leans a schoche more to the left than to the right , would almost certainly include the words "free speech".

Guess again, blogarinos...

The issue deserving of focus is here isn't infringement, or not, of one's right to express one's opinion.

It's a simple matter of fists and noses.

As in, the right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins.

And invoking the "it's my right to express myself" defense in a case like this is, for my money, reminsicent of Gomer running across the Mayberry square yelling out "citizens arREST! citizen's arREST!".

Lady, you are more than entitled to your opinion.

And if you want to share with friends, peers, co-workers, family, et al your "stand" on this issue, then knock yourself out.

For what it's worth, I am in absolute agreement with the sentiment.

But I am coming down on the side of the captain who bounced you off the plane.

Because I don't want, and shouldn't have, to explain to kids or grandkids, at the least, who might be sitting on the plane with me what your little fifty percent rayon rant "means".

Anymore than while I might passionately agree with you that most of what we get from our elected officials is bullshit.....

...I don't need, or appreciate,  you rubbing my face in it.

"...There's Several Obvious Tailpipe Jokes Right In Front Of Me, But I Like To Think I'm Better Than That..."

Here's a little something from the mailbox at the rear entrance.

Colonoscopies could be made a bit more comfortable for people if they involved lying in a CT scanner, rather than being probed with an endoscope, and at the same time didn't require drinking upward of a gallon of laxative fluid beforehand — current requirements that most consider unpleasant.

A new type of "virtual colonoscopy" that uses CT scans to construct images of the colon, as well as to virtually "clean" the organ, was just as effective as a standard colonoscopy in finding colon polyps 1 centimeter or larger in size, a new study finds. Most polyps, or growths on the lining of the colon, are benign, but some can turn cancerous.

"The subtraction of the laxative can only make what's already an attractive test even more attractive," said Dr. Durado Brooks, director of prostate and colorectal cancer at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved with the study.

The discomfort of colonoscopies may deter some people from getting screened, said study researcher Dr. Michael Zalis, an associate professor of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

If this laxative-free, CT scan type of virtual colonoscopy becomes an option for colon cancer screening, Zalis said, it could increase the number of people who get screened, and thus reduce the number of deaths from the disease.

The laxative-free method was not as effective as a standard colonoscopy in finding polyps smaller than 1 centimeter, but polyps of this size are less likely to cause cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health. The new findings must be confirmed by larger studies before the test is put into practice, Zalis said.

The study is will be published Tuesday (May 15) in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.


The idea of a "laxative (not to mention probe) free" colonscopy will certainly have its appeal with those of us who are of an age to want to keep an eye on that sort of thing.

So to speak.

Gotta tell you, though, while my own experience getting cheeky with the doctor and his posse gives me a certain empathy with those who would prefer to go "flushless", I actually found, last time out (or in, as the case may be) a little silver lining in the cloud of cloudy milky stuff that had me sitting long after even I was tired of sitting.

Put simply, I've never felt so "cleaned out" in my entire life.

Actually made me kinda wish you could buy that stuff over the local CVS counter.

Admittedly, hour after hour....after hour.....of what seems like it will be a life spent stuck in the "elimination round" isn't the kind of thing that one usually finds rewarding.

Truth be told, though, I did.

No shit.

So to speak.

In fact, I was feeling so light and free and fresh and emptied after twenty four hours of emptying that I've begun to think that medical science could do the country an unprecedented service if they could just tweak the process a scoche.

And develop a way to flush all the crap out of Congress.

"...People Put Me Down, But That's The Side Of Town I Was Born In...."

Despite its seeming complexities, the process politic in this country is, at core, fairly basic.

In fact, I could make the case that it's often a simple matter of supply and demand.

Said case to be offered momentarily.





Re' that previously discussed matter of supply and demand?

Here's politics in plain English...

There are, simply, too many Scott Walkers.

And not enough George Carlins.

"...If You Think About It, Voting And Rounding Up The Usual Suspects Are Pretty Much The Same Thing..."

Chances are when you think politics, the first name that comes to mind is very likely not Claude Rains.

The suave and classy character actor's voice splashed right down into my political pool this morning.

How and why coming up.

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday night shows the possible political perils of President Obama's recent announcement that he supports same-sex marriage.

