On that day I will still have the same challenges in life I had the day before. I will have the same strengths, weaknesses, hopes, dreams, shortcomings and victories I had the day before.
My life will still be 100% my responsibility. It will not matter very much who sits in the Oval Office that day.
Whoever that may be -- he or she -- that individual is not our national messiah, is not our national nanny, is not our national drill sergeant.
We are each in charge of our own lives. We maintain maximum control of our own lives in part by understanding this and by realizing that nothing external, and most especially not politics, has the fundamental power to change our lives.
Only we can do that, each of us for himself or herself, and work voluntarily with others to effect change around us.
Any other nostrum is delusional, now and on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, and on every other day.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
After Pennsylvania
As I've been saying all along, don't count Hillary out. And, despite the conventional "wisdom," now beginning to fade somewhat, I still believe she will be the Democratic nominee. Obama now seems deflated and although his rhetoric still soars, the spirit isn't there anymore. You can hear the weariness in his voice. There is no such weariness in Senator Clinton's voice. Soundbites of Obama's supporters cheering him last night appeared laced with anxiety and tentativeness not there before.
Momentum is now on Hillary's side. Hillary won in Pennsylvania, as she did in Ohio and other large states, precisely the coalition of voters the Democrats must have to win in November. It's also telling that there is such animosity toward Obama among Clinton stalwarts, with perhaps as many as a third of them ready to vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee according to one exit poll.
Contrary to what many pundits convinced themselves, I believe that Obama would be the weaker candidate in November.
Obama has a nearly complete lack of experience in public office compared to McCain, and therefore very little by way of policy track record to verify what he would or would not do in office. McCain can question his wisdom, if not his patriotism, in saying he would talk to folks like the Iranian president.
There are lingering questions about Rev. Wright, which the Republicans would gleefully revisit likely by proxy and not McCain himself, and Obama's obvious elitism evidenced by the remarks about small town voters in Pennsylvania, remarks which he cannot explain away as meaning something else. And there is his straight-down-the-line Great Society ideology, meaning he has hitched his policy star to a set of policies that even most Democrats admit were failures.
Hillary brings no such weaknesses to the battle with McCain, and she has the political shark instincts that Obama seems to lack. Maybe he's just a nicer person, which is too bad because he's definitely swimming with a shark right now who smells blood in the water. Clinton can legitimately claim to be strong on national defense, while staking out a "New Democrat" stance on social issues which, although not much different from Great Society stances, at least have the flavor of being pro-free-market.
My continuing bet is that Hillary will convince just enough superdelegates she is only Democrat who can beat McCain to get the nomination. Her main problem after that will be holding onto enough Obama supporters to have a chance of winning. Obama, if he becomes the nominee, will have a fatally wounded party to contend with and a host of anti-Obama Clinton voters who may hold their noses and vote for McCain.
A further prediction: I suspect McCain will pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate. It would be a stroke of pure genius.
Meantime, libertarians can only hope someone with the high name recognition of a Jesse Ventura will mount a serious campaign. The likely nominee of the Libertarian Party is totally unknown and probably will do well to get the usual 1/2 percent of the vote the LP has drawn in recent years.
There are other prominent people who are libertarians -- Kurt Russell, Drew Carey, etc -- but they have not gotten the urge to run, yet. Maybe after 4 years of a Democrat or McCain some libertarian with a well-known name will decide it's finally time.
Momentum is now on Hillary's side. Hillary won in Pennsylvania, as she did in Ohio and other large states, precisely the coalition of voters the Democrats must have to win in November. It's also telling that there is such animosity toward Obama among Clinton stalwarts, with perhaps as many as a third of them ready to vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee according to one exit poll.
Contrary to what many pundits convinced themselves, I believe that Obama would be the weaker candidate in November.
Obama has a nearly complete lack of experience in public office compared to McCain, and therefore very little by way of policy track record to verify what he would or would not do in office. McCain can question his wisdom, if not his patriotism, in saying he would talk to folks like the Iranian president.
There are lingering questions about Rev. Wright, which the Republicans would gleefully revisit likely by proxy and not McCain himself, and Obama's obvious elitism evidenced by the remarks about small town voters in Pennsylvania, remarks which he cannot explain away as meaning something else. And there is his straight-down-the-line Great Society ideology, meaning he has hitched his policy star to a set of policies that even most Democrats admit were failures.
