Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: May 2014

The passing of this wonderful American, whose writings and actions are under reported in comparison to other American icons has left a large gap in our process of human advancement. Her efforts and writings put our lives and actions as humans in perspective. Her passing while not as public as some others only highlights her humility and dignity as a person and less her fame as a writer and advocate for human dignity. There are many who have not read her works but should. There are many who read and reread her work with the effect of becoming better people because of it. Thank you Ms. Johnson.

Please Donate

Please Donate

I was watching Caddy Shack and at one point there were people invited for Tea, this brought me to think about High Tea and what it means, I found the article below that explained it for me.

History of High Tea – History English Afternoon Tea – Tea Etiquette

 History of High Tea – History English Afternoon Tea

High Tea is often a misnomer. Most people refer to afternoon tea as high tea because they think it sounds regal and lofty, when in all actuality, high tea, or “meat tea” is dinner. High tea, in Britain, at any rate, tends to be on the heavier side. American hotels and tea rooms, on the other hand, continue to misunderstand and offer tidbits of fancy pastries and cakes on delicate china when they offer a “high tea.”

Afternoon tea (because it was usually taken in the late afternoon) is also called “low tea” because it was usually taken in a sitting room or withdrawing room where low tables (like a coffee table) were placed near sofas or chairs generally in a large withdrawing room. There are three basic types of Afternoon, or Low Tea:

Cream Tea – Tea, scones, jam and cream
Light Tea – Tea, scones and sweets
Full Tea – Tea, savories, scones, sweets and dessert

In England, the traditional time for tea was four or five o’clock and no one stayed after seven o’clock. Most tea rooms today serve tea from three to five o’clock. The menu has also changed from tea, bread, butter and cakes, to include three particular courses served specifically in this order:

Savories – Tiny sandwiches or appetizers
Scones – Served with jam and Devonshire or clotted cream
Pastries – Cakes, cookies, shortbread and sweets

History of Tea Time:

Prior to the introduction of tea into Britain, the English had two main meals, breakfast and dinner. Breakfast was ale, bread, and beef.  During the middle of the eighteenth century, dinner for the upper and middle classes had shifted from noontime to an evening meal that was served at a fashionable late hour. Dinner was a long, massive meal at the end of the day.

17th Century

Afternoon tea may have been started by the French. According to the monthly newsletter called TeaMuse, in the writings of Madame de Sévigné (1626 to 1696), one of history’s greatest letter writers on life in 17th Century France:

It’s a little known fact, but after its introduction to Europe in the 17th century tea was tremendously popular in France. It first arrived in Paris in 1636 (22 years before it appeared in England!) and quickly became popular among the aristocracy. . . Tea was so popular in Paris that Madame de Sévigné, who chronicled the doings of the Sun King and his cronies in a famous series of gossipy letters to her daughter, often found herself mentioning tea. “Saw the Princesse de Tarente [de Sévigné wrote]… who takes 12 cups of tea every day… which, she says, cures all her ills. She assured me that Monsieur de Landgrave drank 40 cups every morning. ‘But Madame, perhaps it is really only 30 or so.’ ‘No, 40. He was dying, and it brought him back to life before our eyes.’ . . . Madame de Sévigné also reported that it was a Frenchwoman, the Marquise de la Sablière, who initiated the fashion of adding milk to tea. “Madame de la Sablière took her tea with milk, as she told me the other day, because it was to her taste.” (By the way, the English delighted in this “French touch” and immediately adopted it.)

1600 – Queen Elizabeth l (1533-1603) granted permission for the charter of the British East India Company (1600-1858), also known as the John Company, on December 31, 1600 to establish trade routes, ports, and trading relationships with the Far East, Southeast Asia, and India Trade in spices was its original focus, but later traded in cottons, silks, indigo, saltpeter, and tea. Due to political and other factors, the tea trade didn’t begin until the late 1670s.

1662 – King Charles II (1630-1685) while in exile, married the Portuguese Infanta Catherine de Braganza (1638–1705). Catherine’s dowry was the largest ever registered in world history. Portugal gave to England two million golden crusados, Tangier and Morocco in North Africa, Bombay in India, and also permission for the British to use all the ports in the Portuguese colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas thus giving England their first direct trading rights to tea.

