The Mondale Trap

Anticipating the upcoming presidential debates, I'm wondering which candidate might fall headlong into the same trap set AND sprung by candidate Walter Mondale in 1984 when speaking honestly about the need for "increased taxes" in the face of a faltering economy and recession.

Since the days of Nixon's unapologetic mendacity, Carter's sanctimonious piety and Mondale's politically ill-advised but decent relationship with the truth,
politicians have apparently taken up the mantra that "honesty and politics do not make for successful campaigns."  A flagrantly casual relationship with the truth has certainly been on display throughout this presidential campaign season with demagoguery, instead, taking a more prominent role.

Sadly, the American voter just doesn't seem to give a damn.

Take Medicare.

The reality of Medicare is bleak. In its current state, the entitlement program is simply unsustainable. Anyone with half a brain and rudimentary math skills sees the writing on the wall ~ this might also (perhaps generously) apply to most politicians currently kissing the collective American ass for votes.  Yes, some politicos are willing to occasionally dispense modest lip service to the reality of Medicare when questioned but one will also notice how most of these uncomfortable conversations are quickly put to rest with pithy, tired charges as to the "unworthiness" of their opponents.

No, Americans won't hear politicians honestly discuss Medicare solvency until after the November 6th election.  I'm not altogether certain we would listen if that truth WERE told.

For example, most voters don't know that President Obama has met privately with House Speaker Boehner to discuss hundreds of billions in difficult cuts to Medicare as an opening salvo in the attempt to secure its solvency. While the cuts he proposed during this private meeting disproportionately affect suppliers, he also acknowledged the necessity of increasing the age of
eligibility which, in the end, would have a direct affect on beneficiaries.

Like it. Don't like it. It doesn't really matter. This is a fact … and it is important.

Despite any subsequent burden such negotiations might eventually place on current or future beneficiaries, fiscal reality is finally coming home to roost; the promise of Medicare will not be sustained absent tough, austere choices and change.

If one were to also take a good look at the sequestration legislation looming over the lame-duck session following the election, our Representatives in Washington all know, in addition to the much publicized extensive cuts to the DOD, there are billions in additional cuts to Medicare in the offing.

Again, it's all true.  Do your homework if you don't believe me. It's also necessary.

Medicare as our Grandparents knew it will soon be nothing more than a memory. And the irresponsible era when Congress somehow got away with forestalling difficult decisions in the name of political expediency may finally be forced to meet its end. At least, it should.

The American voter is owed an intelligent, honest conversation from both the right and left about the real future of Medicare and our country as a whole. But politicians remain loathe to communicate the truth because they understand, like Mondale, this path is fraught with peril.  Republican and Democratic politicians, alike, also seem to know the American voter better than we know ourselves.

In these ever more polarized, intellectually lazy political times we inhabit, most conversations I overhear revolve around regurgitated "facts" from "unbiased" talking heads, Op-Ed columnists and, worse yet, Comedy Central comedians. And it has become increasingly mind-numbing and painful to listen as most of these "intelligent discussions" invariably degenerate into sophmoric taunts of, "'my' guy is never wrong and 'your' guy is a blithering idiot who sits just right or left of Satan or Attila the Hun!"

Our two presidential candidates are much better than their campaigns.

The slothful enmity and healthy disrespect of our democratic political process emanating both from politicians and voters alike is palpable, unconscionable and, in the long run, destructive.

Walter Mondale's campaign for the White House was finished the day he dared utter the truth in 1984.

In my opinion, it has become painfully clear that Americans sadly "can't handle the truth," to borrow from one of Jack Nicholson's iconic movie personas.

Worse yet, I fear most of us simply choose not to.

Mr/Senator/President Obama's Truth

I seem to be in the minority of Americans when writing that I have yet to muster much excitement over President Obama's announcement Wednesday that his thoughts had finally evolved into an unprecedented, full-fledged presidential endorsement of same-sex marriage.

I have seen numerous clips from the ABC interview with Robin Roberts and, as best I could tell, the President seemed sincere when describing both the process he used to arrive at the decision as well as his fulsome support.

But when compared to the gushing hyperbole of the infotainment talking-head celebrities that followed the statement, my personal reaction was clearly left wanting. Blitzer, Matthews, Sawyer and Williams fell all over themselves exalting the President's courage in making "The Decision" amid metaphoric shouts of "Hallelujah!"

My empty reaction left me wondering, despite my great love of politics, if I had simply become too cynical or jaded when it comes to politicians.  Regardless, there remains a nagging sense that the events of this past week may have been more about politics than presidential evolution.

The week that began with an apparent gaffe by the Vice President admitting he was "absolutely supportive" of same-sex marriage eventually ended up making the White House look as if it was scrambling for a unified message; before Mr. Biden's interview was complete, the White House machinery was fast at work backing away from his remarks only to be followed in short order by yet another oddly-timed statement by Secretary of Education Duncan publicly pledging his support.

Before Wednesday's landmark interview, the White House had settled on the position that President Obama's opinion was in flux ~ that it was "evolving." But, in light of what would surely be seen as a defeat for the White House if the looming North Carolina Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative banning both same-sex marriages AND civil-unions were to be passed on Tuesday, it also seemed reasonable to posit that the collective "gaffes" and subsequent machinations might very well have resulted more from political orchestration than mere coincidence might have allowed.

Mr/Senator/President Obama's official paper trail on the subject of same-sex marriage is rife with well-documented changes-of-heart:

1996 ~  while running for a State Senate seat in a liberal suburb of Chicago, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire stating, "I favor same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

1998 ~  when asked about the subject again during his second run for the seat, Senator Obama backtracked a bit when he replied, "he'd have to look into it."

2004 ~ just as state Senator Obama was hoping to make the leap to national prominence with a run for the United States Senate, the candidate essentially re-affirmed his opposition to gay marriages by abandoning the word "marriage" while "embrac(ing) civil unions and full rights for gays and lesbians."

2010 ~ President Obama lobbied successfully for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." To be certain, no one in official Washington believes absent successfully striking down DADT that the President would have ever come to support same-sex marriage; it was "a meaningful building block to get to a meaningful discussion about marriage."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just had an "Ah-Ha!" moment; something has finally registered with me.

It's amazing what writing does for my mind; throwing down words sometimes allows me to eventually ferret out my true feelings and untangle lingering confusion; the little "light bulb" above my head has now stopped flickering.

I DO believe the earnestness of Mr. Obama, the man's, statement on the matter of same-sex marriage.

I also can't help but feel that he, the Senator and the President truly felt this way all along.