Hillary brings no such weaknesses to the battle with McCain, and she has the political shark instincts that Obama seems to lack. Maybe he's just a nicer person, which is too bad because he's definitely swimming with a shark right now who smells blood in the water. Clinton can legitimately claim to be strong on national defense, while staking out a "New Democrat" stance on social issues which, although not much different from Great Society stances, at least have the flavor of being pro-free-market.
My continuing bet is that Hillary will convince just enough superdelegates she is only Democrat who can beat McCain to get the nomination. Her main problem after that will be holding onto enough Obama supporters to have a chance of winning. Obama, if he becomes the nominee, will have a fatally wounded party to contend with and a host of anti-Obama Clinton voters who may hold their noses and vote for McCain.
A further prediction: I suspect McCain will pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate. It would be a stroke of pure genius.
Meantime, libertarians can only hope someone with the high name recognition of a Jesse Ventura will mount a serious campaign. The likely nominee of the Libertarian Party is totally unknown and probably will do well to get the usual 1/2 percent of the vote the LP has drawn in recent years.
There are other prominent people who are libertarians -- Kurt Russell, Drew Carey, etc -- but they have not gotten the urge to run, yet. Maybe after 4 years of a Democrat or McCain some libertarian with a well-known name will decide it's finally time.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Difference between Cats and Dogs
On blogs where I make comments, and in emails with certain friends and colleagues, I've come to a light-blub-realization moment, which I call "The Difference between Cats and Dogs."
The main thrust of that difference is an unwillingness by some of my colleagues to pursue the discussion of an issue when "inconvenient facts" begin to emerge, or an attempt at short-shrift dismissal.
For instance, recently I got into a discussion of global warming with a blogger, definitely center-of-left, who is an old friend of mine. After I'd presented various evidence, he dismissed it all with "sea temperature" being more important than anything else, anyway. This, after a number of things were cited including the inflated rates of global warming many scientists use to base dire predictions on.
Dogs will clamp down on a given position, like a tasty bone, and refuse to give it up, no matter what happens.
Many of same dogs barking now about warming were yelping about a coming Ice Age not that many years ago, within living adult memory of Baby Boomers, in fact.
The Times magazine of June 24, 1974 shocked everyone with a cover story titled "Another Ice Age?" The hysterics then were over the discovery that the atmosphere had been getting colder over a three decade period. Likewise, despite the deeply suspicious, and frequently revised, figures from international organizations, satellite and other observations point to another cooling period under way since 1998.Warming and cooling cycles are well-documented parts of the cyclical climate process.
The New Ice Age scare did not seem to get much traction, likely because meterological evidence for it was even sketchier than it is for global warming, and maybe because collectivists moved on to new tacts. The ideology of environmentalism got a boost, however, with the collapse of communism, because there were no other tents for them to take shelter in. Pack mentality? Global warming - real or imagined, catastrophic or not - became the issue du jour for thinly-disguised collectivists.
They are now proposing a vast international bureaucracy and likening the battle against global warming to war. Where have we heard that metaphor before? War on Drugs? War on Terrorism? Seems like both of those two have been unmitigated disasters and have, by the way, not achieved the stated goals. They have both been used as pretexts to expand government power, crush civil liberties, and waste thousands of lives and billions in confiscated resources.
At worst -- that is, if you believe global warming is necessarily bad -- data suggests an overall global temperature increase of .31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade over the last several decades. That works out to about 3 degrees a century, but doesn't take into account that climate is cylical with warming and cooling periods occuring regularly.
The dogs in this story refer to those who clamp down on a position -- in this case that global warming is happening at an alarming rate and the results will be disastrous -- and don't let go, no matter what. The cats are those who patiently shift through all the results over as long a period of time as possible to see what the truth may really be.
As one dedicated to being an analytical cat, I believe it is likely global warming is taking place, but at nothing near the rate Al Gore and other hystericists would have us believe. Moreover, I also think that an important, and maybe only workable, option for dealing with it -- adaptation -- has been ignored. It has been ignored precisely because adaption would require no wide new powers for government and no massive new bureaucracy to control yet another aspect of human activity. And that little inconvenient truth about cooling and warming cycles has been completely ignored.