As Charles had grown up in the Dutch capital, both he and his Portuguese bride were confirmed tea drinkers. When the monarchy was re-established, they brought this foreign tea tradition to England with them. Her influence made tea more popular amongst the wealthier classes of society, as whatever the royals did, everyone else wanted to copy. Soon tea mania spread swept across England, and it became the beverage of choice in English high society, replacing ale as the national drink.

The reign of Charles II was crucial in laying the foundations for the growth of the British tea trade. The East India Company was highly favored by Charles II. Charles confirmed its monopoly, and also extended it to give the Company unprecedented powers to occupy by military force places with which they wished to trade (so long as the people there were not Christians).

1663 – The poet and politician Edmund Waller (1606-1687) wrote a poem in honor of Queen Catherine for her birthday crediting her with making tea a fashionable drink amongst courtiers:

Venus her Myrtle, Phoebus has his bays; Tea both excels, which she vouchsafes to praise. The best of Queens, the best of herbs, we owe To that bold nation which the way did show To the fair region where the sun doth rise, Whose rich productions we so justly prize. The Muse’s friend, tea does our fancy aid, Regress those vapours which the head invade, And keep the palace of the soul serene, Fit on her birthday to salute the Queen

18th Century

By 1700, tea was on sale by more than 500 coffee houses in London. Tea drinking became even more popular when Queen Anne (1665–1714) chose tea over ale as her regular breakfast drink. Anne’s character was once portrayed as a tea-drinking, social nonentity with lesbian tendencies.

During the second half of the Victorian Period, known as the Industrial Revolution, working families would return home tired and exhausted. The table would be set with any manner of meats, bread, butter, pickles, cheese and of course tea. None of the dainty finger sandwiches, scones and pastries of afternoon tea would have been on the menu. Because it was eaten at a high, dining table rather than the low tea tables, it was termed “high” tea.

19th Century

According to legend, one of Queen Victoria’s (1819-1901) ladies-in-waiting, Anna Maria Stanhope (1783-1857), known as the Duchess of Bedford, is credited as the creator of afternoon teatime. Because the noon meal had become skimpier, the Duchess suffered from “a sinking feeling” at about four o’clock in the afternoon.

At first the Duchess had her servants sneak her a pot of tea and a few breadstuffs. Adopting the European tea service format, she invited friends to join her for an additional afternoon meal at five o’clock in her rooms at Belvoir Castle. The menu centered around small cakes, bread and butter sandwiches, assorted sweets, and, of course, tea. This summer practice proved so popular, the Duchess continued it when she returned to London, sending cards to her friends asking them to join her for “tea and a walking the fields.” The practice of inviting friends to come for tea in the afternoon was quickly picked up by other social hostesses.


Tea Etiquette:

For a more detailed Tea Etiquette, check out Etiquette Faux Pas and Other Misconceptions About Afternoon Tea

Holding a Tea Cup:

In order for one not to spill the hot liquid onto oneself, the proper way to hold the vessel of a cup with no handle is to place one’s thumb at the six o’clock position and one’s index and middle fingers at the twelve o’clock position, while gently raising one’s pinkie up for balance.

Tea cups with a handle are held by placing one’s fingers to the front and back of the handle with one’s pinkie up again allows balance.

Never wave or hold your tea cup in the air. When not in use, place the tea cup back in the tea saucer.

If you are at a buffet tea hold the tea saucer in your lap with your left hand and hold the tea cup in your right hand. When not in use, place the tea cup back in the tea saucer and hold in your lap. The only time a saucer is raised together with the teacup is when one is at a standing reception.

Pinkies Up:

Originally, all porcelain teacups were made in China, starting around 620 A.D.  These small cups had no handles. In order for one not to spill the hot liquid onto oneself, the proper way to hold the vessel was to place one’s thumb at the six o’clock position and one’s index and middle fingers at the twelve o’clock position, while gently raising one’s pinkie up for balance.