It leads me to suspect that once the mantle of high office is achieved, political expediency as well as a primal drive for survival takes hold of all politicians.  Democrats, Republicans and Independents surely understand that politics is not a game for the timid; it seems to demand a small Faustian-like bargain of at least a part of one's true self in order to continue "playing the game" successfully ~ a story not unfamiliar to the lives of many Americans.

I could personally not care less if Mr/Senator/President Obama or Mr/Governor Romney have waffled over time; authentic growth and change is an essential component of our lives.  But it can also not be denied that a legacy of political "waffling" lends itself to more confusion and division among the electorate especially when subjectively reported by the media.

Sadly, I honestly don't believe Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith" would survive in the Washington of today; perhaps it was never realistic. But for whatever it's worth, I do wish we had a system in place that would allow decent men and women who serve as our representatives to merely speak the truth as they see fit without fear of the constraints of political maneuvering, party arm-twisting or blatant obfuscation. 

This is not about a solitary political wedge issue for me; naive or not, all of us should demand nothing less from our representatives.

I am satisfied that Mr. Obama, the man, finally had the strength of conviction to speak his truth this past Wednesday … and, for once, a President agreed.

I believe that alone warrants a little smile!

"Love A Goat, For All I Care!"

As everyone knows, Vice President Biden let loose with another (seemingly) unsanctioned comment this past weekend on NBC's Sunday morning talk show,"Meet the Press," when he replied that he was "absolutely comfortable" with the thorny topic of same-sex marriages as well as supporting parity with rights accorded to those in "traditional" marriages.

Within minutes, the offices of both the President and Vice President went into hyperdrive in an attempt to walk back his off-the-cuff comment by releasing statements hoping to assuage various potentially untenable voting blocks.

In the two days since the Biden interview, Press Secretary Carney has been inundated with question after question from the press hoping to elicit salacious information for columns purporting potential rifts within the administration.

His steadfast reply, despite the single-minded stream of consciousness of the reporters, is "the President's stance on same-sex marriage is evolving."

This is one of the facets of politics that drives me bonkers.

Vice President Biden, in my opinion, may have answered the question honestly ~ as average citizen Biden might have done if asked. But during a crucial election year, no White House can afford having one of the President's minions going off the reservation by making rogue, unsanctioned comments. Once the wheels of a Presidential campaign are in full motion, every syllable and turn of phrase is vetted and tested by pollsters before any candidate or spokesperson utters a word. Modern Presidential candidates don't enjoy the luxury of being spontaneous or brutally honest with the end result being that their true beliefs are often intentionally blurred so as not to offend an essential voting demographic.

Rest assured that President Obama and former Governor Romney, like Mr. Biden, each has a definitive view of same-sex marriage; I suspect the public will not be privy to an airing of the victor's unvarnished opinion until after the election in November ~ unless the comments by Biden quickly followed by those of Secretary Duncan (Education) were intentionally fed to the media as part of an overall strategy by the Obama campaign.

Being neither the President nor a candidate running for office, I am free to offer my view on the subject.

When it comes to matters of privacy, my general credo is this:

When the day comes that the affairs of my house are completely in order; when I have no pressing problems or indebtedness; when there remains no single task which demands my attention, then and only then will I allow myself the luxury of even considering if I should involve myself in the private lives of others.

I have often told friends that when it comes to matters of the heart, my personal opinion is that a person can "love a goat for all I care!" There is "an edge of truth to my jest." It has never been nor will it ever be my prerogative to involve myself in the matter of whom others should or should not love; the choices people make for the sake of their personal happiness and in the name of love is not for anyone to judge.

Can I say I have never harbored concerns about an individual a friend might be dating. Yes. Have I always agreed with the ultimate choice a friend or family member has made in a life partner. Absolutely not! However, when push comes shove, it has never been left to me to determine who is best suited for whom when choosing a spouse.  Thank God.

As for this business of same-sex marriages, people are entitled to their fundamental disagreements and concerns. One might be justifiably opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of a strongly held religious belief or even a personal sense of morality. Or, one might simply be homophobic, bigoted or wholly ignorant about the actual world that ~ like it or not ~ exists outside of every closed mind and door; even these individuals, sadly, have the right to their opinion. I will never hold someone's opinion against them so long as their views are expressed respectfully and intelligently without vitriol or malice.

At this writing, some thirty states have enacted laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And the state of North Carolina, just moments ago, passed a statewide ballot initiative which has resulted in ratification of a State Constitutional Amendment to protect a ban already in place from being usurped by the judgement of a lower court in the future.

Despite these significant efforts as well as hundreds of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces I have read over the years, for the life of me I have yet, to my satisfaction, been given one sound explanation as to how a private decision between two adults of the same sex who decide to marry one another somehow adversely affects society.

As best I can tell, there hasn't been a demonstrable uptick in petty or violent crimes committed by these couples in states which have sanctioned the marriages. And unless I am grossly misinformed, malevolents like Richard Nixon, Bernie Madoff and Osama bin laden were never married to men.

I would honestly welcome reading a well-articulated, reasoned social justification for banning same-sex marriages (that doesn't invoke the tired arguments of old).

In the meantime, each of us has enough on our private plates to last a lifetime; tend to your home, your loved ones, your problems … or even your goat if that makes you happy.

Everyone else, in my opinion, should just mind their own business! 

Senator Obama meet President Obama

I am a political junkie.

I truly enjoy the biennial cycle of primaries culminating in the November elections. With cable twenty-four hour news cycles, and nearly 800 channels from which to choose, I am seldom at a loss to find a panel of biased pointy-headed politicos discussing the latest polls while trying to somehow convince the television public how all of it relates to an event that is still months away.

It is stupid and a colossal waste of time. But I am resolutely unmoved.

When I was a kid, I only knew the damned political ads and conventions interfered with many of my favorite programs; politics were nothing but a meddlesome inconvenience not to mention boring.

But, with 795 fewer channels from which to choose as well as parents who held dominion over the television "console," I eventually was left with no choice but to watch many a party convention as well  the frenzied circus that was election night coverage.

Hey, it was better than a book. 

Only coming to understand our Constitution and the established process for elections later while in high school, I did at least manage to grasp the big picture while watching the tedious, program-interrupting programs:

Someone wins. Someone loses.

While that basic tenet hasn't changed, it does seem our politics has changed dramatically from when I was a child. Despite my adult obsession with all things political, I am increasingly exasperated by the growing ugly influence of political strategists, polls, money bundlers, PACS, as well as infotainment personalities passing themselves off as "journalists" presuming to educate us "simple folk"as to how we should think and vote.