Most of the media, and almost all academics, still infected with the progressivist notion that government management and direction of most human activity is a good thing, and further infected with "if it bleeds, it leads," want both global warming, and catastrophic effects therefrom, to be reality. They want that so much they recoil at anyone or any data that suggests otherwise, and can be counted on to marginalize such people and data.
And that's the difference between cats and dogs.
The main thrust of that difference is an unwillingness by some of my colleagues to pursue the discussion of an issue when "inconvenient facts" begin to emerge, or an attempt at short-shrift dismissal.
For instance, recently I got into a discussion of global warming with a blogger, definitely center-of-left, who is an old friend of mine. After I'd presented various evidence, he dismissed it all with "sea temperature" being more important than anything else, anyway. This, after a number of things were cited including the inflated rates of global warming many scientists use to base dire predictions on.
Dogs will clamp down on a given position, like a tasty bone, and refuse to give it up, no matter what happens.
Many of same dogs barking now about warming were yelping about a coming Ice Age not that many years ago, within living adult memory of Baby Boomers, in fact.
The Times magazine of June 24, 1974 shocked everyone with a cover story titled "Another Ice Age?" The hysterics then were over the discovery that the atmosphere had been getting colder over a three decade period. Likewise, despite the deeply suspicious, and frequently revised, figures from international organizations, satellite and other observations point to another cooling period under way since 1998.Warming and cooling cycles are well-documented parts of the cyclical climate process.
The New Ice Age scare did not seem to get much traction, likely because meterological evidence for it was even sketchier than it is for global warming, and maybe because collectivists moved on to new tacts. The ideology of environmentalism got a boost, however, with the collapse of communism, because there were no other tents for them to take shelter in. Pack mentality? Global warming - real or imagined, catastrophic or not - became the issue du jour for thinly-disguised collectivists.
They are now proposing a vast international bureaucracy and likening the battle against global warming to war. Where have we heard that metaphor before? War on Drugs? War on Terrorism? Seems like both of those two have been unmitigated disasters and have, by the way, not achieved the stated goals. They have both been used as pretexts to expand government power, crush civil liberties, and waste thousands of lives and billions in confiscated resources.
At worst -- that is, if you believe global warming is necessarily bad -- data suggests an overall global temperature increase of .31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade over the last several decades. That works out to about 3 degrees a century, but doesn't take into account that climate is cylical with warming and cooling periods occuring regularly.
The dogs in this story refer to those who clamp down on a position -- in this case that global warming is happening at an alarming rate and the results will be disastrous -- and don't let go, no matter what. The cats are those who patiently shift through all the results over as long a period of time as possible to see what the truth may really be.
As one dedicated to being an analytical cat, I believe it is likely global warming is taking place, but at nothing near the rate Al Gore and other hystericists would have us believe. Moreover, I also think that an important, and maybe only workable, option for dealing with it -- adaptation -- has been ignored. It has been ignored precisely because adaption would require no wide new powers for government and no massive new bureaucracy to control yet another aspect of human activity. And that little inconvenient truth about cooling and warming cycles has been completely ignored.
Most of the media, and almost all academics, still infected with the progressivist notion that government management and direction of most human activity is a good thing, and further infected with "if it bleeds, it leads," want both global warming, and catastrophic effects therefrom, to be reality. They want that so much they recoil at anyone or any data that suggests otherwise, and can be counted on to marginalize such people and data.
And that's the difference between cats and dogs.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Some Comments on Ethics
Over on the Donor Power Blog, Jeff Brooks has cited a recent study showing a decline in ethics in nonprofit organizations. Not one to leave this important topic unaddressed, I posted this comment:
It's not really surprising that nonprofit ethics are in a sorry state. Generally, there is what one might call an ethics crisis throughout American society.
Various sociological and cultural phenomenon play into this, but perhaps the most important, in my opinion, is the general failure to learn from history, from the past.
Civilizations have been most successful when abiding by some well-known ethical consensus, a kind of "basic law" if you will, which a majority choose to follow.