Pinkie up does mean straight up in the air, but slightly tilted. It is not an affectation, but a graceful way to avoid spills. Never loop your fingers through the handle, nor grasp the vessel bowl with the palm of your hand.

Using Teaspoons:

Do not stir your tea, with your teaspoon, in sweeping circular motions.

Place your tea spoon at the six o’clock position and softly fold the liquid towards the twelve o’clock position two or three times.

Either place the iced teaspoon on the side of another plate or ask the server or hostess to remove the spoon from the table. Never leave the spoon in the glass especially when actually drinking your tea.

Serving Tea:

Milk is served with tea, not cream. Cream is too heavy and masks the taste of the tea. Although some pour their milk in the cup first, it is probably better to pour the milk in the tea after it is in the cup in order to get the correct amount.

Remove the tea bag from the cup and place it on a side saucer or in a slop bowl. Do not use the string to wrap around or squeeze the tea bag.

When serving lemon with tea, lemon slices are preferable, not wedges. Either provide a small fork or lemon fork for your guests, or have the tea server can neatly place a slice in the tea cup after the tea has been poured. Be sure never to add lemon with milk since the lemon’s citric acid will cause the proteins in the milk to curdle.

Drinking Tea:

Do not use your tea to wash down food. Sip, don’t slurp, your tea and swallow before eating.

Please Donate

Please Donate

I received this email and I am posting it because of the claim of factual claims, see my reply at the end.
This is all factually (and historically) correct – and verifiable if one would decide to do some research toward that end…
if you even go back further…..
in 732 AD the Muslim Army which was moving on Paris was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.
…in 1571 AD the Muslim Army/ Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lapanto.                  
…in 1683 AD the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.                        
…this crap has been going on for 1,400 years and half of these  politicians don’t even know it !!!
…if these battles had not been won we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non – existent;
Judaism certainly would be… And let us not forget that Hitler was an admirer of Islam and that the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler’s guest in Berlin and raised Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions: the 13th and 21st Waffen SS Divisions who killed Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and any other “subhumans”.
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. 
Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history. They really happened!!!
Do you remember?
 1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.    
   2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred 
by Muslim males.
  3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach, it was blown up shortly after landing 
by Muslim males.
  4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades 
by Muslim males.
   5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over 
by Muslim males.
   6. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon 
by Muslim males.
   7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up 
by Muslim males.
   8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair 
by Muslim males.
   9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered 
by Muslim males.
   10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed 
by Muslim males.
   11. In 1993 , the World Trade Center was bombed the first time 
by Muslim males.
   12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed 
by Muslim males.
   13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed 
by Muslim males.
   14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against 
Muslim males.
   15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by—you guessed it was a— 
Muslim male.
   16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.

As the writer of the award winning story ‘Forrest Gump’ so aptly put it, ‘Stupid Is As Stupid Does’. 

Today at 10:44 AM
Given that the information you sent me is factually correct, the context is not. True that Muslims have been fighting wars for centuries, they have all been led by extreme Muslims who murdered as many moderate Muslims as they have Christians. If the  facts given were pursued to their total conclusion you will find that there were as many Christian, pagan and other lesser known religious wars and uprisings as we now have the ability to know about due to mass communication. These “wars” are 90% the result of economic conditions exacerbated  and aggravated by charismatic extremist leaders who for lack of ordinary human kindness want unlimited power to advance their own personal agendas much like Charles Manson, our Current Congress, Hitler and the NRA. The ability to take snippets of information and extrapolate them into a theme is the same as those before us, with us and will come after us to capitalize on the misfortunes of others and use that to create the dissention and hate that abounds now. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express this information-is this a great country or what?
Please Donate

Please Donate



Posted by: John Holladay <>

In these miraculous times of mass and fast communications, the opportunity for the dissemination of correct and incorrect information abounds. Once misinformation was considered gossip as the original data  was usually was quite different from what was eventually wide spread. There was (?) a time when news sources took liberties with the facts as it suited them, now not so much however misinformation once  out is difficult to correct for instance we have two majority political parties who have specialists in finding, altering and spreading misinformation. Much of this exaggerated outpouring is designed to get votes for their side regardless of the ill effects it has on their followers. Wouldn’t you think these information mongers would want an informed base? We have seen in the past ten years endless streams of nonsense, lies and huge amounts of innuendo but little real fact that would allow reasonable people to make reasonable decisions. Of course we will always have naysayers yet the truth once told is soon forgotten but the myths and madeups last forever. History will always out the truth but long after the damage has been done!