As I watched a beautifully produced political video today featuring a statesmanly former President Clinton extolling the success of President Obama in making the tough call to terminate Osama bin Laden, instead of feeling a patriotic sense of pride in that accomplishment of one year ago, I found myself disappointed and frustrated.

To be frank, like so many other political ads, this video just seemed inappropriate to me.

None of us will ever appreciate the true nature of the burdens that rest on the shoulders of any person who ascends to the office of the President; sending young women and men into harms way, to put their lives on the line in the duty of our country surely cannot be cavalierly carried out by any man. 

Love George Bush or loathe him, no one but he will ever truly know what it was like to sit in that chair behind the Resolute desk within the Oval Office following the events of our nation's day of horror in 2001.

And to be President Obama, sitting in the Situation Room, surrounded by his Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all waiting for him to single-handedly make the decision to selectively assassinate another human being, even an Osama bin Laden, must surely have been extremely difficult on at least some level.

No one of us will ever truly understand.

And, every Presidency experiences highs and lows; one takes historic credit for the good and, unfortunately, must also suffer the hardships of the bad that comes on his watch.

President Obama will forever be rightfully credited for ridding the world of bin Laden; at least, he and a select few brave Navy Seals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYykD6_OHO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Simply put, as regards the ad, what I personally found disappointing was the ultimate carry-away message, "What would Romney have done?" The clear implication, supported by a couple of random campaign quotes made previously by Romney, that he would not have supported the decision to take out bin Laden, to-wit:

"Mitt Romney criticized (candidate) Barack Obama for vowing to strike Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if necessary." Reuters August 7, 2007

"It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Associated Press April 26

This line of reasoning, while convenient, is also intentionally misleading, disingenuous not to mention hypocritical.  It also plays on an assumption of our collective ignorance or stupidity ~ take your pick.

No one ~ not candidates Clinton, Bush, Obama, or a Romney ~ can ever be held inviolately accountable for every word ~ quoted in context or not ~ made during the course of campaigns or even while in office.

Life is always in flux:

President Bush famously made the ultimate decision to exert Executive Privilege by making interim recess appointments which immediately set opponents declaring it an abuse of the powers of the Executive Branch; then-candidate Obama roundly rejected the use of such tactics.

Four years later, President Obama has now famously made the ultimate decision to exert his Executive Privilege by making similar recess appointments and pushing through facets of reform stalemated by a stubborn Congress.  Don't be shocked but his opponents on The Hill are now loudly decrying this abuse of his Executive privilege.

This is the reality of the Presidency; in this case,

Four years ago, Candidate Obama knew nothing about nor could he begin to understand the man who would eventually be President Obama; they are two vastly different people ~ out of necessity and as a matter of reality.

So it is that after watching this political video, I was truly disappointed President Obama allowed his personal stature as well as that of his office to be diminished by approving such derivative garbage.

I have great faith in our system but am growing increasingly tired, as I write ad nauseum, of the grossly contentious and fractious posturing of our political parties, as promulgated by their handlers.

Even Ariana Huffington, an ardent liberal supporter of President Obama, expressed her contempt for the ad when she wrote "any man ~ even Jimmy Carter ~ would have made the same decision!"

You can bet the inconvenienced and bored kid of my youth, if granted the vision of foresight, could have even told you this brand of politics as practiced by all parties doesn't elevate anyone; it diminishes each of us and our country in turn.

Political Theater

On April 25, the United States Supreme Court will take up the emotionally-charged topic of illegal immigration when the nine justices hear oral arguments in the matter of Arizona v United States; specifically, SB 1070, the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law enacted in 2010 that set out to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants."

The expected decision this summer should determine if the law as enacted is, indeed, Constitutional or if it violates the purview of the Federal Government.

Arizona must convince the high court that by allowing millions of immigrants to live in this country illegally, the current Federal Immigration System has been derelict with regard to enforcement and that, ultimately, the States have "inherent policing powers" when it comes to undocumented immigrants.

Senator Obama, while campaigning in 2008, made assurances to the Latin community that he would seek passage of far reaching immigration reforms early in his administration that would include a "path" to legalization in addition to tightened enforcement. Unfortunately, all such efforts failed to materialize fully or were stalled.

The position of the Administration regarding SB 1070 is essentially that the law "legalizes discrimination" when police are forced to act on a "reasonable suspicion" when coming upon a person of "questionable" origin. Additionally, the Solicitor General will argue that the States do not have the inherent right to make decisions on matters of immigration.

I am no legal scholar and admit to having no specific solution ~ as if anyone cares ~ to tamping the tinderbox that is immigration.

My problem again rests with any number of esteemed Representatives and Senators of every political persuasion; today, my ire is directed at Senator Chuck (who's never met a camera or open mike he hasn't loved) Schumer, (D-NY).

Whether one accepts the arguments of the government regarding SB 1070 or not, Sen. Schumer affirmed, yet again, the belief that many duly elected representatives seem to hold the Federalist System, as established by our Founding Fathers, in utter disdain; Washington, Jefferson et al deigned that the "central government" would have a select set of enumerated powers extended by the Constitution while the individual States would retain all other powers for self-governance distinct from the Federal Government.

So it was that I was truly embarrassed as I watched Schumer make a fool of himself today when announcing that he will preemptively offer a Bill in the Senate that will proscribe States from enacting further immigration reforms with the cynical anticipation of the law being upheld by The Supremes. Schumer's plan is to offer the Bill before the case of Arizona v United States is even heard by the high court and months before a ruling is forthcoming.

Regardless of one's political persuasion or position on the matter of illegal immigration and SB 1070, I am of the belief that everyone should be at a breaking point when it comes to the continual parade of "silliness" that pervades official Washington.

This "action" on the part of Schumer is pure theatrics for the consumption of a "lazy and gullible electorate." Sen. Schumer knows damned well that the Bill stands no chance of passing muster in the Senate by members of either major parties. But he will proceed, as many have done before him, with this carnival sideshow, consuming valuable time and fortune, content in the arrogant self-assurance that the move will, most importantly, secure more Latino votes for "his team" come November.

As one solitary voter, I am sick of the posturing and games from both sides of the aisle. The times we are traveling together call for serious work and solutions forged by serious people.

My hope is that every qualified voter will assume the mantle of responsibility and vote his/her conscience this Fall. And regardless of where one lands politically, I pray we might finally send a message to The Hill, through our vote, that the "age of silliness" and apparent contempt for the American voter is finally put to rest.