Times when such conditions have flourished include the reign of King Ashoka in ancient India, a period virtually unknown to most Westerners, as well as several dynastic periods in ancient China. It might be noted that these were generally characterized by religious pluralism as well as respect for individuals on the part of rulers. Ashoka in particular stands out as a model leader.
In the West, such environments have existed at various times, including the rule of the judges in early Israel, Athens during its classical heyday, and at least the first 150 years of the American federal republic.
A general cure for this malady will not come about through social engineering but through voluntary awakening by many individuals that changes need to be made, beginning in our own daily lives.
It's not really surprising that nonprofit ethics are in a sorry state. Generally, there is what one might call an ethics crisis throughout American society.
Various sociological and cultural phenomenon play into this, but perhaps the most important, in my opinion, is the general failure to learn from history, from the past.
Civilizations have been most successful when abiding by some well-known ethical consensus, a kind of "basic law" if you will, which a majority choose to follow.
Times when such conditions have flourished include the reign of King Ashoka in ancient India, a period virtually unknown to most Westerners, as well as several dynastic periods in ancient China. It might be noted that these were generally characterized by religious pluralism as well as respect for individuals on the part of rulers. Ashoka in particular stands out as a model leader.
In the West, such environments have existed at various times, including the rule of the judges in early Israel, Athens during its classical heyday, and at least the first 150 years of the American federal republic.
A general cure for this malady will not come about through social engineering but through voluntary awakening by many individuals that changes need to be made, beginning in our own daily lives.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mind and matter: the "Monte Hall Problem"
Scott Adam's "Dilbert" blog had a post about this story today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Which prompted this response from me:
Nichiren Buddhism postulates that we do indeed affect reality around us with our "mind," in the widest sense of that word. The concept is called "esho funi" or the oneness of life and environment. The concept that supports that is "ichinen sanzen" or the "life moment" or "mind" of the individual.
The collection and interaction of our individual "minds" or "life moments" with the environment produce the greater environment, which can be described with such terms as "society" and "natural world," primarily.
One legendary account of the power of the human mind is the ancient Chinese story of "General Stone Tiger." The general's mother was eaten, the story goes, by a ravenous tiger. Single-mindedly determined to kill the culprit, he set off through the forest and encountered, at a distance, what seemed to be the profile of a tiger. He quickly drew his bow and buried an arrow deeply in the figure.
Upon close examination, he discovered that he'd shot his arrow deep into a rock that resembled the form of a tiger. No matter how hard he tried afterward, he could not repeat the feat.
Another account, from ancient China, again from a time of war. An emperor was trying to put down a rebellion, but his army needed to cross the Yellow River to attack. It was late fall, and the scout who saw the river discovered it was not yet frozen, which it needed to be for the emperor's army to cross. Reporting back to the emperor, the scout was afraid of telling him the river wasn't frozen, so he lied. The emperor so implicitly believed him, however, that when he and the army arrived at the riverbank the next day, the Yellow River had frozen over.
Nichiren Buddhism teaches we each have this tremendous, universe-moving power within us and can tap it through daily chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Which prompted this response from me:
Nichiren Buddhism postulates that we do indeed affect reality around us with our "mind," in the widest sense of that word. The concept is called "esho funi" or the oneness of life and environment. The concept that supports that is "ichinen sanzen" or the "life moment" or "mind" of the individual.
The collection and interaction of our individual "minds" or "life moments" with the environment produce the greater environment, which can be described with such terms as "society" and "natural world," primarily.
One legendary account of the power of the human mind is the ancient Chinese story of "General Stone Tiger." The general's mother was eaten, the story goes, by a ravenous tiger. Single-mindedly determined to kill the culprit, he set off through the forest and encountered, at a distance, what seemed to be the profile of a tiger. He quickly drew his bow and buried an arrow deeply in the figure.
Upon close examination, he discovered that he'd shot his arrow deep into a rock that resembled the form of a tiger. No matter how hard he tried afterward, he could not repeat the feat.
Another account, from ancient China, again from a time of war. An emperor was trying to put down a rebellion, but his army needed to cross the Yellow River to attack. It was late fall, and the scout who saw the river discovered it was not yet frozen, which it needed to be for the emperor's army to cross. Reporting back to the emperor, the scout was afraid of telling him the river wasn't frozen, so he lied. The emperor so implicitly believed him, however, that when he and the army arrived at the riverbank the next day, the Yellow River had frozen over.