Please Donate

Please Donate

I read that 418 to 450 million was spent in anti “Obamacare” ads. Why is that this large amount of money could not be spent on infrastructure and jobs? The article is below. As voters we all need to pay close attention to “neutral new sources”, Fox is not one of them! Pundits (if they are) like Ms. Coulter and Mr. O’Reilly are out to sell books not help or report with integrity and will lend their notoriety to the highest bidder.


Study: $418M spent on political ads attacking health law since enactment, $27M on pro-law ads

CHICAGO – A new analysis finds the nation’s health care overhaul deserves a place in advertising history as the focus of extraordinarily high spending on negative political TV ads that have gone largely unanswered by the law’s supporters.

The report, released Friday by nonpartisan analysts Kantar Media CMAG, estimates that $445 million was spent on political TV ads mentioning the law since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Spending on negative ads outpaced positive ones by more than 15 to 1.

Outside of Social Security and Medicare, “no other law has come close to these amounts, much less within such a short period of time,” said Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media. “It speaks to the intensity of the opposition among the ACA’s political critics” and their belief that the health care issue will benefit their party in this year’s elections, she said.

As the November midterm elections approach, the picture looks much the same, Wilner said, although a few pro-Democratic ads are countering with messages supporting the health law and a few pro-Republican ads have gone from a flat-out call for repeal to a message of replacing the law with “free-market solutions.”

In the 2014 congressional races, 85 per cent of the anti-Obama ads were also anti-“Obamacare” ads, the analysis found. In some competitive races, 100 per cent of the pro-Republican TV ads aimed at Democrats contained anti-health law messages.

Over the four years, an estimated $418 million was spent on 880,000 negative TV spots focusing on the law, compared to $27 million on 58,000 positive spots, according to the analysis. Nearly all of the spending was on local TV stations, in races ranging from state offices such as treasurer and governor to Congress and the presidential election.

The analysis is the first attempt to quantify the spending, said Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the Kantar research.

“That is an extraordinary amount of money,” Blendon said. “It’s not just $20 checks.”

Blendon said the advertising assault on the law draws on lessons Republicans learned during the Clinton administration about harnessing “the ambivalence the middle class has about big reform” to win midterm elections. More than other issues such as immigration, opposition to the Affordable Care Act unites Republicans and independent conservatives.

The Kantar system captures and counts ads and spending in all 210 TV markets and on national broadcast and cable; then analysts code the ads for content and messages.

Wilner, who presented the report Friday at a national meeting of public opinion researchers, said this will be the third consecutive election cycle in which the health care law has been a top issue in TV advertising, but it’s the first one in which Americans have actual experience with the law as implemented.

With 8 million Americans choosing health plans on the new insurance markets, Democrats now have the opportunity to talk about the law’s benefits, said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “It’s easier to pivot to real positives about the law. You can say, ‘Do you want to cancel 8 million people’s insurance?'”

The analysis also counted other spending last fall and winter on health law TV ads by insurance companies, states and the federal government, which increased the total to $700 million.

“Within the span of the enrolment period, nearly as much money was spent on ads trying to sign people up for coverage as was spent over the past four years on ads trying to scare people away,” Wilner said. But now that the enrolment period has ended, “they’ve left the field, and absent any big push by the law’s political supporters, the critics have it to themselves again all the way to this fall.”

* This is an organization backed by the Koch brothers- The same guys who got Kentucky legislators to ban any action on mas transit.


True Meaning of Transparency

Abel Oldsworth, my reticent friend, thinks he has finally figured out what the popular use of the word transparency really means.