I also pray that the American Electorate is more intelligent and engaged than many members of Congress would allow.

Vote The Man, Not His Tie

Over the next two weeks, whether reading a newspaper, listening to a radio, or watching TV, no one living outside of a cave will avoid the mudslinging that has become a predictable component of most campaigns for public office.

I hate to break it to the political guru’s but spending piles of campaign cash on expensive television airtime is a colossal waste of money as far as this voter is concerned. These campaigns are exactly why the Gods invented the DVR; I have been spared most of the divisive drivel.

At the onset of each election cycle, politicians make lofty promises to stick to the “high ground.” Underneath the sanctimonious veneer, however, is the sure knowledge that there will eventually come a time when they “approve” ads replete with sordid half-truths, parsed statements, and blatant lies regarding their foes.

And it apparently doesn’t matter if the political landscape appears gloomy or bright for candidates in the final weeks and days before an election; once campaign managers and pollsters have crunched the numbers, the day finally arrives when every politician comes out fighting. And once the white gloves come off, all pretense of “playing fair” goes the way of the morning trash.

I suppose the political machines can present reasonable arguments for such decisions; after all, the tough choices aren’t created in a vacuum and are vital for political survival. Right?

And, in line with my continuing effort to believe the best in everyone, I remain hopeful that most people seeking the prestige and power attendant to high office do so while guided by a moral compass, of sorts. But the trouble I run into while observing many a politician is that I am often left scratching my head – not at all certain as to the direction in which magnetic North actually leads them.

I know. There are apparently no hard and fast rules demanding “morality” from our politicians.

But there is a decidedly ugly stench that follows in the wake of many of these politicians as they crisscross home turfs doing just about anything to vanquish opponents in order to win coveted seats on Capitol Hill.

This reality of politics, at least to my way of thinking, is nothing but unseemly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I secretly listened to many adult conversations late at night as a child, I became convinced that voting practices were directly tied to ancestry. The grownups, sitting in smoke filled rooms around tables while playing cards, would pontificate about many of the important issues of the day as well as their proud family traditions of voting the party of either FDR or Lincoln. I eventually concluded that even the thought of casting a vote which didn’t comport with those long held traditions was anathema to them.

“Vote the party, not the man.” This was their mantra.

Much has changed during my lifetime.

While an adversarial electoral process is central to our democratic republic, the years following the fall of Nixon have been marked by a progressively ugly turn in the collective political discourse.

Watching many of the powerful people running for office, as well as those already tasked with carrying out the “people’s business," often conjures images in my mind of politicians who are no more dignified than a mob of frothy-mouthed, rabid squirrels on a peanut.

The thirty six years since Watergate have brought a decided worsening of bipartisan tensions, increased vitriol, and harboring of political grudges made only worse during the sixteen years of Bill and GW.

And now as we approach the first mid-term elections for the sea change President who enjoyed across the board election night popularity of 72%, there is a nearly incomprehensible and feverish anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment looming large across the country, the likes of which I have certainly never felt.

Citizens could spend days or weeks passionately debating the various factors that have led to this dramatic shift. Unfortunately, the time for such discussion has drawn to a close; suffice it to say, there is certainly enough blame to go around for everyone. As we complete the chapter on yet another ugly tale of modern election history, my (naïve) hope is that voters will deliver a serious statement come November to those who work for us on the Hill that the “silly seasons” of politics must finally be put to rest.

One of the best bits of advice I have read recently comes from the learned, P Cooney DDS MD, who wrote:

“Americans need to stop voting for the guy who has the nicest tie.”

“As a nation, we can no longer afford to simply vote along strict party lines, or make clarion calls to simply, ‘Vote the Bums OUT.’”

We each have a responsibility to familiarize ourselves with the very serious issues at hand, and to make every conceivable effort to learn as much about prospective office holders and their positions before stepping foot into the voting booths.

And, I don’t agree with many of the pundits who have effectively declared Americans to be brain dead, lazy or apathetic.

For those who don’t live in the bubble of DC, the everyday exigencies of life often stand in the way of using precious time studying candidates and issues. But, seriously, what has official Washington done lately – other than seek campaign contributions – to encourage the voting public? Hell, it’s somehow no longer embarrassing for a representative to publicly admit he doesn’t know the substance of the Bills for which he votes. And, at least once this past year, we were all famously told to calm ourselves – they would cast their votes, leaving us to merely be content learning the consequences of the watershed Bill later.

As for any charge of apathy, I do fear many voters have sadly resigned themselves to a nearly certain, inglorious fate. This isn’t apathy but, rather, speaks to the absence of hope. Who can honestly blame these citizens for feeling as they do? We are all effectively bystanders – even victims – to the apparent lack of seriousness on Capitol Hill; whatever decisions they make, good or bad, we are all forced to simply accept whatever comes. And, I have too many friends who are now irrevocably convinced that their representatives have but one genuine concern – their own political survival.

I, for one, have had enough.

This isn’t a Red or Blue issue for me.

No matter the crush of time weighing down on my everyday life, or even a sense that my vote might not count, I am committed to doing my due diligence before the November elections. I intend to learn as much as I can about the prospective candidates in my district before making an informed decision.

But my work will not stop after submitting the ballot.

Without rancor or regard for partisanship, I pray this election will have the effect of finally driving home the important message to current and future House and Senate members alike:

There is no safe seat on Capitol Hill; no one is indispensable.

As my father once told me, quoting DeGaulle,

“The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

Please cast an informed VOTE this November.

(And say a prayer of thanks for your DVR).

If You Build It ...

FACEBOOK is an interesting “space.”

At any given moment, acquaintances and friends can learn more about you than they may have previously cared to know. People “Check In” to restaurants, bars, airports, even restrooms; chirpy morning greetings are usually met with long “threads” of pleasant “tit-for-tats;” acerbic or ironic comments, pictures, or cartoons almost always result in a flurry of “Likes” as well as “Comments.”

Most everyone enjoys a good laugh; that’s always good.

But what happens when one crosses the FACEBOOK Rubicon attempting to discuss subjects that are topical, challenging, and emotionally charged?

As if these posts were salmonella tainted eggs, I have learned that most of the entries go untouched. It’s a curiosity to me.

I truly enjoy a good conversation with just about anyone so long as personal invective and emotions are left out of the mix. Give me a reasonable argument for most any position and I will respectfully hear you out; I am, after all, still open to expanding my views. And while I understand that engaging in serious conversation doesn’t seem like an entertaining use of valuable time for some, people today seem to genuinely loathe stepping into almost any controversial fray.