Nichiren Buddhism teaches we each have this tremendous, universe-moving power within us and can tap it through daily chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Ventura for President?
National polls are out showing either of the putative Democratic nominees ahead of John McCain. But...
But the differences are within the margin of error and we're still half a year away from the general election. At this same point in 2004, I believe that John Kerry had a similar lead over GWB, to put things in perspective. (Kerry of course had the nomination wrapped up around this time in 2004, so that may have been something of a factor, but I don't know. I just know that independent voters are called that because they can go either way, and might not decide until November 4.)
Also not factored into the polls is the "animosity factor" about which NPR did a report this morning. They interviewed Clinton and Obama activists at the California Democratic Convention. Both camps were really antagonistic to each other to the point of admitting they might sit out the general election or vote for McCain if their candidate didn't get the nomination.
That celebration you hear quietly in the background is coming from Republicans who thought they had no chance this year after 8 years of Bush.
But now, somehow, they do. If they face Obama, Rev. Wright* will become the best-known minister in America and not in a good sense. If they face Hillary, they have all kinds of other demons to scare voters with, including hubby Bill. "Do you really want him in the White House again?" the voice asks, as they show Bill hugging Monica Lewinsky.
Meantime, the fact Cindy McCain is a beer distributor will probably go down well (pun intended) with NASCARites, hockey fans and many other assorted aging men who would all like to marry a rich trophy wife 17 years younger than them.
*My hunch on this is that McCain will not address this issue head-on himself but leave it to various attack dogs like whoever he gets to run for vice president. There's even talk of Joe Lieberman being his running mate - which would be a first - first guy ever to run for vice president for both major parties. Joe could get all moralistic about Wright and be relatively safe since he's a liberal on social issues. Whether that's even possible, I don't know.
But look for McCain to pick a political rockstar for veep. Maybe Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- he's very young, bright, "ethnically balances" the ticket and hasn't been in office long enough to get a bad rep. And if they gave civil service exams for president, Jindal is the one politician I can think of who would pass. And, he got elected governor in a basically Democratic state in a year when very few Republicans were getting elected anywhere. Jindal as veep candidate might be a huge stroke of genius.
Hillary and Barack are the Democrats' only active rockstars, and they are not going to be on the same ticket, unless some really wicked Faustian bargain is done, so evil Satan wouldn't want to be in on the negotiations. Bill Richardson? He's not really a rockstar. Nancy Pelosi? A turnoff for anyone outside California, and for many inside. Al Gore? No, he's been there and done that and probably still wants to be president.
It's all pretty disenchanting since McCain, Obama and Clinton are one and all proponents of government management of most human activities.
What would really energize the election would be someone like Jesse Ventura jumping in as independent candidate. Check out his appearance on CNN's Larry King Live early this week. Jesse talked straight and honest while the Obama, Clinton and McCain guys sounded like the slicko political operatives they are.
I'm hoping Ventura will run. If he does, I'm hoping he'll win. Now that would really shake things up in Washington town.
But the differences are within the margin of error and we're still half a year away from the general election. At this same point in 2004, I believe that John Kerry had a similar lead over GWB, to put things in perspective. (Kerry of course had the nomination wrapped up around this time in 2004, so that may have been something of a factor, but I don't know. I just know that independent voters are called that because they can go either way, and might not decide until November 4.)
Also not factored into the polls is the "animosity factor" about which NPR did a report this morning. They interviewed Clinton and Obama activists at the California Democratic Convention. Both camps were really antagonistic to each other to the point of admitting they might sit out the general election or vote for McCain if their candidate didn't get the nomination.
That celebration you hear quietly in the background is coming from Republicans who thought they had no chance this year after 8 years of Bush.
But now, somehow, they do. If they face Obama, Rev. Wright* will become the best-known minister in America and not in a good sense. If they face Hillary, they have all kinds of other demons to scare voters with, including hubby Bill. "Do you really want him in the White House again?" the voice asks, as they show Bill hugging Monica Lewinsky.