Most of those polled say the president's position will not impact how they vote. But among those who say it will influence their choice, 26 percent said they are less likely to vote for Obama as a result, while 16 percent say they are more likely to.

And in what is expected to be a tight race, "even a small shift in swing states could be costly," says the Times.

Also troubling for the president is that a majority of voters suspect that his decision was politically motivated.

Sixty-seven percent said they thought Obama's announcement was made "mostly for political reasons," while 24 percent said it was "mostly because he thinks it is right."

"...a majority of voters suspect that his decision was politically motivated...."

Here's politics in plain English...

Of COURSE, it was politically motivated.

That's what politicians do.

What's that? You're shocked, shocked?

Welcome to the club.

Rick's Cafe' Americain, to be precise.

"...Oh Yeah?....Well, Vote For THIS, Motherf......."

Here's your word for today, kids.

fu·til·i·ty (fy-tl-t)
n. pl. fu·til·i·ties
1. The quality of having no useful result; uselessness.
2. Lack of importance or purpose; frivolousness.
3. A futile act.

Let's use the word in a sentence.

"Believing that your average Wal Mart shopper will ever stop bringing their over flowing carts through the checkouts marked "20 items or less" is an exercise in fultility".

Here's a more intellectual application.

I noticed, earlier today, an exchange between two people on Facebook that started out as a "discussion" of the merits, or lack, of Barack Obama's presidency and, very quickly, degenerated into the text equivilent of a name calling, bitch slapping cat fight.

I had an experience, myself, a few days ago, similar but for a few minor/major differences.

Since my "pen pal" was female, it could hardly be defined as a "catfight".

And, hand to God, I resisted the, admittedly uber-strong, temptation to lower myself to the level of "name calling" my "debate opponent" was employing.

Her final insightful and articulate response to my counterpoint of her point was "screw you, butthead."

Always a pleasure engaging in lively and spirted intellectual dialogues with those Rhodes scholars you just gotta know fit the definition of the aforementioned "20 items or less" transgressors.

For my part, I pretty quickly let it slide and moved on in my search for intelligent life on the planet, this particular political pea brain having offered none of same.

But, here, this morning, I wandered up on these two "ladies" engaged in a raging bout of both issue, and hackle, raising.

And they, unknowingly, reminded me of what I remember was the conclusion I drew from my own brush with bozo-osity.

Which brings us back to the word for today.

Politics may, at the core of it all, may be the most paradoxical of all man's philosophical creations.

Because our better angels want to have us believe that the process can provide a place for opposing points of view to come together, talk, debate, even argue, but, always, in the spirit of working together to eventually find a mutually acceptable, and beneficial, solution to the chalenges and/or problems that spurred us into the talk, debate, etc in the first place.

But the reality of it is that politics will always be a devisive, even corrosive, element in our midst.

If only because of another philosophical truth in that same midst.

Small minded people who like something or someone will always find a reason, justification, rationalization or simple refusal to budge that will allow them to contine liking said something or someone.

And small minded people who don't like something or someone will always find a reason, justification, rationalization or simple refusal to budge that will them to continue disliking said something or someone.

The proof, fellow pudding lovers, is in the all too often inevitable pulling of the name calling trigger.

A tradition of human behavior that begins, at the very latest, shortly after we learn to speak.
"That's my ball"

"Is not".

"Is too".

"Is not".

"Is too".

"Poopy head."

Ah, the arrival of the well argued point.

Those gifted with that particular way with words tend to grow up afflicted with an inability to hear, let alone consider, an opposing point of view.

An affliction whose side effects unarguably include the aforementioned "small mindedness").

Fortunately (or not, depending on your perspective re' the whole 20 items or less thing), the ultimate decision making in our lives is done by quiet, sometimes not even heard, voices of calm, reasonable, dare I blaspheme the word, moderate folks in our midst.

The folks who not only honor the 20 items of less thing but, very likely, do everything they can do to avoid having to go into Wal Mart in the first place.

As for the name callers?

Here's politics in plain English....

Those who like/admire/support___________________ will ALWAYS like/admire/support _____________________________.

Those who do not like/admire/support _____________________will ALWAYS not like/admire/support _________________.

Believing otherwise is, at worst, an undeniable waste of time, energy and/or breath and is, at best, an exercise in....

...say it with me...

...futility.