I just don’t get it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The debate surrounding the Park 51 development, a mere 600 feet North of Ground Zero, is consuming the thoughts, passions and energies of many. There are those who insist this is nothing more than a “ginned up” controversy manufactured so as to fill airwave and newspaper space during an otherwise boring “dog days of summer” news cycle. There are equally great numbers of vocal, partisan foes on the other side of this fence who protest the project solely on the grounds that its concept is, at once, “insensitive,” if not wholly un-American.

To my way of thinking, it doesn’t matter that opinions are often labeled “right” or “wrong;” it’s more important to me that those who are moved to embrace a subject, come to what they consider to be reasoned (if not flawed) opinions and then allow their voices be heard.

It’s how I grow as a person; I welcome such opportunities.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

AMY FACEBOOK: “As far as I know, none of the 9/11 hijackers or their co-conspirators have applied for a building permit. And as far as I know, the zoning of lower Manhattan allows building of places of worship. And as far as I know we still have that First Amendment thingy that says Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion”

Most of us don’t recall that the process of drafting and ratifying the United States Constitution by all participating states took up most of nearly five years. Soon after Vermont became the thirteenth state to affirm the Constitution in December of 1779, the state of Virginia proposed and ratified ten amendments to the same Constitution that would eventually become known as the Bill of Rights.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

These sixteen words represent the first two conditions set forth in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; they are most often referred to, respectively as the “Establishment” and “Freedom of Expression” clauses.

The Establishment clause strictly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, religion over non-religion, and, later, religion over irreligion.

ROB MARVIN: “Absolutely, Amy. Free exercise of religion is the cornerstone of the freedoms laid by the founding fathers; every Muslim, Hindu, Jew and Christian is allowed to (or not) practice his religion as he chooses. What I don’t understand is how this public outcry against construction of a mosque at such close proximity to Ground Zero somehow represents a forfeiture of that right? I know of no reasonable person or group who has called for such an infringement.

Lately refusing to enter the political deep end of most any shark infested pool, Speaker Pelosi(o) recently declared this issue to be “local.”

If this is true, then Imam Rauf, who is spearheading the project, might be wise to listen to the overwhelming majority of NYC citizens surveyed ~ Muslim and Non-Muslim alike ~ who have asked only that serious consideration and empathy be accorded to the feelings of the family members who lost so much on 9/11. To many, erection of the cultural center and mosque at this site would be no less abhorrent than allowing the Japanese government to erect a Shinto Shrine or tourism bureau two blocks from the rusting hull of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

The entire debate, for me, defies logic.

If the intent is solely to construct a cultural center and prayer facility cum mosque, then by all means build it. The interested parties need only consider relocating the facility to a different site. If the intent is truly not to make either a political or religious statement, there are plenty of other properties available for his consideration; Governor Patterson has previously offered as much. To do anything less, indeed to be intransigent, only serves to inflame the fears of many as to an “actual agenda.”

I can’t help but concur with the majority opinion of New Yorkers who feel that continuing with this complex, as proposed, is little more than an exercise in ‘poor taste.’

And, at its worst, the project is disturbingly provocative”

THE NINETEEN GUYS OF 9/11

AMY FACEBOOK: “Islam is a religion of peace and love, and is practiced as such by billions of people. Not unlike Christianity. There are a few extremists and nut-jobs who claim to represent a faith. Those who exploit that religion, or falsify the beliefs of that religion, as a motivation for murder. To persecute all for the actions of a few is a mistake.”

The men who hijacked the four planes which ultimately resulted in the death of thousands of innocents were clearly, as Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, “at the edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists with cells that exist on every continent, with global financing as well as theological support complete with large media and propaganda arms, and an archipelago of local sympathizers, such as those in NW Pakistan who protect and guard them.”

“Why is America fighting Predator Wars over Pakistan and in Yemen, surveilling thousands of conversations and financial transactions every day, and engaged in military actions against radical Muslims from the Philippines to Somalia?”

“Is America doing that because of just 19 crazed Muslim terrorists who died nearly ten years ago?”

“No.”

The radical factions of Islam most certainly do not represent a majority sampling of Islam. “But, when you consider the financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers ~ by any conservative estimate, these numbers command some 7% of all Muslims.” That amounts to some 80 million Muslims engaged in such activity.

“These numbers represent a “very powerful strain within Islam.”

Memorial Footprints

ROB MARVIN: “The action of these men and umbrella organizations has altered the course of the world, and has personally affected the lives of millions, Amy. I am sure many would like to pretend the world is still a completely happy place in which to live but the reality of 9/11 changed this ideal for everyone. For myself, the numbers are staggering; I can no longer afford to look at this world through “rose-colored glasses.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Resistance to this project represents nothing more than “metastasized anti-Semitism.”

These were the words spoken recently by the wife of Imam Rauf.

“It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.”

Like it or not, Mrs. Khan, Ground Zero will always be the “site of the most lethal attack of the worldwide radical Islamic movement, consisting entirely of Muslims, acting in the name of Islam, and deeply embedded within the Islamic world.”

I have great sympathy for everyone who suffered from the attacks of 9/11; my sympathy also extends to the peace loving Muslims of the world who have watched helplessly as their faith has been bastardized by so many.

Ask almost any German citizen if the stigma of Hitler’s atrocities during WWII still reverberate today; even those not alive during the War will attest to the great legacy of guilt which still hangs over the country some sixty years later.

The stigma of that day in September of 2001 will surely haunt the good Muslims of the world for generations to come; I believe the greatest gift the Imam could bestow upon the city of New York ~ and the country as a whole ~ would be to demonstrate “understanding and compassion” by moving the project to a different location.

Such consideration might truly move mountains.

Arizona: YOU DECIDE?

In the aftermath of Arizona’s passage of its Immigration law, Mayor Bloomberg issued a blunt assessment that the United States is “committing suicide” by the failure of the federal government to implement comprehensive immigration reform. “The failure of lawmakers in DC to act on the issue” forced the hand of Arizona in their desire to secure a remedy.

The Arizona Immigration law will apparently grant policemen broad powers to detain those “suspected” of being in the country illegally as well as prosecuting and potentially deporting those who subsequently fail to prove either their immigration or citizenship status.

Asserting his view that the government would never seek to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg alternatively recommended the Federal government act quickly to grant “Permanent Status” to these individuals until such time as they meet overall standards for citizenship.

As a citizen, I am now compelled, as should Congress, to seriously consider the issue of illegal immigration and the potential ramifications brought about by the passage of Arizona’s new law as well as other suggestions, such as those from Mayor Bloomberg.