Meantime, the fact Cindy McCain is a beer distributor will probably go down well (pun intended) with NASCARites, hockey fans and many other assorted aging men who would all like to marry a rich trophy wife 17 years younger than them.
*My hunch on this is that McCain will not address this issue head-on himself but leave it to various attack dogs like whoever he gets to run for vice president. There's even talk of Joe Lieberman being his running mate - which would be a first - first guy ever to run for vice president for both major parties. Joe could get all moralistic about Wright and be relatively safe since he's a liberal on social issues. Whether that's even possible, I don't know.
But look for McCain to pick a political rockstar for veep. Maybe Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- he's very young, bright, "ethnically balances" the ticket and hasn't been in office long enough to get a bad rep. And if they gave civil service exams for president, Jindal is the one politician I can think of who would pass. And, he got elected governor in a basically Democratic state in a year when very few Republicans were getting elected anywhere. Jindal as veep candidate might be a huge stroke of genius.
Hillary and Barack are the Democrats' only active rockstars, and they are not going to be on the same ticket, unless some really wicked Faustian bargain is done, so evil Satan wouldn't want to be in on the negotiations. Bill Richardson? He's not really a rockstar. Nancy Pelosi? A turnoff for anyone outside California, and for many inside. Al Gore? No, he's been there and done that and probably still wants to be president.
It's all pretty disenchanting since McCain, Obama and Clinton are one and all proponents of government management of most human activities.
What would really energize the election would be someone like Jesse Ventura jumping in as independent candidate. Check out his appearance on CNN's Larry King Live early this week. Jesse talked straight and honest while the Obama, Clinton and McCain guys sounded like the slicko political operatives they are.
I'm hoping Ventura will run. If he does, I'm hoping he'll win. Now that would really shake things up in Washington town.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Neil Bush and Rev. Moon
The recent revelation that Neil Bush, younger brother of one George W. Bush, has a close association with, and has taken trips on behalf of, Unification Church founder Sun Young Moon should be deeply troubling to us. But most Americans likely won't notice.
We should. This type of odd connection --and Rev. Moon is not only an odd connection but a freaky one — of the Bush family should be instructive to American voters in the process of electing the U.S. president.
My first thought is that the lesson should be, “Don’t do it!” as in, “Let’s not have a president for the next four years and see how that works out.”
But that won’t happen - we will have one egomaniac or another in the Oval Office. And the odds are his or her connections will prove equally bizzare and/or dangerous and/or freaky.
We’ve all heard now about Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Wright. Doubtless similarly macabre associations for McCain and Clinton will emerge as well.
What gives? Well, if you conclude, as rationality demands you must, that anyone who would want to be U.S. president is ipso facto demented, there’s a straight line from that to this phenomenon — exotic, nightmarish personal and family connections that most of us ordinary folk would not have on a bet.
My permanent solution for this madness? Rein in executive power with a highly restrictive constitutional amendment, thus making the office unattractive to those among us with serious personality disorders. Or, better yet, a plural executive a la Switzerland, increasing the chances we’ll have a couple of normal people involved at the top of the federal republic.
Otherwise, we should get used to it. And it’s nothing new. Two words: Billy Carter.
We should. This type of odd connection --and Rev. Moon is not only an odd connection but a freaky one — of the Bush family should be instructive to American voters in the process of electing the U.S. president.
My first thought is that the lesson should be, “Don’t do it!” as in, “Let’s not have a president for the next four years and see how that works out.”
But that won’t happen - we will have one egomaniac or another in the Oval Office. And the odds are his or her connections will prove equally bizzare and/or dangerous and/or freaky.
We’ve all heard now about Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Wright. Doubtless similarly macabre associations for McCain and Clinton will emerge as well.
What gives? Well, if you conclude, as rationality demands you must, that anyone who would want to be U.S. president is ipso facto demented, there’s a straight line from that to this phenomenon — exotic, nightmarish personal and family connections that most of us ordinary folk would not have on a bet.
My permanent solution for this madness? Rein in executive power with a highly restrictive constitutional amendment, thus making the office unattractive to those among us with serious personality disorders. Or, better yet, a plural executive a la Switzerland, increasing the chances we’ll have a couple of normal people involved at the top of the federal republic.
Otherwise, we should get used to it. And it’s nothing new. Two words: Billy Carter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)