Tell me about all you think, plan, and pursue,

And I in return may share some things with you.

Because it is now so apparent

That we all must be transparent.

Except when my secrets advantage me more than yours do.

Martin Egelston

Battle Creek Enquirer May 10,2014

Please Donate

Please Donate


The Daily Ticker

Sponsored by

3 ways America should be more like Canada

Daily Ticker
Its middle class is thriving, its people are universally liked and its government actually works.

Fifty years ago, this description might have fit the United States. But not now. America’s middle class is shrinking and its global reputation is spotty. Congress, meanwhile, creates more problems than it solves.

So for guidance on how to fix America, why not look north to Canada, where the mood is upbeat and life appears to be getting demonstrably better? The New York Times recently reported the Canadian middle class is now the world’s richest, surpassing the U.S. for the first time. In the 2014 “better life index” recently published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada outscored the United States in 9 of 11 categories, including education, safety and overall life satisfaction.

The poverty rate is lower in Canada, and every Canadian citizen has government-provided health insurance, which might explain why Canadians enjoy longer life expectancy than Americans and are considerably less obese. As for the government, Canada’s national debt amounts to about $18,000 per person, compared with $55,000 in America.

So what is Canada doing right?

It has a more stable banking system. Canada has virtually never experienced a financial crisis, and there were no bailouts north of the border in 2008 when the U.S. government committed $245 billion to save dozens of U.S. banks. The differences between the two countries are somewhat accidental. In the United States, distrust of a strong central government all the way back in the founders’ days led to a system of state-chartered banks vulnerable to political meddling, and therefore riskier than the big, nationally chartered financial institutions that operate in Canada.

“In the United States, instability was permitted by regulators because it served powerful political interests,” Prof. Charles Calomiris of Columbia University wrote in a 2013 paper for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. “In Canada, the banking system was not used as a means of channeling subsidized credit to a favored political constituency, so there was no need to tolerate instability.” The legacy of that today is a malleable U.S. banking system that, among other things, was deregulated in the late 1990s at the behest of banks themselves — which contributed to the 2008 collapse.

The financial crisis and the abuses that led to it are still holding back the U.S. economy. Shoddy lending standards were a major cause of the housing bust, which has whacked $3 trillion off the value of Americans’ real-estate assets — even with the year-long recovery in the housing market. That’s a huge loss of wealth that continues to hold back U.S. spending. And it’s just part of a 25-year debt binge Americans are still working off. With far fewer lending excesses, Canada didn’t really have a housing bust or a credit crisis to recover from.

Money doesn’t dominate politics. Canada has much stricter rules governing campaign contributions than those in America, where campaign-finance laws are getting weaker on account of recent Supreme Court rulings striking down limits on spending. Tougher limits in Canada give people and businesses with money to spend less influence over laws and regulations. “Every single one of my voters thinks that is terrific,” says former journalist Chrystia Freeland, now a Canadian member of parliament, representing a district in Toronto. “There is a lot less influence of the really wealthy and single-issue interest groups. A regular person has a much bigger voice.”

Many members of the U.S. Congress report spending half their time, or more, raising money for reelection efforts rather than legislating. Freeland estimates she spends less than 5% of her time doing that. There’s virtually no chance the United States will ever adopt a Canadian-style parliamentary system, but Congress could pass new laws or amend the Constitution in order to limit the corrupting influence of Big Money in politics. Were that to happen, however, it would probably make incumbent politicians more vulnerable to challengers. Maybe next century.

There’s less hostility toward immigrants. Canada, like the United States, has limits on the number of foreigners it allows into the country to work. But the whole issue of immigration is far less politicized, and there’s a broad understanding that skilled foreign workers help the economy. Canada actually recruits immigrants, part of a deliberate effort to attract talented foreigners most likely to contribute to economic growth. In the United States, the quota for skilled immigrants is far below the number U.S. firms would hire if they could get them. Despite appeals from many businesses, Congress is paralyzed on reforms that would let more skilled immigrants in, partly because that issue gets conflated with separate reforms aimed at stemming the flow of unskilled illegals.