As I begin the process of coming to my own conclusion, one consideration appears rudimentary:

When anyone travels abroad, ALL countries demand to review, at minimum, one state-sanctioned proof of citizenship for every traveler before leaving the airport – not to mention the hotels which require the surrender of a passport at check-in. As of January 2007, the US Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative established the requirement that all travelers entering or re-entering the United States by air present a valid passport; this includes travel to and from Mexico, and the Central and South America’s.

At home, most would agree it seems nearly impossible to get through a normal day without being asked for one form of government issued identification or another.

Asking the interested reader to put aside such issues as the Tenth Amendment (States vs Federal rights); the Commerce Clause; the harrassment and discrimination of legally situated residents of hispanic origin; arguments for skilled work forces; outsourcing of jobs; notions of fascism, etc., I would appreciate some help with answers to a fundamental question at play:

“When one considers the day to day demands placed on legal citizens of the United States for documentation at home and abroad, is Arizona technically misguided in asserting its prerogative for the “on demand” surrender of documents in order to verify immigration or citizenship status of individuals?”

Princess Parking

In his final years, riding in a car with Dad as he drove became a somewhat risky proposition. During what was to be my last drive with our father, I distinctly remember firmly planting both feet onto non-existent passenger side “air” brakes as he sped along a boulevard, craning his neck fully to the left for a better view of a building that had caught his attention – not once looking at the road ahead of us; it probably lasted no more than five seconds but it may as well have been an eternity. Eventually returning his attention to the road and then to me, he became aware of my manifest fear; letting loose with the heartiest of laughs, he assured me, “Don’t worry! My reflexes are fine!”

As antithetical as it may seem, however, family members might argue that driving a car – while Dad assumed the role of “back seat driver” – may have represented an even worse fate.

With the probable exception of Vespa scooters, men demonstrate an oddly primal need to hold dominion over automobiles and motorcycles.

Dad was certainly no exception.

Regardless of age or pecking order within the family, any unfortunate who drove a car with Dad as passenger was subject to his continuous scrutiny and counsel. End of story.

Our Mother didn’t much like travelling this road alone; I was never sure if she needed one of us along simply for support, to share her misery with company, or to bear witness to any potential breach of the First Commandment.

Dad was not only in charge of every aspect of a moving vehicle but also parking. Our Mother could pull into a parking lot devoid of cars – a thousand spaces from which to chose – and Dad would reflexively insist, “Park right here, Mylla!” While she maneuvered into the sacrosanct space, it became my job to lock eyes with hers in the rear view mirror, offering silent commiseration (and prayer).

Handicapped Parking

I have never been one to waste time or fuel seeking out premium parking spaces. I would also add that I am not a happy passenger when others do the same. My preference is to park as far away from other cars as possible no matter what weather condition might prevail. This surely has something to do with a touch of OCD in addition to a well grounded contempt for thoughtless (possibly intentional) door “dings” and such.

Given that I am also not opposed to walking, I always seek sanctuary at the outer reaches of the lots provided by the massive Mega Stores ubiquitous to most communities. Once parked and confident in the safety of my car, I begin the long trek to the front doors – crossing county lines and the occasional time-zone or weather change along the way.

Long walks seem to be a good time for reflection. As I recently made my way closer to one of these monolithic storefronts, it dawned on me that civility seems to be inversely proportional to proximity to the entrances.

Shopping cart ethics is a good example.

It seems to me that people who park a distance from stores generally seem to make more of a good faith effort to dispense of their emptied cart in a proscribed manner. On a recent trip to Wal-Mart, inching ever closer to the store on foot, I witnessed incredible displays of laziness and disregard for fellow shoppers. Apparently not caring that cars were more densely packed or that one of the receptacles for carts was within spitting distance, I spied more than one shopper expending a good deal of energy shoving empty carts away from their cars with absolute disregard for a final destination (which would have been the side of my car).

While that behavior is wholly unacceptable, I am convinced that the single greatest breach of storefront civility comes with the (ab)use of Handicapped Parking spaces.

I have probably written no more than five scripts in my life for individuals seeking a government issued placard which authorizes a driver to legally use a handicapped space when parking; two of those permits were for patients who had previously undergone limb amputations. It isn’t as though other patients – or even friends – haven’t asked, but amazingly few infirmities actually meet the criteria for this privilege.

Agree with me or not, my bottom line is this: If I authorize a placard for a disabled individual, the script is written with the clear understanding that it will be used only when the patient is physically within a car; being in possession of a valid permit does not represent a blanket license for unwarranted handicapped parking by non-disabled family and friends. From my experience, more often than not, this unfortunately seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Over the last few years, I began to take a few moments to stop whenever seeing someone take up one of these rare and valuable parking spaces (for a parking lot of 500, the government requires only nine designated handicapped spaces). Almost without exception, the driver (and sole passenger) will quickly abandon the car fairly jogging to the store entrance – their time being valuable, after all.

I know I probably shouldn’t become overly concerned by this, but my blood boils with disgust at the incredible gall of these individuals.

A few months ago I was in a particularly disgruntled frame of mind when I happened onto one of these hapless abusers of a handicapped parking space. Spotting a government issued Princess Parking Permit on the dashboard of her car, I was taken aback by the incontrovertible fact that this “disabled” woman in a trendy jogging suit had somehow managed to juggle multiple bags of groceries while simultaneously devouring a Snickers Bar and guzzling a Diet Coke (offsetting penalties). Sardonically, I asked if she needed any help, to which she replied, “No, thanks, I’ve got it covered.” Really?

Out of a base desire to humiliate her, my immediate inclination was to get down on my knees and pray out loud to Jesus in thanksgiving for the “Miracle” which had clearly been visited upon her. Fortunately for this woman, there was not a large enough audience; what good is an act of embarrassment, after all, absent witnesses who might applaud or cast stones thereby multiplying her shame.

Instead, I simply asked her about the permit:

RUDE WOMAN: Oh, that is for my grandmother; she has all kinds of problems.

RDMMD: Oh, so she is with you?

RUDE WOMAN: No! I see her every couple of weeks. I got the permit because she has some trouble walking; she doesn’t drive.

RDMMD: I see. Sooooo, why are you using the permit today?

RUDE WOMAN: Because it’s mine! They gave it to me to use!

RDMMD: When you are driving with your Grandmother, right?

RUDE WOMAN: (Becoming indignant) Well, I was pretty damned busy today and didn’t have time to mess around finding an f’ing parking spot!

Abruptly terminating the conversation and closing her car door, I was able to clearly make out her “farewell offer” to me.

