Sometimes......

......I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits."  I was reminded of this old cartoon caption the other day and wonder if the latter, "just sits," is often a better option.  I know, from history, there have been times that have been real dark, almost as if humanity was being driven into a black hole.  But, boy, today just seems as if we are once again heading in that direction.

There is that old adage/definition that insanity is continuing to do the same old failed things and expecting better results.  That seems to be all around us.  I note one of the Detroit newspapers, once again, vilifying a candidate for office as "lightly qualified."  I suppose that's a slam at the guy.  But what makes a candidate "well qualified" or, at least, "qualified?"  The suggestion in this op-ed was experience as a politician.  First, the Founders of this nation considered holding political office to be "citizen service," that ordinary citizens can and should serve in those capacities, but not for life.  Note the greatness of George Washington, "The American Cincinnatus."  The story goes that King George III asked John Adams after the war, the Continental Army still intact, what "your General Washington will do now."  The expectation was that Washington would use his army to become another "King George."  Adams knew he wouldn't and replied, "I expect he will return to his farm," Mount Vernon.  George III must have shaken his head, saying, "If he does that he'll be the greatest man in the world."  After all, that's what had always happened; a conquering general grabbed power.  Note a decade or so later Napoleon had done that exact thing.  And Washington gave up chances for monarchical power more than once.  "Citizen service......"  Apparently that's a concept foreign to many people, even those who frequently cite the Founders' intent as to the Constitution and its system of governance.  The implication, no the assertion!, that political experience trumps all else is, perhaps, "insanity."  First, what makes career politicians "well qualified" or even "qualified?"  Don't we, as a rule of thumb, scorn "career politicians?"  (Of course, it's always the other guy's "career politician."  Ours is always "pretty good.")  What makes them smarter or, at least, better able to handle problems we face?  Frankly, nothing!  And, second, who has put us in much of this mess??????  Politicians!  Now, they might have had the best of intentions, but good intentions don't always translate to good politics, good policies, good results.  And, what do these career politicians do, usually?  Yep, they use government in the same old ways that caused problems in the first place.  Of course, we all know that they are arrogant elitists; they know more than we do, are smarter than we are.  Just listen to any of them on radio interviews, television sound bites, etc.  And, one would think, the LameStream Media would know better than to claim "lightly qualified," then to give almost blanket endorsements to incumbent candidates.

I heard this term the other day, "the paralysis of hypersensitivity."  I think it's a good one.  We've become too concerned with political correctness and things like it.  It seems like we must stop and think every time we think to make sure we aren't "offending" this group or that.  For instance, the US Navy just implemented a policy that removes Bibles from all hotels under Naval jurisdiction (whatever those are).  Let's see; I wonder who could have been "offended" by Bibles?  Oh, I guess there's a big list.  And, now that the Bibles have been removed, someone else is "offended."  Now that the US Navy has caved into some atheist or other group is bad enough; but that some group thinks that somehow their rights have been trampled by the mere presence of a Bible confounds me.

And have you heard of Operation Choke Point?  It's another overreach by the federal government to stifle those who disagree with the current administration.  No, I wasn't surprised by this either.  It appears that the feds have put pressure on banks and other lending institutions (investigations, fines, etc.) to stop them from lending money to groups, individuals, businesses, etc. that the administration doesn't like.  For instance, a hardware store in Mass, with a perfect financial record and history, was denied a loan by a bank with which it has done business for years.  The reason?  The bank indicated it didn't want to run afoul of the feds who had hinted that a loan to the hardware store might bring the bank trouble--investigation, fines, etc. Well, what is wrong with the hardware store?  Gee, it sells guns!  Yep, that's it.  It doesn't do anything remotely illegal or even unsavory.  It merely engages in a legal business that the administration doesn't like.  Am I the only one who finds that frightening??????  And Obama, for political reasons and to deflect any criticism or investigation of the illegal doings of his administration, sends Holder to Ferguson, MO to run some scam there.

Speaking of Ferguson, MO, it appears, as is often the case, the LameStreams have the story wrong--at least a good part of it is inaccurate.  I'm still not sure, but the dead kid was 6' 4", 300 lbs, a behemoth.  So that makes that video of him manhandling the store owner who was trying to stop him from stealing a bit more revealing.  Again, he likely didn't deserve to die, but the rush to judgment of the media, the inciters, the out-of-towners, etc. was just that, a rush to judgment.

Another columnist was defending the corporate practice of inversions, that is, US firms merging with often smaller foreign firms in order to take advantage of the foreign tax laws and not pay US taxes.  This columnist defends the practice as "sensible," that the only obligation of corporations is to maximize profits for their shareholders.  Talk about "greed!"  It's such an attitude that gives corporations a bad name, that leads to corporate leaders called "robber barons," among other things.  Now, I agree that profits have to be number one on the list of objectives; if companies don't make money, they die.  But there are other responsibilities, too.  The columnist writes, "If businesses supposedly have other responsibilities, who decides what they are?"  He then goes on to assume that government decides.  That, I think, is a false premise.  Why can't the businesses decide what their other responsibilities are?  After all, think of all the decisions that are made.  He belittles those who criticize the Citizens United case, those who claim corporations aren't "people."  I happen to agree with him, the concept that corporations are legal persons.  That said, shouldn't corporations also be held to a civic duty?

Last but not least, since the Codester wants to put together a jigsaw puzzle, what's going to happen with this radical Islamist group ISIS/ISIL?  The President's comments were hardly a hallmark of condemnation--but, of course, he was only ten minutes away from the golf course.  Where is the call from Amnesty International, the Red Cross/Crescent, the UN (OK it did pass something, of little or no consequence.), and all the other doo-gooders (and I do mean doo)?  Isn't beheading children a crime against humanity?  Isn't selling women into prostitution and slavery a crime against humanity?  Isn't crucifying men a crime against humanity?  The offense of these people?  They refused to convert to Islam. Where is the world-wide condemnation--on a loud and daily basis?  Why does our President not speak out in the loudest, most condemnatory language--every day?  (I wonder how loudly he yells, "Fore!")  ISIS/ISIL will not go away by itself, nope. And, as Winston Churchill said, "We cannot solve our problems by closing our eyes to them."  Yet that seems to be the US reaction/policy to this genocide.