Welcome to my world. I am a middle-aged male locked in the good fight. I try to balance work with being a good father and husband and even have a little fun once in a while. Expect a free-form collection of musings, observations and the occassional rant.
Published on August 7, 2004 By whosyurdaddy0417 In Misc
First of all, let me state that the unfettered and unorganized rant that was my last post helped me sort my thoughts a little and ease the transition back into regular blogging. As in exercise, once you cease doing something for an extended period it becomes more difficult to motivate yourself to resume it. The whole "where do I start" thing always comes into play. Well, I got the rants out of the way now it is time to actually create something of worth. An original thought.

It all started the other day as I was ranting to my best friend, in earshot of my wife, about how badly I dislike John Kerry. I wasn't coming down on the side of George either. I was truly perplexed about the lack of an attractive, moderate candidate. As much as I hated him as a liar and a fraud; politically speaking Bill Clinton was the exact middle ground between "Bring 'em on" Bush and "Can't we all just get along" Kerry. I continued to rant that "W" is way too far to the right and Kerry is a convoluted, hypocritical oaf who is truly incapable of original thought or strong conviction. The only thing he knows for sure is that he wants to be President.

So my wife laid me out right there by saying "well what would you do different if you were running for President?" I flatly stated that for starters I would run on the platform of being me and noone else. If you don't like me don't !@#$%&*vote for me.

"Well what the hell does that mean" she asked."Aren't those two just being themselves?"
"No, they're not. Well, George Bush is himself to the joy of his detractors"."But Kerry has absolutley no idea who he is." She gave me the here we go again with the substance bullshit look. She has heard me talk of this before.

It's all about substance. It's all about being genuine. It's all about character. And it's a lesson learned in life that fails to make it into the political arena. Any professional among us knows that to succeed in business your associates as well as your customers have to have faith in your character, to know what to expect from you. To have mutual respect even when you agree to disagree.
If I make a customer contact and he fails to recognize the benefit of my product it is because I failed to present it properly. Well why doesn't this apply to politics as well. If there ever was a business that is "all about people" it is politics. And as in business, if products are similar in cost and quality they are going to do business with the people they like the most.

OK enough with the business analogies. But this stems from an epiphany I was fortunate enough to go through several years ago. I realized that in my personal life I was confused, perhaps torn, as to what I really stand for. Some things are easy to stand up for. Hey, we all can want a "Free Tibet" and recycled toilet paper but when it really comes down to making a truly difficult decision was I capableof doing the right thing and believe in it after I have taken action? I did some soul-searching, dropped some facades, suppressed my pride and I found myself. I was looking for me and it turns out I was me all along! But the end result of this process (it is a long one indeed) is actually liking yourself. And not only is that not a bad thing but it is also not egocentric. The one person you have to like at the end of the day is yourself. And if you can accomplish that will people will like you. And even if they don't they will still respect you.

So where does John Kerry fit into this diatribe? (This is not really about Kerry in particular but about the difficulty I have in relating to people who fail to show me any real substance) John Kerry clearly does not know who he is and fails to show me anything. If he was to do my job he would fail to secure one contract because of his lack of presentation. But hey, what's the point of comparing candidates to our own selves, right? Maybe because they all claim to have your best interests in mind and in particular claim to be speaking on your behalf!

Please look for the traits you like in the people you meet everyday in those who aspire to positions of power.
Do you like them? If so why?
Do you think they share a passion for what is important to you?
Do you know their backgrounds and if so it evident in their demeanor and policies?
Do they understand what it is like to live your life?

If you work more than one job to pay the heating bills in winter. If you or someone you know has been "downsized", "outsourced", or been a victim of "early retirement". If you are battling it out with your own son for a 7.00 dollar an hour job because your own job has been eliminated at your plant. If any of these apply and a candidate says to you that he "feels your pain" and "will be a voice for you" if elected please check his voting record and look at his background before you vote for him or her.

If you lie at a Job Interview and are caught you are a disingenous, unemployed jackass.
If you lie to the people who elected you to your job and get caught, you are a former President.

Food for thought...that's all I can ask is to stimulate some minds out there.

macdaddy

Comments
on Aug 07, 2004
Nice post. I think you realize that there is no moderate candidate because moderation doesn't sell to the video processing units (average citizens), and it is that group that elects presidents because they fall into the center of the standard deviation for intelligence.

The main gist of your post is the subject of a book I just read. Written in 1957, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is a very well developed book on the "substance" you refer to. It's all about "actual value" or the philosophy of Objectivism, and it explains in some depth why the country (at the time she was writing it, and I argue even worse today) is seeing a distinct diminishing of greatness.

I heard one staunch liberal refer to the book while I was still reading it as "The Republican Manifesto". Now that I am done with it, I can assure you it is not that, but the book did go on to explain the flaws in many economic and spiritual tenets that oftentimes but not always happen to fall on the left side of the line. It's only fair to warn any extreme left readers that the logic is pretty air tight - but then, that's the point of the book. Airtight logic is always the truth because it's based on objectivism.

Anyway I'm rambling on your blog - apologies. Thanks for the post, I enjoyed it. I hope your readers understand the depth and the import of your statements on "being yourself"...it means far more than what many try to replace it with these days for lack of true understanding of that import, (clothes, hair color, car driven, etc...)
on Aug 07, 2004
You may have to stop blogging or the PC thought police will come and drag you away for having an original thought.
on Aug 07, 2004
I enjoyed your post. I think many Americans share your views on this. In order to be in politics, you must be willing to do what it takes to get the money and the votes. I don't know if an honest man or woman could get elected as president. It seems that we are dazzled by things that are bright and showy. I mean, if JLo supports him, he's got to be great, right? We also tend to have our minds made up and are just looking for something to confirm what we already believe. The political ads and email forwards regarding the candidates typically consist of manipulation of the facts at best and blatant lies at worst. However, we continue to accept these lies and misrespresentations as fact and spread them around. I'm curious what would happen if "None of the Above" made its way onto the ballot. Just my little opinion.
on Aug 07, 2004
The main gist of your post is the subject of a book I just read. Written in 1957, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is a very well developed book on the "substance" you refer to. It's all about "actual value" or the philosophy of Objectivism, and it explains in some depth why the country (at the time she was writing it, and I argue even worse today) is seeing a distinct diminishing of greatness.

I heard one staunch liberal refer to the book while I was still reading it as "The Republican Manifesto".


It would more properly be dubbed "the Libertarian Manifesto". Those who don't know the difference between the GOP and the LP are seriously misinformed.
on Aug 08, 2004
OckhamsRazor:

Not only did I read Atlas Shrugged, I read it twice. It changed my life forever. In fact, in re-reading my post I was surprised to see how much Objectivism has permeated my thinking. But in truth it just confirmed and upheld what I've always felt.

That achievement and accomplishment define the individual. That the enemy of success is complacency and the true downfall of anything is finger-pointing and excuse-making. Of coure the late great Ms Rand also took great lengths to rail against those that I despise the most: he who are obsessed with entitlement to that which thay did not earn. And those who fear the outsome of someone who dares to be great.

While I think the book reflects Libertarian Values more than free market Republicanism in actuality it speaks to the individual to strive for personal greatness and not be dragged down by those who wish to see you fail.

"Do not shrink from the light for fear of making someone else feel small"
Nelson Mandela

Great comments guys, expect more of this stuff later.