In parting, I turned her down with a heartfelt, “Thanks, but no thanks!”

People are quick to offer any number of explanations; my favorite is, “My time is valuable!” As my Grandfather once said, "Explanations are offered absent an appropriate excuse."

I am certain she wouldn’t agree, but I would like to believe all of us feel our time is of equal importance and value. The difference between this woman and the rest of society is that most of us don't take advantage of a special privilege thereby depriving the truly needy appropriate access to stores or other buildings in the name of "our time."

As I began the long walk back to my car, I was amazed at how angry I had become at the audacity of this woman. I couldn't help but think that in an ideal world, all of us would surely enjoy benefiting from such perks. But how could someone not see as contemptible, an inappropriate exercise of her free will for the sake of shaving a few milliseconds of time from an unwanted chore? Each of us has the right to equally regard our time as valuable because it is an illusory commodity; none of us is guaranteed even a moment let alone a life long-lived. The arrogance and selfishness is astounding.

In the end, I was most disheartened by the realization that people such as this woman simply don't get it -- or possible don't even care to understand; life is all about them.

I soon realized I didn't feel great about having confronted her ..... and Kharma can be a real bitch:

I arrived to find my car – parked in the middle of nowhere – surrounded by two cars and an empty shopping cart!

“Ding” and all.

I can hear Dad laughing now.

Liquid Gold

I have a problem

It never fails.

Once finished, taking a firm grasp, I shake and shake and shake it ~ just as my father taught me years ago. Despite all of my best efforts, however, I never manage to keep the last drop from falling at my feet.

I am glad to discover I am apparently not the only inept person in the world. I watch.

I have seen plenty of other men ~ and women ~ struggle as well.

It is on my mind every time I am pumping gas:

"Will I be able to come up with some new maneuver that will allow me to win the game of preventing that last drop from hitting the ground?"

And, just how much gas and money is wasted every year by the needless loss of these lowly droplets?

Let's just say the average number of drops that fall to the ground per fill-up is "five." (While I can proudly state I never lose more than one or two, I am going by the stats collected by a much smarter and obsessive man than I.)

The volume per drop is roughly 0.05cc or 1.32086026 x 10-5 US gallons. In 2005, he contends there was an estimated 180,000 million gallons of gas pumped in the United States by the likes of you and me. After calculating a rough estimate of the volume of fuel lost to the ground, he went on to perform some admittedly "voodoo" mathematics so as to estimate the cost of these drops. He elected to use a $4 per gallon cost estimated during the fall of 2008, during the period of hyper-inflated prices (presumable in his area).

Regardless of the crude calculations or debatable methodology, his results seem impressive:

1,182,830.36 gallons of lost fuel in drops which fall to the concrete as we finish at the pumps, with an estimated collective cost of $4,731,321.45 per year.

As Labor Day approaches, as well as an all-too-predictable bump in "demand," we will all be party to yet another cycle of inflated fuel prices.

This gives me pause for reflection:

Surely, there is some innovative person out there who has already developed a ridiculously simple and inexpensive solution to this problem; "some clever piece of plastic" that would stave off the loss of these precious drops?

And I should also not be forced into the embarrassing position of appearing as though I am thrown into a fit of convulsions as I try to come up with new maneuvers to beat the drop at it's own game. I do own the drop, after all.

How could I possibly have known I had money "falling at my feet" every few days?

No less, at the pumps of my local gas station!

Go figure.

Lost And Found

Clare Boothe Luce was an amazing human being. She is famous for a highly successful, multi-faceted career which included stints as editor, playwright, politician, journalist, and diplomat. With the possible exception of a few classic plays, I would guess she is mostly forgotten by many who are not of her generation.

I am willing to put up cold-hard cash for an almost certain bet: Most everyone has, at one time or another, heard or uttered one of her most famously cited quotations; specifically,

"No good deed goes unpunished."

Today was my day.

I found a lost cellphone and then tried to return it.

In hindsight, I probably should have kicked it into the nearest sewer.

After a little quick research, I came up with some startling results regarding the annual loss of cell phones worldwide. One study in the United States claims, "10% of the cellphone-using population will lose at least one phone per year." Other research claims the hard numbers range from 6 to 12 million cellphones per year. I would venture all cellphone companies incorporate these data into their annual earnings forecasts.

Other research indicates that theft accounts for a large percentage of cellphone losses. In the United Kingdom, some 700,000 "mobiles" are reportedly "lifted" every year. Other noteworthy factors include: 400,000 phones dropped into alcoholic beverages; 600,000 deposited into the "loo"; and some 200,000 inadvertently put through the gentle cycle of their washing machines. One is left to assume there are quite a few imbibing, loo-using, thieving "sods" who mistakenly do laundry (while drunk) in Great Britain? (Illiteration vs Alliteration)

This lost phone could not have met a more ignoble fate; it was found on a fractured slab of concrete sidewalk in front of a nondescript, smelly Oriental grocery store (I had once gone into this store only to find a woman buried chest-deep -- feet in the air -- inside a deep freeze presumably "fishing" for rotten, stinking scrod). Even while fearing I might drop dead from the stench surrounding that store, "Bobby-Do-Good" had to stop and pick up the damnable phone.

In a recent poll, 89% of those surveyed indicated it was, "definitely worth a shot," to return a lost-then-found cell phone; the other 11% were divided equally among the "snooze, loose" and "it depends" camps. On reading these data, I truly felt vindicated; 9 out of 10 Americans agreed that making an attempt to return the phone was a good idea. The reader may be my judge.

I am no technological wizard. For this reason, I don't know how to work any device not my own; after picking up the lost cellphone, I decided the best course of action would be to first wait for someone to call "me." I would then inform the caller that I had found the phone and would be more than happy, with their help, to assure it's return to the rightful owner. It took no more than three minutes to ring; I somehow managed to answer it the second time around:

CALLER: Hello?

RDMMD: Hi. Are you, by chance, the owner of this phone?

CALLER: Oh, thank you so much! No, the girl who owns the phone is right here. She was hoping to get through to someone who may have found the phone. Here she is ... and, thank you, again.

RDMMD: (My chest swelling) Oh, no problem, ma'am!

LOSER: (As in "person who lost the phone") ..... hey.

RDMMD: Hey, I found your phone and would like to know how I might get it back to you?

(LOSER now will embarrass me with gratitude)

LOSER: What the hell do you mean -- you got my phone? Where the f*** you get my phone?

RDMMD: (chest deflating) What? What do you mean, "Where did I get your phone?" I found it on the street!

LOSERETTE: (now an official female "loser") Well ..... I need my phone! I need it now! When the you gonna bring me my phone?

RDMMD: (getting testier by the second) Where are you, ma'am?

LOSERETTE: What do YOU mean, "Where am I?" I'm at work! I'm at the Sonic ..... Mother F*****(MF)!

(She went on to relay the address which was, by this time, only a five minute drive)

RDMMD: (What can I say? Something snapped) I am heading to the hospital (no, I wasn't); I have an emergency (no, I didn't).

LOSERETTE: Where that be? (Could not make that up)

RDMMD: Oh, I am already across the river; I am at least twenty minutes away (in fairness, I WAS heading in that direction). May I bring the phone by your company later today or tomorrow?

LOSERETTE: I need that phone now! You shouldn' have picked up the phone in the first place! I didn' lose my phone -- I misplaced it! I need my phone, MF!

RDMMD: Fine. I am heading to a hospital (picked at random on my originally planned route) about twenty minutes or so from your location; I will leave it at the volunteer's desk for you to pick up.

LOSERETTE: SumBitchMF! (She eats with that thing!) Who are you? I need to know who am I talkin' to!

RDMMD: Oh, my name is Bill Esry (a former patient and past CEO of Sprint -- her carrier)!

LOSERETTE: mumbling ......

BILL ESRY: You are welcome ! Have a nice day!

LOSERETTE: EXPLETIVES DELETED ...... click

Do I feel good about how I handled this situation? Probably, not. If given the same set of circumstances, would I do it again? Hell, yes. Had she bothered to accord me even the slightest bit of appreciation, I would have gladly returned the phone on the spot.

Clare Boothe Luce was correct when she wrote, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Ask my new "friend" what she thinks.

I believe I do deserve to get credit for the good deed of returning the phone. She, at least to my way of thinking, well, she got "spanked."

Super Size Me!

I am driving in the right of two Northbound lanes of traffic on a hilly and winding highway notorious for police speed-traps.

The posted speed limit is 55 mph.

It is fast approaching rush-hour -- but not quite. There is still ample room between cars but the volume of traffic is rapidly increasing.

The cars in my lane are, inexplicably, going at least five miles below posted speeds; my only thought is, "Boy, life at home must really be good," or, dare I say, some of the drivers may very well be "Occidental?" Whatever the reason, my little brain, by force of habit -- as well as fear of tickets -- demands I use my blinker before moving into the left-lane to pass.

As an aside, I believe blinkers have come to represent a genuine modern-age relic. From my observations, I could very well be the last driver who actually still uses them religiously. Either, blinker technology is patently defective, or -- I hate to generalize-- my fellow travelers are simply choosing to not obey the law!

Every American driver should take up the challenge of successfully navigating the massive "intersection" of 610 Highway and US 59 in Houston, Texas at least once -- preferably -- before they die; it could very well be more perilous than bungee jumping with a rubber band. Maneuvering your way through this interchange is hard enough at 2 am, but to come away from the "adventure" unscathed -- as a "newbie" -- and during rush hour traffic is a genuine accomplishment.

It was on the concrete morass of this, the "Spaghetti Bowl," that I learned a hard lesson: use of blinkers is a sign of weakness. By activating the annoying clickety-click, you are signalling to everyone that, "I am wimp and would very much like to have permission to move into your lane. Thanks, and have a nice day!"

"Oh, really?," is the first-half of a nearly-universal reply.

This pitiful display is anathema to most Texans. By merely indicating your intent, the other drivers, acting as judge and jury, immediately convict (you of being said-wimp) and impose sentence; after quickly accelerating, the unspoken retort is:

"NO, you will NOT be moving into your desired lane. Bite me. I have an appointment with a Big Mac."

If I am wrong and this is not a conscious decision, then the mere sight of blinking lights must produce a Pavlovian response which forces (victimizes) the offending drivers to advance, thereby blocking your lateral movement. My independent (anecdotal) research, however, indicates there seems to be a positive statistical correlation between this rude behavior and cellphones, big hair -- and trucks. Singularly or in combination.

This is guaranteed: The day I don't use my blinker is the same day I get a ticket for not signalling my intention to turn or change lanes. Sorry, I digress ...

Going back to where we started, (after having used my blinker) I am now safely in the left-hand lane. I then begin to accelerate, moving past the slower drivers to my right -- making certain they all get a good look at my displeased countenance -- I am silently transmitting to each of them, "my time is valuable, too." (Those who are not oblivious to other drivers) will know better next time! Eventually, I settle into a "safe" cruising speed -- 5 miles or so above the posted speed seems to be the universal "rule." In this case, at 60 or 62 miles per hour, I am moving at an acceptable speed that is not too slow and one that shouldn't subject me to ticket and fine. The reality is that you never know.

My current beef is with those drivers who are then in an even greater hurry to speed past me. These guys -- a disproportionate number in oddly over-size trucks -- clearly don't understand or care for the well-established "two-second" rule for maintaining safe distances between cars. By way, of "making a point," some of them feel compelled to -- pardon my "french" -- ride my "ass." Well, it just so happens that this poor decision generally tends to, "chap my ass." (I really don't know what that means -- just sounds right.)

"Excuse me, insecure guy in the embarrassingly-large truck: I am already driving well above the posted speed limit in an area notorious for police speed traps! Now, you would have me increase my speed further on the odd chance I might -- might -- secure an opportunity to move over into the congested right lane full of "slower people" -- all so that you can rocket past me?"

MY knee jerk -- well, Texan -- response is to apply the brakes -- slowing down, thus, allowing the offender a little time to realize he has been adjudged guilty by ME.

"Slower Traffic Keep Right."

To be certain, this does not translate to:

"Speeding But Slower Traffic Move The Hell Over So I Can Break The Law Even More Than You Are Already Doing So I Can Git Me Some Beers And Fast Food."

Before judging ME, please do not forget -- in this situation -- If I were to accept his bullying and accomodate him by accelerating, I would probably be the first target of the police and dread radar gun.

I am not restricted by any mandated sentencing guidelines but punishment is generally the same:

"You will travel at an even slower rate of speed to be set by my NEW best friend -- the lady to my right --the one with blue hair who can barely see over her dashboard. The duration of punishment is variable; be it one mile or ten, we will travel together until you either find an avenue of escape -- or, until I get bored -- (or, you pull out a gun.)"

And waving your disfigured hand will generally not sway me. I can be a bit stubborn.

Oh, and here is a news flash:

McDonald's will still be open when you get there.