Canada has its own problems, needless to say. Its government-run healthcare system draws complaints of long wait times for care and trailing-edge medical technology. Some economists think a housing bubble may be forming, for instance, and trends such as rising income inequality affect Canada just as they do every other industrialized country. Plus, it’s cold.

In the Land of Moderation, however, such challenges seem manageable. “We’re less anxious because we didn’t have the financial crisis,” says Freeland, “but Canadians should guard against smugness.” Now there’s something you’re unlikely to hear an American politician say.

— Siemond Chan contributed to this article.

Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

Please Donate

Please Donate

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This is the oath taken by our 535 Congress members. At first glance it appears to be a standard type of allegiance oath but upon a closer look: Defending the constitution includes defending the people (not making war on them). “Taking this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”- How many lies have been put out during elections and during the actual terms of office. If this is not evasion then what is? There apparently are no mental reservations when it comes to hiding the truth and dealing with honesty.

Just think John Boehner has been reelected 13 times (that’s 26 years) and how about the other long termers? Do we want to continue on the same track of not holding our elected officials accountable? There will never be “term limits” imposed by  elected officials, only by the people who elect them. If the government is to improve , the officials we elect have to improve and that is done only by the people. Consider how many long termers have been unseated  by upstarts and other candidates but for the wrong reasons. In this modern age of electronics we are buried under sound bites, tweets, instant messages and emails. This amounts to advertising and we are being sold a bill goods more often than we know. Our elections are run on a money train and have little to do with the qualifications of a candidate. If we as voters abandon the time honored practice of voting along party lines we would end up with a better group of representatives. Keep in mind that the party’s have one goal and that is to control the government in order to make policy that suits no one but the wealthy donors. The one thing that many of us overlook is many candidates and incumbents use specific issues to get votes in certain areas thereby being accountable to no specific group until the next election.

Please Donate

Please Donate

As I was standing in line at the local hardware store (not my choice but left to buy and take home my spouses plants), a conversation began between the standees while we waited,  one part was particularly interesting but short. One gentleman stated that we wait a lot and somehow the conversation got to Government (I have no idea how this thread started) making us do things. This gentlemen’s peeve at the moment was “being told to wear seat belts and that he proudly said I’ve been ticketed 3 times and still will not wear one (he is just lucky I guess). he also expounded on motorcycle helmets and how unsafe it is to wear them as you can’t hear or see to the side with them, therefore not wearing them is better. The next part of the conversation concerned health care: This standees stated “I don’t mind buying it but I just don’t like being told to do it”. This statement got me thinking “perhaps that is the problem: The government needs to stop telling us to do things and let us just do it or not”. With these thoughts in mind, what do you think the advertising industry and the media has been doing to us for years?

Please Donate

Please Donate

There has been and continues to be much coverage on the upcoming State races for legislators and the Governor, the incumbents  are running on their “records”, the aspirants are running their mouths and putting forth solutions that have come and gone many times. One idea put forth is term limits, I have written about this several times and the fact remains-no legislator is going to vote on term limits for themselves. Why set limits on their ability to have a job that pays well enough with perks that would support several lesser earning families. They have a job that allows them to say anything (correct or not) get away with it and still retain the office. Their track record for production would cause the average American company to fail (not that the State is doing that well). These arrant “representatives” of the people make more of telling what they will or have done than actually producing results. The end result is that we vote for them over and over again because they play keep away with the truth. The idea of redistricting is another ploy to keep the voters going their way. They use this as a way of saying we are making it easier to serve everyone in an equitable manner but this redistricting is just another way to sway votes in the way they want. What is wrong with using the boundaries of the existing counties as voting districts instead of playing fast and loose with the various  manufactured ones? We have  101 counties with well defined borders and they have not changed in years, the only thing that has changed are the demographics (we are a mobile country) and that is what the legislators look at. It does not matter  that many of their political speeches espouse the idea of representing “all” of the people, what’s apparent is as citizens we are represented by people who have taken care of themselves and their cronies rather than the people who elected them. Term limits are the domain of the voters-if you do not vote for them, they will not be elected.

Please Donate

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: